What do we do with a literal six day creation Exodus 20:11? - Chess Forums - Page 10

pitothefirstdecimel

Jul 8, 2019

0

#181

Yeah, at least we agree on salvation.

@opiejames Did you read the article I posted? It debunked the proofs for an old earth.

opiejames

Jul 8, 2019

0

#182

pitothefirstdecimel wrote:

Yeah, at least we agree on salvation.

@opiejames Did you read the article I posted? It debunked the proofs for an old earth.

No, I've read dozens of articles and even Kent Hovind's book years ago when I was trying to reconcile my young earth upbringing with science and scripture. At that point I was "compartmentalizing " my faith because it seemed contrary to science and I thought these books would help.

They did help. Then I started analyzing each point. Every one of them fell apart upon scrutiny. Even last year I attended a many part lecture series supporting Young Earth. Here is an actual example the lecturer said as evidence. He said "Saturn couldn't maintain it's rings for billions of years". That fell apart when I analyzed it. He is correct, Saturn cannot maintain rings for billions of years, but Saturn has over 60 moons. If two collided 25,000 years ago it would account for the rings.

If you have a point or two, I will look at it, but I'm not going to spend my time reading articles that likely say nothing new. Please don't say fossils on top of mountains, dating of Mt. St. Helens trees or too much dust on the moon unless you want to count that one of your two points. Those always seem to be brought up and they are very weak arguments.

stevetuck

Jul 8, 2019

0

#183

opiejames wrote:

stevetuck wrote:

My question for those who believe that God used billions of years and evolution to create the world, then why did Moses, who wrote the Genesis creation accounts and presumably understood what he was writing, base the Sabbath commandment on a literal 6 creation days, if he knew it didn't happen like that?

I don't consider this a strong argument because there is also the sabbath year, where the land was suppose to lay dormant every seventh year. The idea is cycles of seven.

Moses bases the Sabbath law NOT on the idea of "cycles of seven" but on the idea of a six day creation and God resting on the seventh day.
"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:11, NIV).
Not only the Sabbath day, but also the Sabbath year, draws it's pattern from a six day creation-1 day rest Creation week.
Once we accept a six day creation is taught in Scripture by Moses and affirmed by Jesus than we can work at finding scientific evidence that fits with, rather than contradicts Scripture.
I think the growth of human population argument is a good one.
So is the increase of minerals/salt in the sea.
Wherever we see patterns of change over time we should find good evidence for a more recent (Young Earth) creation.

opiejames

Jul 8, 2019

0

#184

I can't buy the salt in sea argument. It's an old argument but the response seems to be that, while new salt is being brought in by rivers and streams existing salt is deposited on ocean floors. They balance out. Actually that's a good fine tuning argument for God's existence, but not for a young earth.

Dlittle231

Jul 8, 2019

0

#185

I know some people here that say the earth is not a globe and they have pages and pages of evidence to prove there belief

Now I can't prove this issue one way or the other. You make a good argument but I lean the other way.

One thing for sure how ever it happened God made it happen.

stevetuck

Jul 8, 2019

0

#186

Dlittle231 wrote:

I know some people here that say the earth is not a globe

Does anyone here believe that the earth is not a globe?

Dlittle231

Jul 8, 2019

0

#187

I think you are missing my point.

What we are talking about is YEC and OEC both sides have there evidence.

Flat Earth people have evidence and supriseing enough there are smart people. Now if I could fly out far enough I could look back I could see for my self. I think the earth is round but I can't prove it.

The creation of our earth, well we were not there so there is no way to know for sure. The last part of Job explains it very well.

SoulMate333

Jul 8, 2019

0

#188

As a sailor, I've lost the horizon and watched buildings diminish in such a way as to discern curvature.

SoulMate333

Jul 8, 2019

0

#189

Opie, is your background in science that of a lay person or professional?

stevetuck

Jul 8, 2019

0

#190

It's a very difficult to believe in a flat earth today, with such an abundance of information contrary to that idea unless we close our minds to anything that might suggest the earth is NOT flat.

Some people think believing God created this world thousands NOT billions of years ago is like believing the earth is flat but the Bible doesn't lead us to believe in a flat earth, but there is much in Scripture that would lead us to think God created thousands and not billions of years ago.

Dlittle231

Jul 8, 2019

0

#191

I think we can all agree the earth is round. I was a sailor as well involved in navigation. We had charts of the entire world. I do Not believe in a flat earth.....

It was Only an example to say people believe all kinds of things and have tons of evidence. I used it because I was sure no one here believed that.

opiejames

Jul 9, 2019

0

#192

SoulMate333 wrote:

Opie, is your background in science that of a lay person or professional?

I have a BS in Statistics and was a mainframe computer programmer for my career, therefore, I fall into the layman category.

SoulMate333

Aug 1, 2019

0

#193

All of the modern evidence denies, detonates, destroys, demolishes and defenestrates the Darwinian idea that any simple life can evolve into complex life forms. Every empirical data shows genetic degradation leading to extinction. The fact is that no scientific evidence supports Darwinism. There's no lab experiment, no rigid mathematical model and no computer simulation supporting Darwinism. All these have been tried and show that this theory has no chance of working. Darwinism claims that random processes are able to generate vast amounts of specified information which powers evolution. Evidence does not support this claim.

Darwinism is a pseudo-science and a metaphysical position:

1. No rigid Mathematical basis - Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination,
2. No demonstrated Empirical basis,
3. No large scale Computer Simulation ever confirmed Darwinism,
4. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are grossly unfit as "creative" engines,
5. Information is not reducible to a material basis,
6. There is no known example of a code (DNA) originating by natural means,
7. The fossil record is inconsistent with Darwinism,
8. Findings from molecular biology undermine Darwinism.
9. Life from non-life has never been observed.
10. Irreducibly complex systems have never been refuted.
11. The only direction for natural selection is increased entropy. There are no exceptions!

Things don't create codes. All codes come from programmers and information comes only from intelligence. THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS! There's no empirical evidence or a large scale computer simulation suggesting that natural or random processes are able to create or increase specified information.

stevetuck

Aug 1, 2019

0

#194

Yes. Given the evidence it’s very difficult to believe in Darwinian Evolution.

Dlittle231

Aug 1, 2019

0

#195

But yet the world takes this over God.

opiejames

Aug 1, 2019

0

#196

Atheists HAVE to believe in evolution because it's the only game in town for them. If not evolution, then creation, there is no other choice (except the very unsatisfying "I don't know").

hellodebake

Oct 21, 2019

0

#197

SoulMate333 wrote:

All of the modern evidence denies, detonates, destroys, demolishes and defenestrates the Darwinian idea that any simple life can evolve into complex life forms. Every empirical data shows genetic degradation leading to extinction. The fact is that no scientific evidence supports Darwinism. There's no lab experiment, no rigid mathematical model and no computer simulation supporting Darwinism. All these have been tried and show that this theory has no chance of working. Darwinism claims that random processes are able to generate vast amounts of specified information which powers evolution. Evidence does not support this claim.

Darwinism is a pseudo-science and a metaphysical position:

1. No rigid Mathematical basis - Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination,
2. No demonstrated Empirical basis,
3. No large scale Computer Simulation ever confirmed Darwinism,
4. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are grossly unfit as "creative" engines,
5. Information is not reducible to a material basis,
6. There is no known example of a code (DNA) originating by natural means,
7. The fossil record is inconsistent with Darwinism,
8. Findings from molecular biology undermine Darwinism.
9. Life from non-life has never been observed.
10. Irreducibly complex systems have never been refuted.
11. The only direction for natural selection is increased entropy. There are no exceptions!

Things don't create codes. All codes come from programmers and information comes only from intelligence. THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS! There's no empirical evidence or a large scale computer simulation suggesting that natural or random processes are able to create or increase specified information.

You should post this in the 'Evolution Club,' SM. I'd like to read the responses given by unbelievers or evolutionists.

SoulMate333

Oct 21, 2019

0

#198

Good suggestion. The poster should be someone active and I no longer have the time to respond.

tbwp10

Nov 10, 2020

0

#199

I really appreciate the attitude displayed here (And yes, I actually took the time to read through all 198 comments). Proof that Christians of diverse viewpoints can share and discuss and challenge each other to grow and even agree to disagree, but without becoming divisive. It sounds like we're all in the same boat together: we're all just trying to figure things out. I obviously dont have all the answers, but I can share what I've learned during my own journey in the hopes that it may bless others. This topic has been a life time of study for me that I have mulled over for decades, interacting with top Bible scholars and scientists on the subject, and considering every possible interpretation and approach and "angle" to Genesis imaginable, and in the process of my journey also earning two degrees along the way (in biology and paleontology).

As one of my past professors said, "There's good news and bad news for everyone in the fossil record." I think you'll find the same here. I imagine everyone will find something to disagree with in what I have to say. In fairness, I'm "none too happy" either with some of the things I have to report, but I'm committed to being honest. So, what follows is my best attempt to be honest when it comes to everything on this subject: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I've divided this into two parts. Part 1 is my honest, best effort to communicate to everyone where we are when it comes to the science of things. Part 2 is my best effort to communicate the same for the Bible. For Part 2, I don't profess to have the final word on Genesis, but I do present what I believe is the only way we can possibly approach Genesis if we want to have a true and accurate understanding that is also faithful to Scripture. While questions will remain, I will also provide what I believe to be a possible way forward through it all, and a look at the unifying thread that biblically connects everything from Genesis to Revelation.

So, without further ado, here are the most honest statements I know how to make on the subject.

PART 1: SCIENCE:

(1) Origin of Universe: The standard "Big Bang [Expansion]" model of the universe is a successful scientific model because it explains/accounts for a number of key observations about our universe, including the universe's expansion, cosmic background radiation, and the percentage of elements in our universe (particularly hydrogen, helium and lithium). While still inconsistent with a YEC position, the Big Bang model has actually reduced the age of the universe to about 13.7 billion years old (In the past, some scientists thought the universe could be up to 100 billion years old!). It also suggests our universe is finite and has not always existed, which, in turn, would seem to require a cause for its existence. William Lane Craig uses this to support part of his Kalam Comological Argument.

(2) Age of Earth/Universe: The scientific evidence for old-ages is pretty overwhelming and supported by multiple, independent lines of confirming evidence. Occasional anomalies exist, but none significant enough to challenge, invalidate or overturn the evidence for long-ages.

(3) Geologic/Fossil Records: Geologists no longer assume that all rocks formed by slow, uniform rates of deposition ("uniformitarianism"), but use evidence to determine whether a given rock layer was formed "slowly," "rapidly," or somewhere in between. Modern geologists recognize that there have been large scale mega-floods during earth's history. However, we have no evidence for a global flood. Progressive creationism is currently the only creationist view that can potentially account for what we see in the geologic/fossil records.

(4) Biological Evolution: "Darwinism," "Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis," "gradualism/gradual" step-by-step evolution by "random mutations and natural selection," "missing links," "just-so" stories, etc.----Pretty much ALL of these (and YEC arguments against these things) you can pretty much throw all of these things in the garbage.

Modern biology has moved past all this, so arguments against these things are now strawman arguments. Natural selection is still important but no longer assumed (it must be demonstrated by rigorous standards), and not every physical trait is believed to be an adaptation that is the result of natural selection. Numerous, multiple mechanisms are now recognized.

The *Extended Evolutionary Synthesis* (EES) is the new "game" in town (NOT "Darwinism," or "Neo-Darwinism," or "gradualism"). A barrage of discoveries over the past few decades in microbiology and genomics have revolutionized understanding in biology. Believe it or not, these discoveries have provided stronger evidence for common ancestry than ever before, overwhelming evidence for macroevolution (speciation = origin of new species), and an array of empirically demonstrated mechanisms that can operate "gradually" or by rapid, large scale genetic changes without killing the organism. Mutations are no longer seen as "accidents." There is now a staggering amount of evidence that most mutations seem to be under biologic control. In short, there's now mountains of empirical evidence that living organisms actually have built in mechanisms that enable them to restructure and self-modify their genomes to varying degrees. In short (and I know people won't like to hear this), evolution has never been on firmer, more solid evidentiary footing than it is today....BUT

(5) Origin of Life: .....while evolution now seems easier to accomplish than ever before due to these built-in "evolvability" mechanisms that living organisms have, the flip side is that it has made the origin of these mechanisms and the origin of life all the more difficult to explain. Breakthroughs in understanding the intricate complexity and biological information/infomation-processing nature of life, has widened the gulf between the living and non-living worlds enormously and it would be accurate to say that science currently has no clue and no plausible naturalistic mechanism to explain the origin-of-life.

*Although, I don't think concordism is the correct way to go (see Part 2), some possible considerations for biblical concordists include: (1) Did God create living things with the ability to evolve/change? (2) Instead of seeing evolution as something "evil/atheistic," could it instead be a testament to God's amazing power and creativity? (3) Genesis says things were created and reproduce according to their "kinds," but does it say that things couldn't change and diversify further after this? (Note: even with evolution, things STILL always reproduce according to their species "kind"). (4) Should no-death-before-the-fall be revisited? Is it possible (at least for NON-human life) that death is a natural, created part of the life/the life cycle?

tbwp10

Nov 10, 2020

0

#200

(*Read "PART 1" first. See above*)

PART 2: THE BIBLE

(1) Hermeneutics: There are many important principles, but one of the most important principles for proper interpretation of Scripture is to *first* understand what a given passage would have meant to the original "audience" or hearers of the word. Only then, can we begin to start asking how it applies today.

(2) The Error of Anachronisms: Too often, we impose our modern understanding on Scripture (so easily without even realizing that we're doing it) instead of first determining what the text would have meant to the original hearers/readers. This has led to all kinds of countless errors in biblical interpretation, starting with our picturing a planet earth globe in our heads when we read "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." No one in ancient times hearing/reading Genesis for the first time would have ever pictured or thought of the earth in that way---this is OUR modern conception of planet earth that we (unintentionally) impose upon Scripture.

(3) The Error of Concordism: What this means is that pretty much any and all attempts to accord Genesis with our modern understanding (including trying to make it fit with science OR vice versa) are wrong, incorrect ways to approach Genesis. For example, we have scientific evidence for the Big Bang and it's entirely possible that God could have created the universe this way, but Scripture CAN'T be used to support this (even if it is correct), because it's a modern idea. Put another way, it's impossible that "Let there be light" is a reference to the Big Bang, because no one--none of the original readers/hearers--in ancient times would have ever thought that that's what this verse meant. That would mean that divine revelation is only for us in modern times, and completely meaningless for the thousands of years of humanity before us.

(4) Science and the Bible are "Apples & Oranges": This further means that there is absolutely NO need for the Bible and science to fit with each other, because Genesis was written to an ancient audience, not a modern, scientific one. Genesis isn't concerned about science and modern understanding--we're the ones who care about such things and wrongly put those burdens and expectations on Scripture. So, to correctly understand Genesis we need to understand what it would have meant to its original audience. Then, and only then, will we be able to see how it applies to us today.

(5) "Yom" ("Day") Can't Mean Long Periods of Time, but Must Refer to a Normal Day: Because an ancient audience would never have understood each "day" to be millions or billions of years long. However, this does not conflict with modern science, because science and the Bible are "apples and oranges" and don't have to fit with each other---Genesis is not a scientific account, but divine revelation that was first given to an ancient audience.

*Also, "day" is NOT the important part of the story (the 7-day "week" is far more important because of its relationship to the tabernacle/temple and God's presence....but that would take longer to explain).

*Also, it's important to understand that while "yom" must be a normal day, that it still might be functioning as a literary, organizing device (as opposed to a doctrinal statement about the age of the earth---which actually misses the point of Genesis). And, in fact, there is a literary, parallel structure in the Genesis creation account that connects Day 1 with Day 4; Day 2 with Day 5; and Day 3 with Day 6.

(6) The Genesis Creation Account Uses the Erroneous View of the World that Ancient People Believed in as a Vehicle to Communicate Divine Revelation: It seems that God cares more about us having a correct understanding of God, than having a correct view of nature. God does not seem too concerned about us having accurate knowledge about the world, but an accurate knowledge of Him. So, instead of correcting the ancient world's erroneous understanding of the world, God communicates his divine revelation about Himself via the common beliefs of the time and, thus, in a way that they would understand (even though their conception of the world was erroneous). This actually makes more sense, because imperfect humans can NEVER have a truly accurate and complete understanding of the universe. If God were to accurately "explain" everything to us, we would still never be able to fully comprehend it. And if God waited for us to attain such an understanding, before giving us divine revelation, then He'd still be waiting to give it.

*Take, for example, Day 2 when God creates the firmament expanse to separate the waters above from the waters below. The "waters above" is not a water vapor canopy. No one in ancient times would have thought that. They believed that rain came from a water "storehouse" of sorts up in the sky that would periodically allow water to rain through like a "sieve," so to speak. They also believed that the sun, moon and stars were in a solid firmament BELOW this "storehouse" of rainwater (*which is where Genesis also puts the sun, moon, and stars in Day 4--IN the firmament BELOW the "waters above" where rain comes from). So, instead of correcting this erroneous understanding of the world, God uses it to communicate true divine revelation about Himself.

*This example can be used to illustrate a number of common interpretive mistakes we make with Genesis today. Not trying to pick on anyone, but here we see even YECs "compromising" or "caving-in" to science "at the expense" of Scripture: The "waters above" are not a water vapor canopy or water out past all the galaxies at the edge of the universe where we can't see it (like many YECs say today)--IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE MODERN SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING (*Afterall, Scripture puts the sun, moon, and stars in the earth's atmosphere, so science MUST be wrong when science tells us that these things are in space. Right? At least, that's the type of argument that is typically made when science and the Bible are pitted against each other). Yet, no one in ancient times would have thought that's what Day 2 & 4 meant (*And it would also make it a meaningless fact beyond our reach way out in space that has absolutely no significance for us today; prompting the question, "Why are you telling us this, God, that there's a bunch of water way out at the edge of the universe? How is this important for us to know?"). Instead, the original readers/hearers would have immediately recognized and understood this (albeit erroneous) picture of the world---that had the sun, moon, stars in the firmament BELOW the rain water stores---because that's what they believed in ancient times. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Day 2 & 4 are, in fact, depicting this ancient understanding of the world. So, in order to accurately interpret Scripture we too, likewise need to understand and recognize that Day 2 & 4 are depicting this ancient (albeit erroneous) understanding of the world and using it to communicate divine revelation. This shows (no offense) that EVEN YECs have their limits and ultimately "cave" to modern scientific understanding by IMPOSING a modern scientific understanding of the world on Scripture that was never there to begin with, when Scripture is saying something else entirely by communicating divine revelation to an ancient audience in terms that they could understand.

*Otherwise, our typical "understanding" of Genesis would only be divine revelation for us. Think about it. Think about all the different interpretations Christians have today about Genesis--including the YEC view that the "waters above" must be water way out in space out past all the galaxies at the edge of the universe. Such views would be absolutely meaningless to people in ancient times. There's no way they would come away with that "understanding." There's no way that that would be the "take home message" they come away with after reading/hearing Genesis. We didn't even know there were galaxies until quite recently. We didn't even know we were in the Milky Way Galaxy or that there were other galaxies in addition to the Milky Way until around the early 1900s. Imagine if we were transported back in time to ancient Israel. Imagine trying to explain all our "understandings" of Genesis. They would have no idea what we were talking about. Words like "galaxy" would have no meaning to them.

*The Bible is the ongoing story of God reaching down to us and accommodating us as finite beings with limited understanding by communicating to us in ways that we can understand, with the ultimate example of this being God-incarnate-in human form. What better way could there be for us to understand?

(7) Divine Revelation in Genesis: So what, then, are we supposed to take away and learn about God from Genesis? For the sake of time and without getting into details, I will cut to the chase. We learn that: there is a Creator God who created everything; that unlike other ancient gods, this one true God has no needs, is dependent on no one, is separate and not part of creation but the Creator of all creation; that He creates/brings order and purpose to chaos and disorder; that He has given us provisions and established a working, functional order by establishing time, weather, food, etc., and created humans to be His representative emissaries and image-bearers of God, and that when he finished creating an ordered, functional cosmos that He didn't just leave us but on the 7th day inhabited His own creation, so that His creation is now a "cosmic temple" for His abiding Presence with us...and a lot more....In Genesis 2, we see how God further orders and establishes in this "cosmic temple" a "sacred space" (garden in Eden).

*If there is one, single uniflying thread throughout the Bible that goes from creation to the garden of Eden, to the Exodus to the tabernacle to the temple to the Word (Jesus) that became flesh and "tabernacled" among us to the ripping of the temple veil at the crucifixion to the end of time in Revelation where we see the "sacred space" of Eden restored, it is: The PRESENCE OF GOD--how it was established, how we lost it, what God did to restore it, and how we can always have it forever and ever (Amen)

*Of course, I've had to skip over a lot of details, but I hope all this information provides a framework and way forward through this complicated topic that will be of help to people.