> General Discussions
Creationism theories.
phazel:
--- Quote ---So it’s not “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth…and all that in them is” but it should be “For six days the Lord made heaven and earth…” Now that is a giant difference.
For six days He made the heavens… for six days He made the earth… for six days He made the sea… for six days He made all that in them - the heavens - the earth - the sea, is. For six days He did that you see.
It doesn’t say for in six days He did these separate unconnected things. No, for six days He made the heavens and earth and… He did all that. For how long did He do that? For six days!
--- End quote ---
Forgive me if I missed the scriptural reference to this separation of days.
Does scripture get as specific as Ray seems to point out that for 6 days this, for 6 days that?
For example, biblically, however long it actually was, we see a reference to 6 days, is that 6 days for the heavens, 6 days for the earth, so its actually 12 days, for the both of them?
Or is the difference only with the word "in"?
I mean if it took me 3 days to paint my house. Is there a big difference between I painted my house in 3 days or I painted my house for 3 days?
Of course we can break that down and ask me "Was you continually painting your house for 3 days" Or "Did you paint your house for a few hours a day and in 3 days it was finished".
I think possibly, the typical view is that God did the **** poof **** thing and the use of the word "in" six days would be the latter of my two questions above.
Science depicts a continual process , so for six days this took place as a continual process.
I'm getting the feeling that Ray is reconciling evolution with scripture, but he just hasn't come out and said it yet.
The problem with comparing the sciences and the intelligence of the scientists as Ray has done is that there is a large difference between calculating how to lift a huge rocket at 3 mph without it wavering and infering the historical evidence of common descent to our physical origin.
If you have an atheistic bias to interpreting that data, it could come out the way it has, it may even take intelligence to interpret it wrong so that it seems right.
Also, another problem is that the geological age of the earth and the age of life does not have to be in alignment with one another on one apsect.
We could have 6000 years of humanity, and millions of years of universe.
The metaphorical day could be a inference to the order of events rather than a depiction of literal time.
Kat:
Hi Linny and Phazel,
Here are some excerpts from Ray's 2007 Nashville conference. He talks a little about the 'six days.' You can see that Ray is studying what is avalable in both science and creationist thinking.
But maybe God has not revealed the full knowledge of this to anybody yet. I believe you have to have God's spirit to put it all together and get it all right.
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,4472.0.html ----
I want to be honest with what I know and what I learn. But I don’t know where to find it. I read all these books and all this stuff and most of it is garbage, if you want to find answers. Now you can learn knowledge, but you won’t get any answers.
v
v
I’m going to open up this possibility, I’m not going to start teaching evolution here, but I felt for most of my adult life. That the 6 creation days, were not 24 hour days. And I know I left it that way on my site, because I didn’t want to get into logger heads with some people, since I could not absolutely prove it. I just said alright I’ll just go along with 6 days. If the Bible says 6 days, it’s 6 days. I didn’t tell them how long I thought those 6 days were.
They feel that evening and morning, sun rise to sun set, ‘that’s a 24 hour day, Ray, how hard can it get?’ But it didn’t say sun rise and sun set. It said it came to be morning and it came to be evening, and then it says, second day, third day, forth day, but it doesn‘t start off that way. What did it mean, when it says it came to be evening and it came to be morning, day one, then it was the second, the third and the forth. What did it mean it ‘came’ to evening and it ‘came’ to be morning? Well I have some ideas about that. But I’m not going to talk about that today. But it has to do with light and darkness, but not a 24 hour day.
I’m trying to study a little bit on (oh, I don’t even want to use the terms, because people will say, Ray’s starting to study astrophysics) but I’ll say it like this, I’m reading material written by astrophysics, how about that. And I’m studying morphology, a little bit and into quantum mechanics.
Here is a problem that I see, scientists do not want to acknowledge anything religious, theological, scriptural, or Biblical, at all. And the Theologians, religions, and Christians pretty much want to reject anything and everything that goes too far scientific for them, ok. Because both sides thinks they are at logger heads, one with the other.
The Bible can’t be true, with the 6 days being 6 billion years or whatever, it can not be, just can not be. How do they know that? Well because it says, 6 days, so it‘s 6 days. But a lot of things are called a day, you know. I covered this at the Mobile conference.
I can prove on the second page, that these 6 days can be referred to as a day. We find that in the second chapter, where it says, verse 4 “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in THE DAY that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.”
That was on this side of the page, right, in 6 days, “when they were created.” In “the day” that they were created, singular day. It’s the same day -- yom, same word translated “day” in the first chapter. So right here we have 6 days, are called the day, singular. And then we have a thousand years, is like a day, and a day is like a thousand years (2 Peter 3:08).
Then we have Acts 17, where it says verse 31 “Because He has appointed A DAY in which he will judge the world…” In 24 hours? No! For the aions. A day, ok. Maybe considerably more than a thousand years. So there is all kinds of uses for the word day in the scripture. Just because it says ‘day one’ doesn’t mean a 24 hour day. That is not proof in and by itself. And we know that virtually everything in the Bible is symbolic anyway.
v
v
Now here is something good, this Philip Johnson, a law professor, at Berkley wrote ‘Darwin On Trial.’ It’s very good, until you get to where he’s talking about religion. So he’s got his facts down on evolution, better than anybody I’ve ever read. But then we have original sin and we inherit the corruptible nature and God is one person in 3. And God created Adam in His image and they were given this great intelligence, knowledge and perfect innocents and purity. And all this written in their hearts. No it wasn’t! But if you want to read it, it’s very good, I just got this a couple of years ago.
v
v
And even this Dr. Stroder I’m reading now, I really like some of his stuff. I think he is really trying to see the truth of the scripture and science.
So we’re not going to throw religion and science away or one or the other. Because there is elements of both, that we need to consider. But I want to also show you, that who do you trust?
-------------------------------------------------------
mercy, peace and love
Kat
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version