Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The six days of creation

George, that's a nice Ad hominem attack

If you have something relevant to add to he discourse it would be greatly appreciated.

Easy! Do you think The Being Who created the sun, moon, and stars would have difficulty with evening and morning for three days without the sun, moon, and stars? Did you not read the beginning of the chapter. It informs the reader He created heaven and earth and light on the first day. With the light coming from one direction and the earth turning on its axis we get "evening and morning".

Shouldn't be any big revelation that "evening" and "morning" (as we know it) is not the same as God knows it to be. Time and measurement of time is an invention of man and means nothing to God. God is outside of time as man knows it to be (the rotation of earth around the sun and earth around its axis). God is outside of his creation and is not bound by time or space.

Yes, I say non-biblical so we can break the circularity of the argument. If we have a dozen contemporary Roman sources documenting the event, I can no longer say SEE, IT'S JUST MORE OF THE BIBLE CONFIRMING THE BIBLE. This is the type of evidence that could alter the nature of the discussion. Unfortunately, the two or three independent sources we thought we had, have all turned out to frauds and hoaxes.

If you with to convince a skeptic trained in logic, these are the kind of sources and arguments you will need.

Olaf, here's a quote from Michael Kruger original article "The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics", TMSJ Spring 2001, that you missed:

Every philosophy must use its own standards in proving its conclusions; otherwise it is
simply inconsistent. Those who believe that human reason is the ultimate authority
(�rationalists�) must presuppose the authority of reason in their arguments for
rationalism. Those who presuppose the ultimacy of sense experience must presuppose
that in arguing for their philosophy (�empiricism�). And skeptics must be skeptical of
their own skepticism (a fact which is, of course, the Achilles heel of skepticism). The
point is that when one is arguing for an ultimate criterion . . . one must use criteria
compatible with that conclusion. If that is circularity then everybody is guilty of
circularity.
The words of Bahnsen sum up the need to argue presuppositionally:
The Believer must defend God�s word as the ultimate starting point, the unquestionable
authority, the self-attesting foundation of all thought and commitment. . . . The fact that
the apologist presupposes the word of God in order to carry on a discussion or debate
about the veracity of that word does not nullify his argument, but rather illustrates it.


Notice that big IF in there. He does not say it's circularity, he postulates the question of "what if" that is circularity, and used his IF as an excuse to dismiss all arguments that do not begin and end with the Bible. Overall, his article is just 18 pages of a weak attempt to justify Christian use of one of the weakest forms of argument that exists.

God does not have "evening and morning." Time and measurement of time is an invention of man and means nothing to God is ludicrous. You really don't understand. Like you posted God is outside of time. God established "evening and morning" for man. That is the original measurement of time. God didn't set up the sun, moon, and stars for signs and seasons and days and years for Himself. He created them for man's benefit.

Maybe you didn't know it before, but Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts were not part of the Bible. They were documents written by eye witnesses in the case of the first three. Luke and Acts were written by someone who, similar to a modern newspaper man or magazine writer interviewed eye witnesses.

The fact that later they were canonized into the New Testament should have noting to do with their credibility as legitimate history.

When you have everything true, nothing else matters.

There's nothing more logical than that.

As usual you are thinking outside of yourself, clearly a result of smoking too much wacky weed.

God called the light �day,� and the darkness he called �night.�. There is nothing here that indicates day or night has any meaning relating to time except in mans brain.

2 Peter 3:8....With the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as one day...

God did not create for man's benefit. All of creation including man was created to glorify and worship a Holy God. You are the one who doesn't understand...read your bible please, in it's entirety, and read it more than once. The concept of God creating for man's benefit is completely outside Christian thinking. You ain't one of them Muzzies are you? Mabe you need a new Bong or something?

Obtw-God is not a He.

Another question: what is the significance of God describing days as broken down into "evening and morning"???

We would tend to talk about "morning and evening" of a day. so i am wondering if there is any significance when they are reversed in Genesis?

Except He called it "the first day". Read the Whole phrse.



In literature there is a valuable thing called context. Apostle Peter was referring to God's patience in regard to salvation. This section is often used erroneously to try to confuse the issue of the creation week.

2 Peter 3:8-9

8"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."

Here's one to help show God does not have time, we do.

Psalm 90:4

"For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night. Here's One a more descriptive of God being outside of time."



I agree completely with your second statement here, and take issue with the first.

God is not outside time.

Time is inside God . . "In him we live and move and have our being."

antelope_sniper,

Your post reminds me I have been listening to lectures by Jason Lisle, Ph.D in astrophysics. I looked him upon the web and was fascinated to see the comments. Some said he was not using science because he starts with the Bible; which is irrefutable. He believes in six day twenty-four hour creation about 6,000 years ago. Of course they are starting from a belief, the refutable position, the Bible is wrong.

The words of Bahnsen sum up the need to argue presuppositionally. He starts with the irrefutable position the Bible is God's Word and is True. Since you start with the refutable position, when pushed it to its ultimate supporting belief, you are the same as the people above.

When one starts with the Bible and is pushed and shoved to his belief, he can demonstrate its reliability. That is not possible with any other world view.

Evidence is not the be all to end all. All of us interpret the evidence based on our world view. For me the fossil record is fantastic support for Noah's Flood. For me carbon 14 in diamonds, coal, oil, and fossils is fantastic conformation of a young earth. Instead of using Oocam's Razor you come up with a rescuing device and invent something to explain these.

Sorry for a poor choice of words. Everything is in God. God is not bound by time; we are. Time was created and we use it.

As with Passover, the celebration day begins at sunset. It's a Hebrew cultural thing that God described in terms that they would understand.

AS, I couldn't agree more with the material above. Our beliefs define our facts, or, as Anselm said, "Credo ut intelligam" � "I believe that I might understand."

Every statement of truth/fact will ultimately retreat to a self-authenticating source of authority which is accepted by faith. In that sense, I see Kruger's article as not a dismissal of all arguments other than the author's own but rather as an explanation of the necessity of epistemological self-consciousness on the part of any position/world-view/philosophy/religion.

All world-views begin with belief, and one's beliefs then define what one accepts as fact.

Not sure where you're coming from, but the subject matter is not new. Here for your amusement is an excerpt from another forum discussion some years back:

Thanks, thats much appreciated..

So if we were created with a physical body and a spiritual body...

Do we have God's spiritual DNA inside us?

Kent

Gen 1:2-5

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
KJV

In Genesis 1:2 we are told of the Spirit of God surveying a desolate, empty (without form, void) earth in darkness. God called light forth, and light naturally obeyed. The light was the intense radiance of God. He separated the darkness from the light and named the light, day, and the darkness, night.

For the next three days God manifested Himself on the earth in all His Glory and Power to continue His creation and claim and cleanse the earth with the amazing brilliance that Glory and Power yields.

Cleansing was required as the earth was found in certain condition of darkness. The word darkness used in Gen 1:2 means misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, and wickedness. Certainly, not the way He had created it, in Gen 1:1, but what His plan and purpose had allowed it to become both then and now.

Each day He came into the darkness and it fled from His light, so the evening and the morning is how each day began. The same has been true throughout the ages, that unless you start the day in darkness and retire shortly after it returns, success is unlikely.

On the fourth day, God returned the luminescence to the celestial bodies, because what He would do next, on the fifth day, was create life in living beings.

He would return to the earth to continue His creation, but not as the God of All Glory, Majesty, and Power that He projects on His Throne in Heaven, because no corruptible flesh can behold Him and live. He would return as Lord Jesus, within Whom was life as we are told in John, to complete His creation.

Perhaps, a bit much to chew on for some, but a simple Truth makes a solid foundation.

Interesting question. Who can say for sure, but we are children of God called so by Him who declares Himself our Father. Not only heirs but joint heirs with Christ. Created in His Tripartite image and after His likeness.

Do your children have yours?