Bluegrassrivals

[INDENT]Were the days of Creation Week of 24 hours duration or were they long periods of time? This article will discuss the Hebrew 'time' words which the author had available to him and what meaning he intended to convey by his choice of the specific words he used.1[/INDENT]

Meaning of yôm
When Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word yôm for 'day'. He combined yôm with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day.2,3 There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yôm in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long.

Let us now consider what other words God could have used, if He had wanted to convey a much longer period of time than 24 hours.

Some Hebrew ‘time’ words
There are several Hebrew words which refer to a long period of time.4 These include qedem which is the main one–word term for 'ancient' and is sometimes translated 'of old'; olam means 'everlasting' or 'eternity' and is translated 'perpetual', 'of old' or 'for ever'; dor means 'a revolution of time' or 'an age' and is sometimes translated 'generations'; tamid means 'continually' or 'for ever'; ad means 'unlimited time' or 'for ever'; orek when used with yôm is translated 'length of days'; shanah means 'a year' or 'a revolution of time' (from the change of seasons); netsach means 'for ever'. Words for a shorter time span include eth (a general term for time); and moed, meaning 'seasons' or 'festivals'. Let us consider how some of these could have been used.

[INDENT]1. Event of long ago
If God had wanted to tell us that the creation events took place a long time in the past, there were several ways He could have said it:

yamim (plural of yôm) alone or with 'evening and morning', would have meant 'and it was days of evening and morning'. This would have been the simplest way, and could have signified many days and so the possibility of a vast age.

qedem by itself or with 'days' would have meant 'and it was from days of old'.

olam with 'days' would also have meant 'and it was from days of old'.

So if God had intended to communicate an ancient creation to us, there were at least three constructions He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these.

2. A continuing event from long ago
If God had wanted to tell us that creation started in the past but continued into the future, meaning that creation took place by some sort of theistic evolution, there were several ways He could have said it:

dor used either alone or with 'days', 'days' and 'nights', or 'evening and morning', could have signified 'and it was generations of days and nights'. This would have been the best word to indicate evolution's alleged aeons, if this had been meant.

olam with the preposition le, plus 'days' or 'evening and morning' could have signified 'perpetual'; another construction le olam va-ed means 'to the age and onward' and is translated 'for ever and ever' in Exodus 15:18.

tamid with 'days', 'days' and 'nights', or 'evening' and 'morning', could have signified 'and it was the continuation of days'.

ad used either alone or with olam could have signified 'and it was for ever'.

shanah (year) could have been used figuratively for 'a long time', especially in the plural.

yôm rab literally means 'a long day' (cf. 'long season' in Joshua 24:7, or 'long time' in the New American Standard Bible). This construction could well have been used by God if He had meant us to understand that the 'days' were long periods of time.

Thus, if God had wanted us to believe that he used a long–drawn–out creative process, there were several words He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these.

3. Ambiguous time
If God had wanted to say that creation took place in the past, while giving no real indication of how long the process took, there were ways He could have done it:

yôm combined with 'light' and 'darkness', would have signified 'and it was a day of light and darkness'. This could be ambiguous because of the symbolic use of 'light' and 'darkness' elsewhere in the Old Testament. However, yôm with 'evening and morning', especially with a number preceding it, can never be ambiguous.

eth ('time') combined with 'day' and 'night' as in Jeremiah 33:20 and Zechariah 14:7 could have been ambiguous. Likewise eth combined with 'light' and 'darkness' (a theoretical construction). If any of these forms had been used, the length of the 'days' of creation would have been widely open for debate. However, God chose not to use any of these. [/INDENT]

Author’s Intention
The following considerations show us what God intended us to understand:

[INDENT]1. The meaning of any part of the Bible must be decided in terms of the intention of the author. In the case of Genesis, the intention of its author clearly was to write a historical account. This is shown by the way in which the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul regarded Genesis—that is, they quoted it as being truth, not symbolic myth or parable.5,6 It was plainly not the author's intention to convey allegorical poetry, fantasy, or myth. And so what God, through Moses, said about creation in Genesis should not be interpreted in these terms. [/INDENT]

Moses did, in fact, use some of the above 'long–time' words (italicized in the examples below, with root Hebrew words in square brackets), although not with reference to the days of creation. For example, in Genesis 1:14, he wrote, 'Let there be lights ... for seasons [moed]'; in Genesis 6:3, 'My spirit shall not always [olam] strive with man'; in Genesis 9:12 'for perpetual generations [olam dor]'; in Leviticus 24:2, 'to burn continually [tamid]'; in Numbers 24:20 'that he perish for ever [ad]'; in Deuteronomy 30:20, 'He is thy light and the length of thy days [yôm orek]'; in Deuteronomy 32:7, 'Remember the days of old [yôm olam]'; and so on.

Why did God not use any of these words with reference to the creation days, seeing that He used them to describe other things? Clearly it was His intention that the creation days should be regarded as being normal earth-rotation days, and it was not His intention that any longer time–frames should be inferred.

Professor James Barr, professor of Hebrew at Oxford University agrees that the words used in Genesis 1 refer to 'a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience', and he says that he knows of no professor of Hebrew at any leading university who would say otherwise.7

[INDENT]2. Children have no problem in understanding the meaning of Genesis. The only reason why other ideas are entertained is because people apply concepts from outside the Bible, principally from evolutionary/atheistic sources, to interpret the Bible. [/INDENT]

[INDENT]3. The Bible is God's message to mankind and as such it makes authoritative statements about reality. If one removes any portion of the Bible from the realm of reality, God may still be communicating truth to us, but the reader can never be sure that he understands it as the author intended. Furthermore, if God's communication to us is outside our realm of reality, then we cannot know whether any account in the Bible means what the words actually say or whether it means something entirely different, beyond our understanding. For example, if we apply this criterion to the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps the words could mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead physically, but in a way beyond our comprehension. When these sorts of word–games are played with the Bible, the Bible loses its authority, we lose the divine perspective on reality, and Christianity loses its life–changing power.8 [/INDENT]

[INDENT]4. If the 'days' really weren't ordinary days, then God could be open to the charge of having seriously misled His people for thousands of years. Commentators universally understood Genesis in a straightforward way, until attempts were made to harmonize the account with longs ages and then evolution. [/INDENT]

Conclusion
In Genesis 1, God, through the 'pen' of Moses, is going out of His way to tell us that the 'days' of creation were literal earth–rotation days. To do this, He used the Hebrew word yôm, combined with a number and the words 'evening and morning'. If God had wanted to tell us it was an ancient creation, then there were several good ways He could have done this. If theistic evolution had been intended, then there were several constructions He could have used. If the time factor had been meant to be ambiguous, then the Hebrew language had ways of saying this. However, God chose not to use any construction which would have communicated a meaning other than a literal solar day.

The only meaning which is possible from the Hebrew words used is that the 'days' of creation were 24–hour days. God could not have communicated this meaning more clearly than He did in Genesis 1. The divine confirmation of this, if any is needed, is Exodus 20:9-11, where the same word 'days' is used throughout:

'Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, not thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.'

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation...1/days.asp

No one has been able to figure this out from the begining of recorded history. So what makes you think you have the answer or that some people on BGR can reach a final conclusion that would amount to anything.

In the future Baseballman, I suggest you pick an arguement that you can win with Facts rather than Legend or Interpretation.

DevilsWin Wrote:No one has been able to figure this out from the begining of recorded history. So what makes you think you have the answer or that some people on BGR can reach a final conclusion that would amount to anything.

In the future Baseballman, I suggest you pick an arguement that you can win with Facts rather than Legend or Interpretation.

How do you know? Maybe the answer does lie within scripture and all it takes is the faith of a mustard seed. I'm not trying to have everyone reach a conclusion, but merely presenting new information to anyone interested in reading.

And the argument is presented very well. Why am I trying to win the argument other than just challenging your worldview?

You picked this argument calling the Genesis Scriptures legend or interpretation. Would you care to present some facts to win your argument?

BaseballMan Wrote:How do you know? Maybe the answer does lie within scripture and all it takes is the faith of a mustard seed. I'm not trying to have everyone reach a conclusion, but merely presenting new information to anyone interested in reading.

And the argument is presented very well. Why am I trying to win the argument other than just challenging your worldview?

You picked this argument calling the Genesis Scriptures legend or interpretation. Would you care to present some facts to win your argument?

Nothing about this can be proven. That's why it's called faith. It's not PROVEN!

FACT 1) If the answer were in "The Scripture", I wouldn't be able to challenge any of this because it would already be a known "fact" as a definitive answer to the question.

FACT 2) It isn't a known fact, therefore I can challenge the subject.

FACT 3) None of your information is NEW!

FACT 4) Rather than refer to Genesis as Legend or Interpretation I should have used Belief.

FACT 5) Belief is not equal to or the same as FACT!

Pardon me for getting off subject here for a moment.

Speaking of Genesis,........Do you really believe there was a "talking snake" in the Garden of Eden or was that just an image used to illustrate a point?

BaseballMan Wrote:[INDENT]Were the days of Creation Week of 24 hours duration or were they long periods of time? This article will discuss the Hebrew 'time' words which the author had available to him and what meaning he intended to convey by his choice of the specific words he used.1[/INDENT]

Meaning of yôm
When Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word yôm for 'day'. He combined yôm with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day.2,3 There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yôm in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long.

Let us now consider what other words God could have used, if He had wanted to convey a much longer period of time than 24 hours.

Some Hebrew ‘time’ words
There are several Hebrew words which refer to a long period of time.4 These include qedem which is the main one–word term for 'ancient' and is sometimes translated 'of old'; olam means 'everlasting' or 'eternity' and is translated 'perpetual', 'of old' or 'for ever'; dor means 'a revolution of time' or 'an age' and is sometimes translated 'generations'; tamid means 'continually' or 'for ever'; ad means 'unlimited time' or 'for ever'; orek when used with yôm is translated 'length of days'; shanah means 'a year' or 'a revolution of time' (from the change of seasons); netsach means 'for ever'. Words for a shorter time span include eth (a general term for time); and moed, meaning 'seasons' or 'festivals'. Let us consider how some of these could have been used.

[INDENT]1. Event of long ago
If God had wanted to tell us that the creation events took place a long time in the past, there were several ways He could have said it:

yamim (plural of yôm) alone or with 'evening and morning', would have meant 'and it was days of evening and morning'. This would have been the simplest way, and could have signified many days and so the possibility of a vast age.

qedem by itself or with 'days' would have meant 'and it was from days of old'.

olam with 'days' would also have meant 'and it was from days of old'.

So if God had intended to communicate an ancient creation to us, there were at least three constructions He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these.

2. A continuing event from long ago
If God had wanted to tell us that creation started in the past but continued into the future, meaning that creation took place by some sort of theistic evolution, there were several ways He could have said it:

dor used either alone or with 'days', 'days' and 'nights', or 'evening and morning', could have signified 'and it was generations of days and nights'. This would have been the best word to indicate evolution's alleged aeons, if this had been meant.

olam with the preposition le, plus 'days' or 'evening and morning' could have signified 'perpetual'; another construction le olam va-ed means 'to the age and onward' and is translated 'for ever and ever' in Exodus 15:18.

tamid with 'days', 'days' and 'nights', or 'evening' and 'morning', could have signified 'and it was the continuation of days'.

ad used either alone or with olam could have signified 'and it was for ever'.

shanah (year) could have been used figuratively for 'a long time', especially in the plural.

yôm rab literally means 'a long day' (cf. 'long season' in Joshua 24:7, or 'long time' in the New American Standard Bible). This construction could well have been used by God if He had meant us to understand that the 'days' were long periods of time.

Thus, if God had wanted us to believe that he used a long–drawn–out creative process, there were several words He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these.

3. Ambiguous time
If God had wanted to say that creation took place in the past, while giving no real indication of how long the process took, there were ways He could have done it:

yôm combined with 'light' and 'darkness', would have signified 'and it was a day of light and darkness'. This could be ambiguous because of the symbolic use of 'light' and 'darkness' elsewhere in the Old Testament. However, yôm with 'evening and morning', especially with a number preceding it, can never be ambiguous.

eth ('time') combined with 'day' and 'night' as in Jeremiah 33:20 and Zechariah 14:7 could have been ambiguous. Likewise eth combined with 'light' and 'darkness' (a theoretical construction). If any of these forms had been used, the length of the 'days' of creation would have been widely open for debate. However, God chose not to use any of these. [/INDENT]

Author’s Intention
The following considerations show us what God intended us to understand:

[INDENT]1. The meaning of any part of the Bible must be decided in terms of the intention of the author. In the case of Genesis, the intention of its author clearly was to write a historical account. This is shown by the way in which the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul regarded Genesis—that is, they quoted it as being truth, not symbolic myth or parable.5,6 It was plainly not the author's intention to convey allegorical poetry, fantasy, or myth. And so what God, through Moses, said about creation in Genesis should not be interpreted in these terms. [/INDENT]

Moses did, in fact, use some of the above 'long–time' words (italicized in the examples below, with root Hebrew words in square brackets), although not with reference to the days of creation. For example, in Genesis 1:14, he wrote, 'Let there be lights ... for seasons [moed]'; in Genesis 6:3, 'My spirit shall not always [olam] strive with man'; in Genesis 9:12 'for perpetual generations [olam dor]'; in Leviticus 24:2, 'to burn continually [tamid]'; in Numbers 24:20 'that he perish for ever [ad]'; in Deuteronomy 30:20, 'He is thy light and the length of thy days [yôm orek]'; in Deuteronomy 32:7, 'Remember the days of old [yôm olam]'; and so on.

Why did God not use any of these words with reference to the creation days, seeing that He used them to describe other things? Clearly it was His intention that the creation days should be regarded as being normal earth-rotation days, and it was not His intention that any longer time–frames should be inferred.

Professor James Barr, professor of Hebrew at Oxford University agrees that the words used in Genesis 1 refer to 'a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience', and he says that he knows of no professor of Hebrew at any leading university who would say otherwise.7

[INDENT]2. Children have no problem in understanding the meaning of Genesis. The only reason why other ideas are entertained is because people apply concepts from outside the Bible, principally from evolutionary/atheistic sources, to interpret the Bible. [/INDENT]

[INDENT]3. The Bible is God's message to mankind and as such it makes authoritative statements about reality. If one removes any portion of the Bible from the realm of reality, God may still be communicating truth to us, but the reader can never be sure that he understands it as the author intended. Furthermore, if God's communication to us is outside our realm of reality, then we cannot know whether any account in the Bible means what the words actually say or whether it means something entirely different, beyond our understanding. For example, if we apply this criterion to the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps the words could mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead physically, but in a way beyond our comprehension. When these sorts of word–games are played with the Bible, the Bible loses its authority, we lose the divine perspective on reality, and Christianity loses its life–changing power.8 [/INDENT]

[INDENT]4. If the 'days' really weren't ordinary days, then God could be open to the charge of having seriously misled His people for thousands of years. Commentators universally understood Genesis in a straightforward way, until attempts were made to harmonize the account with longs ages and then evolution. [/INDENT]

Conclusion
In Genesis 1, God, through the 'pen' of Moses, is going out of His way to tell us that the 'days' of creation were literal earth–rotation days. To do this, He used the Hebrew word yôm, combined with a number and the words 'evening and morning'. If God had wanted to tell us it was an ancient creation, then there were several good ways He could have done this. If theistic evolution had been intended, then there were several constructions He could have used. If the time factor had been meant to be ambiguous, then the Hebrew language had ways of saying this. However, God chose not to use any construction which would have communicated a meaning other than a literal solar day.

The only meaning which is possible from the Hebrew words used is that the 'days' of creation were 24–hour days. God could not have communicated this meaning more clearly than He did in Genesis 1. The divine confirmation of this, if any is needed, is Exodus 20:9-11, where the same word 'days' is used throughout:

'Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, not thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.'

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation...1/days.asp

Someone explain to me how this has anything to with politics or current events???? :confused:

RammsteinFan92 Wrote:Someone explain to me how this has anything to with politics or current events???? :confused:

Because as staff we have decided that the religion discussions will be put here since there is no specific sub forum for them.

RammsteinFan92 Wrote:Someone explain to me how this has anything to with politics or current events???? :confused:

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution -- It's been a current issue on many news channels lately.

DevilsWin Wrote:Nothing about this can be proven. That's why it's called faith. It's not PROVEN!

FACT 1) If the answer were in "The Scripture", I wouldn't be able to challenge any of this because it would already be a known "fact" as a definitive answer to the question.

FACT 2) It isn't a known fact, therefore I can challenge the subject.

FACT 3) None of your information is NEW!

FACT 4) Rather than refer to Genesis as Legend or Interpretation I should have used Belief.

FACT 5) Belief is not equal to or the same as FACT!

Pardon me for getting off subject here for a moment.

Speaking of Genesis,........Do you really believe there was a "talking snake" in the Garden of Eden or was that just an image used to illustrate a point?

Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:

‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’

Briefly, my response is as follows.

Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’

‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’

‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’

‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.

Debate terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:

‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.

Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).

Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!

Ultimately, God’s Word convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’

Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’

Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.

Practical application
When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation...eation.asp

One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.

Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:

‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’

In arguing this way, a Christian is:

[INDENT]Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.

Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1

Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).

Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).

Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.[/INDENT]

Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.

Naturalism, logic and reality
Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.

This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

DevilsWin Wrote:Pardon me for getting off subject here for a moment.

Speaking of Genesis,........Do you really believe there was a "talking snake" in the Garden of Eden or was that just an image used to illustrate a point?

It was Satan taking on the form of the snake to deceive Eve. Here's some more about the subject:

Question
I have a Genesis Bible question: When God ‘found out’ that the serpent had deceived Eve, He cursed him and commanded him to crawl on his belly from now on. Now, I take it that the ‘serpent’ was a snake. But Satan was only using the FORM of a snake for his purposes. Why curse an entire species of animal for something Satan did? And did this mean that snakes didn’t ‘crawl on their bellies’ before God cursed them?

Jeff

Answer
It certainly is a good question and worth some Biblical reflection. Indeed, the entire story of the temptation and Fall is somewhat confusing at points and can present various questions in people’s minds. So, let me deal with his questions one at a time.

Question 1
His first question is ‘But Satan was only using the FORM of a snake for his purposes. Why curse an entire species of animal for something Satan did?’ It needs to be noted from the outset that Satan certainly did use a real, literal, physical snake as his instrument for tempting Eve. Satan is the master as posing himself as something else and not tempting someone with his full identity exposed.

In terms of why God would ‘curse’ the snake for what Satan did, let me offer the following considerations:

[INDENT]a. The snake would be a forever symbolic reminder of the Fall.

Everytime man would see a serpent he would be reminded that it was the instrument by which he fell into sin. Man was to have dominion and rule over the animal kingdom and yet it was through an animal that he was led astray! That tells man something about the seriousness of the original Fall and also about how culpable he really is.

b. The snake would be a symbolic reminder of Satan’s future destruction.

The snake imagery is picked up in Genesis 3:15 when the snake is told: ‘he [the woman’s seed] will crush your head and you will strike his heel.’ The snake was cursed to crawl on the ground and therefore susceptible to man’s heel crushing its head (this vulnerability is a direct result of Satan’s sin). This is a foreshadowing of what will really happen to Satan someday. The seed (Jesus Christ) of the woman will crush the head of Satan and His heel will be struck (the crucifixion) in the process.

In addition, the curse upon the physical snake was reflective of the actual curse upon Satan himself: crawling low on the belly was a mark of deep degradation (Lev 11:42) and eating dust was also a sign of despair (Micah 7:17). All these factors combine to form very vivid symbolism of what awaits Satan in the end.

c. Animals were culpable when used as instruments of sin.

Interestingly, elsewhere in the OT when an animal is an instrument in sins against nature he is to be slain along with the man (Lev 20:15,16). Is that because there is real blame and guilt on the part of the animal? No, but because the instrument is often broken/punished along with the actual perpetrator. Chrysostom summed this idea up well:

‘Just as a loving father when punishing the murderer of his son, might snap in two the sword or dagger with which the murder had been committed.’
d. God is the potter and can use some clay for common purposes and other clay for noble purposes (Romans 9).[/INDENT]

God has the right to curse an animal in a specific way due to the sin of another; He did that very thing in regard to Adam’s sin. When Adam sinned and threw all of creation into chaos, God cursed the ground so that it produced thorns. Was the ground to blame? Was it actually guilty? No, but it was rightly punished due to the sin of another and is a symbolic reminder to us of that very sin.

Question 2
The second question posed in the letter was: ‘And did this mean that snakes didn’t “crawl on their bellies” before God cursed them?’

The simple answer is: yes. It is clear from this passage that a physical change took place in the serpent as a result of Satan’s actions.

Now, it is very difficult (and perhaps impossible) for us to reconstruct what the snake looked like originally with the amount of information Genesis gives us. It would simply be speculation. However, it need not be an intellectual difficulty to imagine physical changes in creation as a result of sin. In fact, real physical change took place in the woman’s body so that she produced pain in child birth (3:16); physical change took place in the land so that it was more difficult to cultivate (3:17-18), and physical change took place in plants so that they produced thorns (3:18).

It must be remembered that imagining a world not cursed by sin is a very difficult thing. Can you imagine a world with no death, thorns, pain, disease, difficulty, struggle for survival? The world before the Fall was radically different. So, there is no difficulty in imagining the serpent as changing to crawl on its belly even though we are not totally sure what he was like before.

The hope is that someday this curse will be reversed; in the new heavens and the new earth there will be no more pain, disease, sickness or thorns. The wolf will lay down with the lamb and the lion will eat straw like an ox (Isaiah 11). And a little child will lead them.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/268.asp

Dude, if you don't mind try to summarize your answers in about 1/5th the space that you nrmally use. I for 1 don't care to sit and read all that mumbo jumbo that you are copy and pasting to support your beliefs. If you can't say it in your own words do me a favor and stay outta the debate. If you want to site a source for your opinion paste the link below your response. But do us a favor and speak for yourself.

BTW I'm not on here trying to debate Christianity, I'm just debating your contention that the earth is not millions of years old and that Dino's walked along side humans.

DevilsWin Wrote:Dude, if you don't mind try to summarize your answers in about 1/5th the space that you nrmally use. I for 1 don't care to sit and read all that mumbo jumbo that you are copy and pasting to support your beliefs. If you can't say it in your own words do me a favor and stay outta the debate. If you want to site a source for your opinion paste the link below your response. But do us a favor and speak for yourself.

BTW I'm not on here trying to debate Christianity, I'm just debating your contention that the earth is not millions of years old and that Dino's walked along side humans.

I did summarize my answer in one sentence. The very first sentence. Then I copied the information to back it up so that people could read it right here since it all fit into one box. That way if a link doesn't work for some crazy reason, then the information is still there. So I not only gave you my own words, but I backed it up - hence, I am speaking for myself.

What you do not understand is that christianity has as much to do with the earth being millions of years old and about dinosaurs walking with humans as it does about Christ coming for our salvation. Now, in order of importance, Christ ranks high above the rest, but without the refuting of anti-biblical interpretations, then the talk of Christ is just as invalid.

The bible tells christians to study to show thyself approved. It says to discover the truth, and the truth will set you free.

BaseballMan Wrote:I did summarize my answer in one sentence. The very first sentence. Then I copied the information to back it up so that people could read it right here since it all fit into one box. That way if a link doesn't work for some crazy reason, then the information is still there. So I not only gave you my own words, but I backed it up - hence, I am speaking for myself.

What you do not understand is that christianity has as much to do with the earth being millions of years old and about dinosaurs walking with humans as it does about Christ coming for our salvation. Now, in order of importance, Christ ranks high above the rest, but without the refuting of anti-biblical interpretations, then the talk of Christ is just as invalid.

The bible tells christians to study to show thyself approved. It says to discover the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Never presume to know what I do or do not understand.

DevilsWin Wrote:Never presume to know what I do or do not understand.

Presumably, from your previous posts, you showed no such knowledge that Christianity has as much to do with history as it does religious matters. Therefore, my statement is clear. What I may have added is the word seems to say: What you do not seem to understand. That may have lessened the blow to your ego. I truly am sorry for that.

This thread has been closed due to the following rule violations:


Posting false or incorrect information will not be tolerated. If you are unaware of something such as a score or any information regarding a certain topic, then do not post it until sure. False threads and posts will be deleted and you will be warned.

Post padding will not be tolerated. Topics are there for your view pleasure but you are not required to post something in every one that you open. If you have no real opinion or knowledge on a subject, please move on to another one.

This thread is also being closed for “spamming.” Here is why:
When you create these threads and put the links to the other sites in them, you are essentially promoting these other sites. Since you have posted the links they are now searchable through Google and in essence you are using the server space of this site to promote these other sites, which we will no longer tolerate. This is BluegrassRivals, not answersingenesis.com and we are not paying for server space to promote any of the sites that you are consistently linking to.

Please refrain from posting these type of threads in the future or alternative action will be taken in the form of suspension or ban. No one wants to read a book from some other website, if they wanted to, by now they would have gone to the site.