Is there a standpoint from which the creation days in Genesis 1 are described as 24 hours per day?

[St.Roymond]

@karma

So, I’d like to know the YEC’s arguments which occur before 500 AD

There are none, for a simple reason: YEC is based on the idea that in order for something to be true it has to be 100% scientifically and historically correct. That idea first shows up in history around the start of the twentieth century when some scientists denied there could be anything supernatural and sought to define existence as purely material. This became the dominant worldview for western culture even among Christians and others who absorbed the ideas without recognizing that they had made it part of their worldview, and thus some started insisting that everything in the Bible has to be totally correct both historically and scientifically.

It’s possible to find statements by some of the church Fathers that sound a lot like YEC, but with further study it turns out that they aren’t saying what YECists claim; it’s a case of YEC reading into the Fathers what they want to find.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

It also makes God out to be a deceitful God who goes to a lot of trouble to makes sure a multitude of radioactive markers and other geological and biological and genetic markers are all aligned and calibrated just for the purpose of fooling anybody who went to the trouble of observing them!

And all because YECists have put science up as a god beside Yahweh by demanding that Yahweh only communicate according to the idea I described above.

@karma

I think the “main” problem is :
YEC “groundwork” already view that Genesis 1 as historical narative.

And they make that claim despite the fact that there was no such thing as “historical narrative” back then – they just have to claim that it is such because they have made a god out of science, insisting that God had to operate according to a worldview that didn’t come into being for nealy three millennia.

@karma

Hence, if in the YEC pov that God doesn’t lie or make a false witness

That’s something they hold to without realizing that they are imposing a modern Western worldview on the scriptures. It’s how truth is defined in scientific materialism, but they have never bothered to ask if the writers and their audiences back millennia ago had that same definition.

@karma

this won’t make YEC to conclude that God is a liar or God make a false witness.

That’s because they refuse to look at the matter logically – and those who do end up ascribing to Satan the power to totally remake Yahweh’s Creation just to fool us.

= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =

@Burrawang

Science was hijacked along the way also to exclude the supernatural

Not really, as evidenced by the large number of Christians among Nobel Prize winners in the sciences. And as I’ve noted before, even some of my professors who were atheists said that it was unscientific to exclude the supernatural, that the issue was that we have no way to detect or measure the divine.

@Burrawang

Thus God was rejected from science

Only by a small minority.

@Burrawang

have interpreted what they believe is needed in the Biblical texts

I see you continue to ignore the fact that honest commentators find deep time in Genesis 1. While I haven’t delved into their work, I don’t need to because I know that they were excellent scholars – so the fact that they could find deep time in Genesis back before Darwin or even Galileo shows that deep time is not contrary to scripture.

@Burrawang

it is likely that both Adam and Eve are the only two people who would not have had any need to have a belly button

Why do you insist on reading the scriptures as though the Bible intends to teach science?

[St.Roymond]

@Marshall

Even before anyone saw evidence that the earth was very old, many read the Genesis creation accounts in different ways that allowed for different ages and different lengths of creation.

I wish I could remember what ancient scholar decided that the world had to be “ten thousand times ten thousand” years old because anything less didn’t match the dignity of God.

@Marshall

Without a clear statement from Scripture that the universe is 6000 years old, or a clear statement that it was made already old, one can simply accept that it is just as old as it reveals.

Yes – because God is honest.

[St.Roymond]

@Burrawang

It is for no other reason whatsoever than the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden that we all need the atoning salvation of our Creator Jesus

Huh? Are you seriously contending that we don’t need saving from our own sins, only from those of Adam???

[Marshall (Marshall Janzen)]

@Burrawang

It is for no other reason whatsoever than the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden that we all need the atoning salvation of our Creator Jesus, who died on the cross in substitutionary place for our sins.

So Adam becomes the substitutionary sinner who makes us guilty and Jesus is the substitutionary saviour who makes us innocent. It’s not about real sin and evil or real transformation – just how sin and guilt and salvation get tossed from person to person. It’s a game of hot potato with eternal stakes.

Perhaps it’s not surprising that cartoon science begets cartoon theology.

[Burrawang]

@Marshall

@Burrawang

It is for no other reason whatsoever than the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden that we all need the atoning salvation of our Creator Jesus, who died on the cross in substitutionary place for our sins.

So Adam becomes the substitutionary sinner who makes us guilty and Jesus is the substitutionary saviour who makes us innocent. It’s not about real sin and evil or real transformation – just how sin and guilt and salvation get tossed from person to person. It’s a game of hot potato with eternal stakes.

Perhaps it’s not surprising that cartoon science begets cartoon theology.

Hi Marshall, thanks for your comment on what you see is the case.

I disagree, it is actually a matter of genetics in the physical sense but more importantly, once the knowledge of good and evil was known by Adam and Eve, all people born from the that point forward are born of people who have that knowledge in a world that is affected by that knowledge.

The genie can’t be put back in the bottle, to quote a worldly fictional story.
None of us can unknow, we are no longer innocent before God. Of course it is about Real sin!

We are ALL descended from Adam who is the Federal Head of Humanity.
Thus, we are all sinners by nature, even if not by deed, when compared to God’s perfect justice and righteousness.
We all need Jesus the Saviour, whether you like it or not, doesn’t change that fact.

Adam was not a substitutionary sinner, he is our great, great, great, etc… grandfather who having free will, chose to disobey God; he could eat the fruit from any tree in the garden except one, and the ramifications of the poor choice he made are evident all over the planet right now, in the Middle East, in Ukraine, in some African nations, in parts of South America, and in our day to day lives, we face choices nearly every day etc…

God Bless,
jon

[Burrawang]

@St.Roymond

@Burrawang

It is for no other reason whatsoever than the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden that we all need the atoning salvation of our Creator Jesus

Huh? Are you seriously contending that we don’t need saving from our own sins, only from those of Adam???

No, of course not. Perhaps I could have worded that sentence more carefully.
But what I did say in full indicates just that:

@Burrawang

It is for no other reason whatsoever than the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden that we all need the atoning salvation of our Creator Jesus, who died on the cross in substitutionary place for our sins.

I know that I am a worthless sinner, and I am forever grateful that our Lord God is both merciful, just and righteous.

But it is the case that we are told in the Bible that sin entered into the world through Adam; we are in that world and sin is evident everywhere.

God Bless,
jon

[karma (reko tomo)]

@Burrawang

both Adam and Eve are the only two people who would not have had any need to have a belly button as they were not born as every one else was with an umbilical cord.

Yes. The more we create the idea “Eve has no umbilical cord”, the more idea we need to create for the next logical consequences.

idea-1 : Eve has no umbilical cord.
idea-2 : Cain’s embryo magically has no attachment of his umbilical cord to Eve body
idea-3 : for 9 months in the womb, the fetus get a nourishment magically
idea-4 : when the baby is delivered, magically it has a hanging umbilical cord as at the other end of the cord of the baby has no attachment because the mother doesn’t have umbilical cord.

But wait…
those four is not human’s idea, God Himself say #1 to #4, according to the YEC.

Please cmiiw, Jon.

6After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark 7and sent out a raven. It kept flying back and forth

8Then Noah sent ou a dove to see if the waters had receded from the surface of the ground. 9But the dove found no place to rest her foot, and she returned to him in the ark, because the waters were still covering the surface of all the earth

For how many hours those birds need to fly (starting from the ark, fly across the globe, back to the ark) according to the YEC, Jon ?

Thanks.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Marshall

@Burrawang

It is for no other reason whatsoever than the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden that we all need the atoning salvation of our Creator Jesus, who died on the cross in substitutionary place for our sins.

So Adam becomes the substitutionary sinner who makes us guilty and Jesus is the substitutionary saviour who makes us innocent. It’s not about real sin and evil or real transformation – just how sin and guilt and salvation get tossed from person to person. It’s a game of hot potato with eternal stakes.

It’s called “passing the buck.” The whole scene in the Garden of Eden was an object lesson in what not to do when you’re caught with your trousers down:

• God: “What have you done?”
• Us: “It was original sin.” Blame Adam and Eve.
• Adam: “That woman you gave me made me do it.” Blame the wife, and blame God.
• Eve: “It was the serpent.” Blame the demon. “I need deliverance ministry.”
• And the serpent didn’t have a leg to stand on…

In other words, rather than learning from Adam and Eve, are we taking their mistake to the next level?

[karma (reko tomo)]

@jammycakes

And the serpent didn’t have a leg to stand on…

Or maybe …
the serpent : it is because You allowed me to trick them

(just kidding)

[Burrawang]

@karma

@Burrawang

both Adam and Eve are the only two people who would not have had any need to have a belly button as they were not born as every one else was with an umbilical cord.

Yes. The more we create the idea “Eve has no umbilical cord”, the more idea we need to create for the next logical consequences.

idea-1 : Eve has no umbilical cord.
idea-2 : Cain’s embryo magically has no attachment of his umbilical cord to Eve body
idea-3 : for 9 months in the womb, the fetus get a nourishment magically
idea-4 : when the baby is delivered, magically it has a hanging umbilical cord

Hi Reko, thank you for your post.

I think you may have misunderstood here as the scenario you have listed makes little to no sense.

I am not at all suggesting Lamarckianism, in any way, that theory was clearly wrong.
Frenchman, Jean Baptiste Lamarck over 200 years ago incorrectly believed what is now known as the falsified theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics. He wrongly believed that the characteristics an individual gains during his life time are passed on to the next generation.

Both Adam and Eve did not have any need for a placenta as Adam was created out of the dust of the ground by God, and Eve was created from Adams rib by God, but from then on all people born would have had a placenta and as a consequence a belly button.

But the genetic information that Adam had was passed on to all future generations, (though it has been steadily degrading since that time), and that DNA would have coded instructions for umbilical chords and belly buttons, thus all humans including Cain would have had an umbilical Chord and a belly button .
It really is that simple.

No magic required.

God Bless,
jon

[karma (reko tomo)]

@Burrawang

so all humans including Cain would have had an umbilical Chord and a belly button

There’s no text from me which say “Cain doesn’t have an umbilical cord”, Jon.

I say “magically Cain HAS a hanging umbilical cord”.

I hope you understand what did I mean on “hanging”

[Burrawang]

@karma

@Burrawang

so all humans including Cain would have had an umbilical Chord and a belly button

There’s no text from me which say “Cain doesn’t have an umbilical cord”, Jon.

I say “magically Cain HAS a hanging umbilical cord”.

I hope you understand what did I mean on “hanging”

@karma

idea-2 : Cain’s embryo magically has no attachment of his umbilical cord to Eve body

God Bless,
jon

[karma (reko tomo)]

@Burrawang

idea-2 : Cain’s embryo magically has no attachment of his umbilical cord to Eve body

Sorry for my mistake, Jon…

btw, I’m still interested to know if you happen to have YEC’s article which talk about how many hours the raven and dove fly in Noah’s flood.

Thank you.

[Burrawang]

Hi Reko, I have absolutely no idea how far or long the bird flew from the ark.

God Bless
jon

[NicholasB]

You have entirely missed what I had actually written: God knows all times at once and acts accordingly; therefore, death doesn’t need to appear only after the sin of Adam. God may well allow death to enter the world well before Adam’s arrival in prevision of his transgression.

[Burrawang]

@NicholasB

You have entirely missed what I had actually written: God knows all times at once and acts accordingly; therefore, death doesn’t need to appear only after the sin of Adam. God may well allow death to enter the world well before Adam’s arrival in prevision of his transgression.

Hi Nicholas, please accept my apologies if I have missed the point that you were making.

I must admit that I do not follow your reasoning here.

If I understand correctly you are saying that just because God is omniscient, (to quote you),“God knows all times at once and acts accordingly; therefore, death doesn’t need to appear only after the sin of Adam. God may well allow death to enter the world well before Adam’s arrival in prevision of his transgression.”

You use the word , “therefore” however there is no therefore to conclude what is being added here.

God is omniscient, we both agree on that at least.
But why does the fact that God is omniscient mean to you (“therefore”) that what is plainly written in Scripture is in error? As Scripture tells us over and over again that death entered the world through Adams sin.

The billions of years of death, suffering and struggle are an imaginative myth that deludes many, many people who believe the materialistic philosophy of evolution.

You go on to say, (to quote you),“God may well allow death to enter the world well before Adam’s arrival in prevision of his transgression.” but once again that is adding to Scripture something that is not there.
Scripture is abundantly clear about how death entered the world, to say otherwise is misrepresenting the truth.

One of the most significant errors of belief in Theistic evolution is that it makes God out to be an incompetent cruel ogre who lies about what is good and very good.
Theistic evolution in a nutshell is claiming that God initiates life of some form on Earth then sits back and waits and watches for billions of years of misery, death, suffering and struggle until some undefined ape gives birth to the first ‘modern human’. Now that is a fairytale of Mammoth proportions.

The idea of the whole evolutionary edifice is so utterly opposite to:

1.) reality of what we observe and,
2.) to the personal nature of God who is omniscient, omnipotent, loving, caring for His creation. He is righteous and absolutely just and is Love and Truth and,
3.) the Scriptural texts that plainly tell us why death exists and why we need a Saviour and,
4.) the way that God Creates. He speaks and the creation exists. His command results in matter coming into being ‘ex nihilo’. Our Creator, Jesus made water into wine instantly, He healed the sick and lame and blind and dead, instantly, He created loaves of bread and fishes, instantaneously, He said, "Let there be light and there was light.

Thus a belief in evolution or Theistic evolution is the exact opposite of how God creates!
The contrast is indeed stark, let no one be in any doubt; it is billions of years of misery, death, suffering and struggle versus instantaneously at God’s Word of command.

The relentless attack on Bible believing Christians like myself is to be expected, but I really do not understand how professing Christians who have Bibles and read them can compromise so much to believe the atheist excuse for not believing in Gods existence, i.e., evolution and the myth of deep time.

The claims that science proves evolution are utterly false, being ‘a priori’ framed within the evolution/deep time paradigm as a given. It is no wonder the findings are consistent with that view.

The deception is far and wide around the world, but it is my sincere hope that Christians who know our Lord and Saviour will be rescued from the evolution delusion and see it for what it so plainly is, a lie.

God Bless,
jon

[St.Roymond]

@NicholasB

. God may well allow death to enter the world well before Adam’s arrival in prevision of his transgression.

Or the idea that anything other than human death is meant in the Garden stories is just a human idea that is wrong.

[St.Roymond]

@Burrawang

Scripture tells us over and over again that death entered the world through Adams sin

Human death.

@Burrawang

I really do not understand how professing Christians who have Bibles and read them can compromise so much to believe the atheist excuse for not believing in Gods existence, i.e., evolution and the myth of deep time.

Well, you fail to understand how science works, or that the Creation stories are ancient literature, or that honest Hebrew scholars long before Darwin concluded from Genesis that the universe is old beyond human comprehension.

And you plainly don’t understand that studying evolution has brought people to Christ!

[Burrawang]

@St.Roymond

@NicholasB

. God may well allow death to enter the world well before Adam’s arrival in prevision of his transgression.

Or the idea that anything other than human death is meant in the Garden stories is just a human idea that is wrong.

Hi Roymond, thank you for your comments.

I understand that is what you truly believe. But if that is the case, can you please explain to me why the 63 Bible translations (that I have quoted a list of earlier in this thread), do not say that and instead abundantly clearly state that death came into the world through Adam’s sin and that the flood of Noah was Global?

Not only that, it is very clear that Jesus believed that and Paul believed that also.

God Bless,
jon

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@St.Roymond

@Burrawang

I really do not understand how professing Christians who have Bibles and read them can compromise so much to believe the atheist excuse for not believing in Gods existence, i.e., evolution and the myth of deep time.

Well, you fail to understand how science works, or that the Creation stories are ancient literature, or that honest Hebrew scholars long before Darwin concluded from Genesis that the universe is old beyond human comprehension.

@Burrawang, let’s put it this way.

If you really knew as much about science as you claim to know, you would be well aware that arguing against well established scientific theories, evolution and deep geological time included, is simply not an option.

Not unless you are able to do so in strict accordance with the rules of accurate and honest measurement, of honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information, and of mathematical and logical consistency.

If you are not able to meet these standards—and it has been repeatedly pointed out to you in detail not only that you have failed to meet those standards but why you have failed to meet those standards—then to argue that the Bible and evolution can not be reconciled is not an argument against evolution; it is an argument against the Bible.

Either that, or else you are turning the Bible into the manifesto of The Party from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four, which, we are told, demanded that we reject the evidence of our eyes and ears as its final, most essential command.