Literal interpretation of scripture is the correct method to understand scripture. But there are misunderstandings of what “literal interpretation” means. Perhaps a better understanding is “natural” or “normal” interpretation.
1 Like
But it is pretty clear the Hebrew used refers to a normal solar day with all the problems that generates. Second but, the intent of the author is not to present what we would call a scientific fact.
When the Hebrew word “day” refers to a normal solar day (one earth rotation is a 24-hour day), can it be said that “solar day” shows that it is a scientific fact ?
The traditional Jewish day begins at sundown based on the “And it was evening, and it was morning; the second day”
Based on reading from the link I provided previously:
Each day of Creation was a separate period divided into two parts—an evening and a morning. Each evening was a new day, which continued through the morning until the following evening when another day began (Genesis 1:1, 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
I thought it is based on “And it was evening, and it was morning" at each day ?
Please cmiiw.
but I believe there were some groups of Jews that used sunrise.
Then I think this group will say that the first day for the very first time begin in the morning.
And if it is agreed that both points of view are correct to say ‘Each morning was a new day’ and 'Each evening was a new day,’ then And it was evening, and it was morning means that it happened simultaneously, not as a succession of time where the evening precedes and the morning proceeds in the first hour of the first day. Please cmiiw.
Thank you very much for the link, cewoldt. I will surely have a look on the link.
if for example after reading Gen 3:8, I say:
Yes, it happen just like when i hear your footstep when you walk …
Have I misunderstood of what “literal interpretation” means ?
Please cmiiw.
The story is just using the generic idea of day. Solar days actually vary depending on how they are defined. So I wouldn’t consider that a “scientific fact”. More like “water runs down hill” is just an observation. The Bible is written using phenomenological language but it isn’t trying to present scientific facts. A scientific fact actually excludes God by definition.
The day was defined as having two periods. The first was the dark during the night and the second was the light during the day. So a day was roughly 24 hours long starting at sundown. If you want to read a Jewish source try Why do Jewish holidays begin at nightfall?
The problem is the “plain meaning” meant by the author may not be the same “plain meaning” that a modern reader reading a English translation gets.
2 Likes
Thank you for the link, and I read the article in the link that you gave me.
To me, they have the same reason with the one I read in the link I posted here previously
In short, according to them:
the and it was evening and it was morning verse, the author means it is to be understoond as a succession of time : evening preceeds - morning proceeds.
Just for illustration:
Asssumed that before the Old Testament Bible exist, in the point of view of the Jews each day begin in the morning. But after they read Gen 1, it’s something like : “Ooopss… we are wrong. The day does not begin in the morning, but in the evening. Let’s change our view because God say that the day begin in the evening”
But then again it made me wonder:
what about the other part of the earth which for the very first time experience the morning/day-time ?
You’re off to a bad start already because those are from a modern worldview that neither the original writer nor his audience would have had a clue about – nor would they have understood these if you tried to explain them since to them the world was a flat disk with a hemispherical dome over it, with waters above the dome and under the disk.
There are two meanings of “literalist” here:
- as read in English
- as read in the original
The first one has a series of problems: it assumes that no study is required to understand ancient literature, or that the fact that the first Creation story was written as ancient literature can be ignored.
The second treats the text with respect by seeking to know what that ancient literature meant to the original audience by asking what literary type the writer chose and what worldview was shared by him and his original audience, then understanding the account in that context.
The original audience would have been familiar with the day beginning at dawn, since that was how the Egyptians understood it: night was seen as an attack by the forces of chaos against order, and the gods had to battle each night to enable the sun-barque to make its passage through the underworld and return to give light to the world again.
2 Likes
The sun was regarded as the “great light” ruling the day. Not seeing it as the source of light would be problematic given that pretty much the entire ancient near east regarded the sun deity as the giver of light and recognized that the light before the sun actually rose heralded its coming. From Egpyt to Babylon, sunrise wasn’t just the beginning of the day, it was the evidence of the victory of the gods over chaos, darkness being a manifestation of chaos that had to be defeated so the sun could return. IIRC ancient Babylon regarded evening as the end of a day and thus the start of a new one – some scholars even think that the Jews adopted that view during the Exile – while some didn’t count nighttime as even belonging to the day, seeing dawn as the start and evening as the end, with the period of darkness being an intrusion of chaos into the orderly world.
To us, no, but in the ancient near east pretty much every creation story has light already existing before the gods even appear. That’s actually the first “Wow!” moment in the first Creation story, when YHWH-Elohim commands light into existence – that command communicates two things: light does not exist on its own, and YHWH-Elohim is eternal (because He was there before light, which was regarded as eternal).
The ancient near east viewed “all of space” as being full of water; that’s the “deep”, the תְּהוֹם (teh-home) of Genesis, a fluid that filled everything. I think it was Maimonides who explained that the waters/fluid filled the universe in a way that made it impossible for light to shine, but as the universe expanded immensely rapidly the waters thinned, and at the point when they became thin enough that light could shine Yahweh commanded light into existence.
1 Like
That’s a very bad way to put it since Genesis is deliberately denying most of that! Genesis does assume, though, that most of this was common knowledge – along with contrary common knowledge from Egypt which was rather different from much of what you listed.
That’s also a rather poor way to put it. The Genesis writer wasn’t accommodating anything; the Flood was a part of the cultural milieu from the Gulf of Oman to Crete, accepted as having actually happened by everyone. All the Genesis writer did was cast the story in new theological terms. It was so understood as part of the ANE ‘cosmology’ that it demanded an explanation.
Actually the original Hebrew can be read that way, or “in the beginning”, or “in the beginning of God creating”, because the original didn’t provide vowels.
No “of”, and for that matter no “the” – just “one day” or “day one”. We get off track when we say “the first day”, “the second day”, etc. because it makes us think of a sequence one after the other even though the text doesn’t have to be read that way – which means that putting in “the” is already a bit of interpretation.
That’s better than your version above when you put in the words “body of”. The latter brings to mind something like a lake or ocean where there’s a bottom and there are shores, but the תְה֑וֹם, “the deep”, lacks even that much order. And in fact “nothing but vast water” is a great way of putting it because it gives a picture of formlessness and shapelessness, i.e. unordered existence.
= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =
There is no explanation because Genesis knows nothing of a globe: the ancient cosmology had a flat disk for the Earth surrounded by ocean around the edges, ocean beneath the underworld, and ocean above the solid dome over the Earth. There is no way to translate that into modern cosmology and make any sense.because there was no “other part of the Earth”; the sun shone down on the entire Earth-disk at the same time and disappeared at the same time and (after the gods defeated the darkness so the sun could return) rose at the same time.
So the statement “the first moment of the first day of creation began in the evening” is meaningless if applied to reality.
But that raises another question: if there was no Earth yet, and a modern scientific view is being imposed on the text, neither “evening” nor “morning” can mean anything; you can have no evening or morning unless you have a planet and a sun!
This is a huge problem with the YEC scheme: it has to be selectively literal in order to force the text to fit a modern scientific worldview.
1 Like
Hi Reko,
there is absolutely no reason to believe that the historical narrative of the creation account in Genesis means anything other than what is so clearly written.
Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus clearly believed the scriptures were reliable and trustworthy, thus it is clear that He knows the creation account in Genesis is trustworthy and a faithful account as He is the Creator of all that exists who was there and who spoke the creation into existence in the same manner that He spoke many of the miracles described in the NT gospels, by His command it was so, not days later, or 1 year later, or a billion years later, but immediately at His command, by His Word, He spoke and it was so.
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself, not imperfect interpretations of fallen, fallible mankind that change like the wind.
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. Exodus 20:11
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth … For He spoke, and it was done Psalm 33:6
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:1-3
Jesus said, “I and my Father are one” John 10:30
Many more aspects about your question are provided by watching the YouTube video webinar titled “Six Days … Really?” from Dr John Sarfati of Creation Ministries International (CMI) at:
I pray that our Lord God will make this matter clear to you.
The Bible is our final authority!
God Bless,
jon
1 Like
Some ancient commentators referred to these days as “divine days” because until the sixth day there was no other observer to measure days.
There is some evidence that strongly suggests that at the time of Solomon they counted days as beginning with sunrise.
Bad translation: “a second day” is correct.
There were ancient church Fathers who took that view, and extended it to the entire account, making the six days just an organizing scheme.
Bingo!
The plain meaning of the original depends on the literary type chosen by the writer and the purpose for which he is writing. Neither literary type of the first Creation account intends for the details to be taken literally, nor does the polemical purpose involved in using the Egyptian creation story and editing it to show Who is really in charge.
1 Like
There’s no such thing – at the time it was written there was no “historical narrative”.
If you read it in English, there are several reasons. The biggest perhaps is that the Holy Spirit did not take over the writer’s mind and coerce him into using a literary type that hadn’t been invented yet under a worldview that wouldn’t come around for three millennia or so.
You can’t read ancient literature like it was your grandfather’s diary of events he observed.
Exactly – because He understood that ancient literature was written for the people of the time and place of the original writing, so unlike today’s YECists He didn’t try to change the meaning to be convenient to the people of His day.
But YECists don’t actually believe that – they believe that the final guide to the interpretation of scripture is refusing to actually understand the scriptures as the ancient literature they are and instead demand that they fit a modern scientific materialist worldview.
Ah, yes, the outfit that makes it plain that they aren’t gong to read the scriptures honestly because they’re going to force onto it a view from scientific materialism. They never stop to ask what the Bible’s definition of truth is, they instead impose a definition that comes from an inherently atheistic human philosophy.
Thanks for the reply and the explanation, Roymond.
The thing which I don’t understand is, when the “them” is the current Young Earth Creationist.
Didn’t they (the current YEC) know that the earth is spherical, rotate, day and night occur simultaneously on different part of the earth?
Assumed that “my parents are YEC and they teach me like that since I was a kid”, I’m sure my parents know about that.
Yet, despite their knowledge (that the earth is spherical, rotate, day and night occur simultaneously on different part of the earth) why did they still insist that the first moment of day-1 is in the evening ? 
. Why did they still insist that there was evening and there was morning meaning is a progression of time which starts in the evening? 
I hate when they ended my urged question with:
Because God told us so. So, stop questioning about that. God works in a mysterious way.
1 Like
Thanks for the answer and explanation, Jon.
Thanks also for the youtube link.
But I’m sorry, the youtube video doesn’t cover about day & night happen simultaneously on earth. And it seems (if my English is correct to understand what he say in the video), he propose something which to me is even more doesn’t make sense.
At around 14:00 of the video, he say day-1 already occur BEFORE the creation of heaven on earth. So, there was evening there was morning is a progression of time where the first hour of the 24 hours of day-1 already happen before earth exist.
To me it doesn’t matter if YEC say that the creation of the earth is happen simultaneously with the first zeptosecond of day-1, because based on what the video say, the logic will be : day-1 precedes, existence of the earth proceeds which doesn’t make sense because (to me) day-1 can be perceived only when there is already earth+light exist.
At around 19:00 he said “we’ve been off work for six days” then he states “how long will you think “off work” now ? Million of years ?” … but that’s not my point (as I state in my OP that “Evolution” has not known by me yet).
My point is:
if they insist that the first day begin in the evening and they state “earth already experience the first 6 hours dark/evening times of day-1 now”, then the other part of earth will give an awkward statement “well, we don’t even have our day-1 yet now. We have to wait for the next 6 hours, then we have our first hour of day-1”.
Also in around 43:00, the video say “we don’t have pretty much time between the creation and the fall of Satan. So when ?”. Again he say something which doesn’t make sense to me : “it must’ve been before Cain was conceived and after Eden banishment”. Because the one which make sense to me is : “it must’ve been before Adam+Eve fall”.
Anyway, thank you once again for your answer.
The Creator, our Saviour and Lord God is not as limited as you would have us believe. He is omniscient and omnipresent and all powerful. He supernaturally inspired the various writers of the books of the Bible. Those writers were ordinary people like you and me; that is, they could no more see the future or the past by themselves any more than you or I can. They wrote the Words of Truth that we call scripture or The Bible. I don’t believe for a millisecond that the One who spoke the trillions of galaxies into existence had any problem ensuring the writing of scripture was understandable for mankind throughout the ages. As the account of creation is clearly history, it is correct to call it historical narrative.
Of course you can read and trust the word of God, today, yesterday, thousands of years ago, or in the future, it makes little difference, faithful and honest translations can be trusted to mean what is so clearly and divinely written. That is the amazing thing about the Bible! There is no other Book like it in the world.
With respect to the creation account, Jesus the Son who exists in eternity with the Father and the Holy Spirit was there and had the author write down the events as commanded and observed by Him. To claim anything other than that, misunderstands the all knowing all powerful nature of God.
“Exactly – because He understood that ancient literature was written for the people of the time and place of the original writing, so unlike today’s YECists He didn’t try to change the meaning to be convenient to the people of His day.”
Why do you set yourself up as judge over Christians who believe the clearly stated reality of Genesis as history, and accuse those Christians of changing “the meaning to be convenient to the people of (His) [the present] day.”
Judge not lest you yourself be judged.
“But YECists don’t actually believe that – they believe that the final guide to the interpretation of scripture is refusing to actually understand the scriptures as the ancient literature they are and instead demand that they fit a modern scientific materialist worldview.”
Again, you appear to appoint yourself as a judge over Christians who believe the clearly stated reality of Genesis as history, and accuse those Christians of not understanding what the Lord God has revealed to them. You go on to claim that Christians who believe the clearly stated reality of Genesis as history, “demand that they fit a modern scientific materialist worldview.”
Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact the reality is the precise opposite to what you have written. All the Christians that I know who believe:
- List item
the clearly stated reality of Genesis as real history,
- List item
Adam and Eve as real people,
- List item
the fall in the Garden of Eden as a real historical event that caused the first physical death of Nephesh life to occur, and
- List item
the flood with Noah’s ark that was truly global as is clearly stated in the text,
most definitely do not, “demand that they fit a modern scientific materialist worldview.”
Those Bible believing Christians see through the false materialist, naturalist worldview for what it is, an untruthful stranglehold on most of academia to toe the line, to only interpret science within
the false materialist, naturalist worldview that intentionally excludes God by decree, despite the fact that modern science was born from highly intelligent men and women who understood the one and only Living God is a God of order, not confusion, thus making modern science possible to understand how the things that He created operate.
Why do you set yourself up as judge of those millions of Bible believing Christians who understand the scriptures and know the Lord God our Creator and Saviour?
All that you have written here is a blatant lie and unfortunately can be described in no other way.
It appears you have a very warped view of the millions of God fearing, Bible believing Christians.
You have made many false accusations about what you think Christians who believe the clearly stated reality of Genesis as history, actually believe in your opinion.
It would be revealing if you would support the false accusations you have made about Christians such as myself and the many that I know who believe similarly, with some examples for each item that quote your words below:
- List item
“change the meaning to be convenient to the people of His day.”
- List item
"demand that they fit a modern scientific materialist worldview."
- List item
“Ah, yes, the outfit that makes it plain that they aren’t gong to read the scriptures honestly because they’re going to force onto it a view from scientific materialism. They never stop to ask what the Bible’s definition of truth is, they instead impose a definition that comes from an inherently atheistic human philosophy.”
It appears that you have a misplaced and jaded idea of what Christians like myself believe.
I sincerely hope and pray the delusion you are under is lifted and you understand what our Creator has made clear in His Word to us all in Genesis and throughout the Bible.
Your brother in Christ our Lord,
jon
Hi Reko,
many thanks for your reply, it’s very much appreciated!
I’m sorry that the video is hard to follow in parts and probably could be better expressed in places, particularly if English isn’t your first language.
The order of creation given in the Bible is straightforward (day/night relevant text are in bold type):
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters that were below the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse; and it was so.
8 God called the expanse “heaven.” And there was evening and there was morning, a second day
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of the waters He called “seas”; and God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
12 The earth produced vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, according to their kind; and God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years;
15 and they shall serve as lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
One day meaning one 24 hour Earth rotation period. A normal day as we now know a day.
It is likely that the Earth was already rotating from the beginning. The lights in the sky, such as the sun by day, and moon by night, did not exist on day one, so it is clear the light came from elsewhere. All we are told is that God created light, so it is reasonable to conclude that light did not exist prior to when God commanded light to exist.
We are not told what the source of the first light was, God Himself may have been the source or He may have just made light by itself without a source as we know light requires today, we just don’t know, suffice to say that light, night and day existed on day one.
A good place to start in answering your query regarding how, “about day & night happening simultaneously on earth” is a very good article at: https://creation.com/literal-days-before-the-sun
I probably should have referred you to the above link that sets it all out much better in text form with clearer examples.
If you are interested in looking further into many aspects of the creation account in the Bible, then
see: https://creation.com/6-days-cab-2
I pray that our Creator will reveal to you the answers to the sincere questions you have.
God Bless,
jon
1 Like
If YEC is true, then almost nothing in science is. That is not a mere matter of interpretation. Our most basic understanding of geology, physics, biology cannot be correct if the universe is young. You have to choose between the orderly world of science and YEC; you cannot have both. Those who think that they can find refuge in a distinction of historical and observational science understand neither.
2 Likes
They do indeed, and they even acknowledge that they need to set aside their literal “plain reading” of Genesis 1 in favour of a more literary and figurative approach in order to accommodate it. In fact they will even quite rightly tell you that to insist on a strict, literal approach in this matter is to make a mockery of the Bible. Danny Faulkner of Answers in Genesis explained this quite clearly:
Here’s the thing though. The arguments that he makes against the flat earth movement’s approach to the Bible are exactly the same as the arguments that young earthists denounce as “compromise” or “unbelief” when they are made against a young Earth. Basically, young earthists have one set of rules for Biblical exegesis when discussing the shape of the earth, and the exact opposite set of rules for Biblical exegesis when discussing the age of the earth.
You can see this by doing a simple find and replace on Faulkner’s article: “flat” → “young”; “shape” → “age”, "a sphere” → “old”, “a globe” → “old”, and “astronomy” → “geology”:
Basically, either the Bible demands an Earth that is both young and flat, or else it can accommodate an Earth that is both spherical and old. To suggest that it demands one but not the other is to apply two different and contradictory standards of exegesis to the early chapters of Genesis.
Thanks for watching the YouTube video for us. You’ve saved each of us a whole hour. For some reason, young earthists love to post hour-long videos and then accuse anyone who doesn’t watch them in their entirety of “not listening.” When they could easily have gotten their point across much more succinctly by summarising said video and providing time stamps to the relevant places.
I’m not surprised that the video doesn’t answer your question. The issue of time zones is a massive spanner in the works for their argument that “and there was evening, and there was morning” would tie down the days of creation to being 24 hour days of Earth’s time. It’s an argument that only works if the Earth is flat, and it’s one that I don’t think I’ve ever seen a young earthist even attempt to address.
There are a couple of observations worth making here.
First of all, young earthism is not “the clearly stated reality of Genesis as history.” It is a cartoon caricature of “the clearly stated reality of Genesis as history” with a thick layer of science fiction slathered on top of it. Genesis 1-11 has a lot of powerful and important things to say to us, but the idea that The Flintstones is a documentary is not one of them.
Secondly, this comment illustrates just how hostile young earth zealots are towards correction. One thing they like to do in particular is to quote mine the voice of the serpent, taking the words “Did God really say…?” out of context to try and shut down any challenges to their dogma. This approach is totally contradicted by other verses of Scripture such as 1 John 4:1:
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Or 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21:
Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good.
The Bible commands us to test everything that we are told. Scepticism, when applied properly, is an important weapon in every Christian’s armoury in the battle against deception. Not everybody who claims to be speaking the Word of God actually is speaking the Word of God. Quote mining Genesis 3:1 and Matthew 7:1 in that way to try to shut down critique and scrutiny is the exact polar opposite of what the Bible commands. There is no end to the number of cults and heresies that you could introduce in that way.
Finally, @Burrawang has on more than one occasion accused the entire scientific community of flat-out lying about the age of the earth and evolution. Given that such an accusation must extend to hundreds of thousands if not millions of scientists, over a period of more than two hundred years, acting in tight coordination with each other, it’s a bit rich to say “Judge not lest you yourself be judged” while proposing conspiracy theories on that scale.
It is not a “materialist, naturalist worldview,” nor is it any kind of “untruthful stranglehold on most of academia to toe the line” that tells us that the Earth is far older than six thousand years. It is measurement. Measurement whose interpretation is constrained by strict rules and protocols that are exactly the same whether you are a Christian or an atheist, whether God is at work or not. And it doesn’t just come from academia either. Deep geological time plays a crucial role in searching for oil. Deep geological time even plays a crucial role in improving safety in coal mines. See for example W John Nelson, Geological Disturbances in Illinois Coal Seams, Illinois State Geological Survey, 1983:
This is a situation where geologists have to be scrupulously honest about their findings and their models of the history of the formations they are studying. They can’t afford to adjust their geology to fit their ideology, for the simple reason that doing so would kill people.
7 Likes
Hi Ron,
thank you for your reply and stating your beliefs.
Your statement, “If YEC is true, then almost nothing in science is.” reveals the final authority on which you base your beliefs is science. We should all, always trust the Word of God over man’s feeble and flawed understanding of the creation and how it operates.
Although you refer to people who make the valid “distinction of historical and observational science” it is clear you do not agree the distinction is valid.
When you use the term “science” here in your claim, you clearly make no distinction whatsoever between real empirical science and historical or forensic science, which includes major aspects of disciplines such as geology and biology with regard to the origins question about what happened in the distant past, e.g.,those questions we all have about the age and origins of the rock formations and strata, and, how the diversity of life on Earth came to be as it is.
There is much in “science” that is empirically testable and repeatable by any other scientists of the same discipline that allows us to draw reasonable conclusions about the subject under empirical investigation.
The conclusions and consequential beliefs drawn from historical origins questions about what happened in the past are most assuredly not the same as conclusions and consequential beliefs drawn from empirically testable science; thus using blanket statements such as “If YEC is true, then almost nothing in science is” is not at all valid or even a reasonable statement.
The Bible does not change. Science textbooks most assuredly do!
What will those who believe like you do, if/when “science” discards evolution as a falsified theory?
Gods Word The Bible is the final authority on the origins question and the history of the Earth.
God is faithful and true and would not mislead us into false beliefs.
I know that Jesus is Lord of ALL, and that He has paid the price in full for my numerous sins and for every other sinner on Earth, through His unfathomable Love for me and every other person on Earth. I will trust the The Bible all the days of my life until my physical existence ceases in this realm.
May God Bless you,
jon
Well my authority is the Bible, but I’m with @rsewell on this one.
Why? Because the Bible says this:
13 Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. 14 Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. 15 You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. 16 For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly. — Deuteronomy 25:13-16
The Bible has far, far, far, far more to say about how we are to approach science than about what results we should expect it to give. Any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1, any challenge to the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth or evolution must obey those verses. This means that there are rules that you must follow and standards that you must maintain. If you want to argue that the Earth is only six thousand years old rather than 4.5 billion, or that humans and animals are unrelated, or that the Flood covered everywhere from the Rockies to the Appalachians to the Alps to the Himalayas, then you must do so without quote mining, fudging measurements, misrepresenting or cherry-picking evidence, exaggerating or downplaying sources of error, claiming that scientists make assumptions that they do not, claiming that the assumptions that they do make are not testable when in actual fact they are, or attacking straw man mischaracterisations of evolution that are not what is taught in any school or university textbook. To do any of these things in the process of arguing for a young earth, a global Flood, or independent human ancestry, is not “trusting the Word of God over man’s feeble and flawed understanding of the creation and how it operates”; it is lying.
(Incidentally, @Burrawang took offence at me using the “L” word in a previous thread. All I can say in response to that is that if you don’t want to be accused of lying, then don’t tell lies.)
This is because “real empirical science” and “historical or forensic science” share a common set of rules. All aspects of disciplines such as geology and biology with regard to the origins question about what happened in the distant past have to obey the same rules. The fact that nobody was there to see things happen is not a licence to quote mine, fudge measurements, misrepresent or cherry-pick evidence, exaggerate or downplay sources of error, claim that scientists make assumptions that they do not, claim that the assumptions that they do make are not testable when in fact they are, or attack straw man mischaracterisations of evolution that are not what is taught in any school or university textbook. It is rules such as these that enable us to determine what happened in the distant past without having been there to see it happen. It is rules such as these that allow us to differentiate between a 6,000 year old Earth and a 4.5 billion year old Earth. It is rules such as these that allow us to differentiate between common ancestry of humans and animals and independent human ancestry. It is rules such as these that people who try to make a distinction between “operational” and “historical” science either do not understand or else wilfully ignore.
Yes, and it is God’s Word, as the final authority, that commands us to tell the truth. It is God’s Word, as the final authority, that tells us that we must not fudge measurements, misrepresent evidence, or make slanderous accusations and conspiracy theories against honest and hard working paleontologists, geochronologists and evolutionary biologists, many of whom are themselves our brothers and sisters in Christ. It is God’s Word, as the final authority, that tells us that obedience is better than sacrifice. You may think that it’s a sacrifice to proclaim a young earth, a global Flood or non-evolution, but trying to support such a position with falsehood, misinformation or fudged measurements is disobedience.
4 Likes
Hi James,
your agreement with Ron is of course your prerogative.
My authority is the Bible as I have already stated.
The inference you make that the Biblical quotation of Deuteronomy 25:13-16 is relevant is hard to connect with what I have stated. The passage quoted is about people cheating other people by using false weights and measures. The relevance to the passage is not there, though I do get that you are insinuating that I am being dishonest and making false statements. I absolutely refute that.
It is not I that is making a dishonest, weird interpretation of Genesis, the reading of Genesis as real historical fact is clear to anyone who reads the verses whether they lived thousands of years ago, or today or in the future.
Evolution, Deep Time of Billions of Years and the Big Bang explanation of origins are very recent beliefs by the many who have passed through the educational system of many countries.
I honestly and sincerely believe that Evolution, Deep Time of Billions of Years and the Big Bang explanation of origins (are false teachings that do serious damage to the good news of the atonement for all of our sins by our Creator, Jesus the Christ and Messiah) are indeed false teachings based on many assumptions and flawed reasoning that presupposes those same beliefs to be true at the outset.
I sincerely hope that each will be exposed as false teaching and falsified by more and more scientists around the world in the not too distant future. As there is a vice grip on academia that doesn’t tolerate dissent from anyone, about all three but evolution in particular, I do not know if my sincere hope will eventuate in the near future.
Of course there are rules and standards that is a given, and they are honestly upheld by the practicing scientists I know and know of, who have published many fine papers in peer reviewed journals and contrary to your assertions believe the Bible as meaning exactly what it so plainly states,Genesis is history, the fall in the garden of Eden was a real event by the first man, Adam and the global flood was a real global event.
Of course the Earth is only around about six thousand years old in Earth years as measured here on Earth; that figure is readily determined by adding the genealogies of the descendant line from Adam in the Bible by taking God at His Word from His Word. There is no dishonesty, or any of the many false and derogatory assertions you falsely claim to be fact.
As all of creation was designed and made by our Creator, the Son, the Lord Jesus, is it hard for you to comprehend that the designer used similar design for the living creatures He made that live in the same environment as each other. I have no difficulty seeing the amazingly brilliant design with built in redundancy, for example, the incomprehensibly complex information transmission technology in DNA that is heritable to each generation in living things including us humans, made in the image of God.
The Bible makes it as clear as crystal that the flood of Noah’s day was global, to suggest anything other than that is dishonest.
Genesis 7
10 Now it came about after the seven days, that the waters of the flood came upon the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.
12 The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.
…
17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.
18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.
19 And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
21 So all creatures that moved on the earth perished: birds, livestock, animals, and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;
22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
23 So He wiped out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from mankind to animals, to crawling things, and the birds of the sky, and they were wiped out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
24 The water prevailed upon the earth for 150 days.
What do you think we should expect to find if a flood as described in the Bible covered the entire planet over the highest mountains for150 days.
The answer is that we would find precisely what we do in fact find, things such as vast continental scale sedimentary formations that are hundreds to thousands of metres thick with exquisitely preserved fossils scattered throughout many parts of the strata all over the globe. The entrapped and buried vegetative matter from the cataclysmic event of the flood that formed the coal, oil and natural gas deposits also found all over the planet including in Antarctica and under the ocean basins.
I am not being dishonest or misconstruing the absolutely clear teachings in the holy scriptures. You imply that I am not telling the truth, I vehemently refute that derogatory false accusation.
God Bless,
jon
Jon, do you advocate for a flat earth or at least a geocentric earth as described in the Bible? Or do you allow your interpretation to be guided by what has been learned by scientific inquiry?
2 Likes