Conference yukon::christian_v7

    
    I thinks its only a movie, it was purely entertainment for me, not
    intended to be educational material.
    
    Paula 
    

    Since I don't fully comprehend the Israeli way of life, but with my
    limited knowledge of their attitude towards women, I'd say 100% of all
    movies from the U.S. would offend them.
    
    Not surprised.
    
    Nancy

    
     Well, I guess I would have to agree that most U.S. made movies would
    probably offend them. 
     I saw the film and enjoyed it but took it to be pure fantasy. Good 
    special effects and all that but that's about it.
    
     RG

    >Well, I guess I would have to agree that most U.S. made movies would
    >probably offend them.
    
    Most U.S. movies offend me! :-)

    -1
    
    Exactly

    
     What, in the movie, would offend them? I have not seen the film.
    
      Bob
    

    Probably the evolutionary slant, but they even confuse themselves on
    that issue.

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive
philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of
this world rather than on Christ."  (Col 2:8)

"Finally brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right,
whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable -- if anything is excellent or
praiseworthy -- think about such things."  (Phil 4:8)

The other night I saw a french TV news item about another aspect of the fuss.  
As part of the film's promotion in Israel, a leading yogurt manufacturer has put
dinosaur stickers on the pots.  The kids collect so many stickers and get a book
or a film ticket, etc.

The rabbinic authorities got this banned by saying the picture of the dinosaur
on the pot meant the food was no longer kosher.  (Honest, I'm not making this up)
Apparently the objection stems from the fact that the Jewish calendar began from
the creation of the world; this is year 5000 and some (please will one of our 
Jewish friends help the precision here?), therefore anything supposedly millions
of years old can't possibly be from God, therefore it's unacceptable...

I imagine the same goes for the film with its dinosaurs, though it's still
being shown in Israel.

The same news item included an interview with a French rabbi who didn't agree
with the Israeli rabbis.  He said that since God created the world He has
destroyed and reformed it a number of times, and the dinosaurs were in one of the
earlier editions of the earth.  [I suppose we're in the beta version - it
certainly needs some debugging :-) ]

What a maze they can get into!  I really respect the Jewish believers' sincere
approach to applying their way of maintaining a relationship with God.  But I 
thank God that he has given us a way out of the maze, by sending his wonderful
Son!

Alleluia!

God bless,		Richard.

    ...and I thought it might be because Spielberg is sort of a liberal
    Jew. ;-)
    
    The kosher aspect I can understand, but I'm surprised there are some
    in Israel that think the earth is millions of years old.  The book of
    Job is considered to be the second oldest book of the Bible.  Many
    point to Job 40 as evidence that man and dinosaur (bracheosaurus-sp?) 
    co-existed.  Not to mention that man's footprints and dinousaur fossils
    have been discovered together, in the same layer, in riverbeds in
    Missouri and Texas.
    
    Mike

    Somehow, I just can't imagine a T-Rex in the Garden of Eden... 8^)
    
    The movie was great, tho.  Amazing special effects.
    
    As far as dinosaurs go, there is too much evidence to refute thier
    existence (unless there has been a conspiracy to create fossils for a
    very long period of time).  Our ideas of how stupid they were may be
    exaggerated however.  I'm not sure of thier significance in history,
    nor am I concerned about the ramifications thier existance has on
    Biblical truths.  
    
    The Bible starts with man.  It's history starts with
    the creation of the universe, concentrating of the creation of the
    earth (Gen 1).  Then, it skips to the creation of man (Gen 2).  There
    is no time frame given between these two events, so it could be a
    *very* long time.  During this time, God may have placed different
    species of creatures on this earth for His own reasons...or possibly
    for us (old plantlife, over millions of years can create a cache of
    oil as it dies and is covered over by earth- to be simplistic).  And is
    the sudden death of the dinosaurs an accident, or was is paving the way
    for us?  (man would have a difficult time co-existing with dinosaurs,
    even with today's technology)
    
    The Bible is not a science book, nor is it a history book that includes
    *everything* from the history of this earth.  It only includes what is
    necessary for us to know in our walk with God.
    
    I honestly don't understand why so many people think that dinosaurs
    contradict anything in the Bible.  Exclusion does not necessarily mean
    innacuracy (if they are mentioned in the Bible, then I certainly missed
    it).  The same goes with geneologies...I don't think the Bible lists
    all geneologies, so to set a date for man's creation (Adam) by counting
    geneologies may be inaccurate.  
    
    Science and the Bible go hand in hand.  After all, who created the
    laws of physics anyway? 
    
    -steve                  

Agreed Steve ... somehow, Tyranosaurus Wrecks sounds much more like a
modern creation.  The firm that takes my old cars ..... ;-) 

I rather wonder how close - or far - from the actuality, the 'scientific' 
projections are.  I rather suspect that they're tainted with the modern 
perspective [ just an aside; no special axe to grind there ].

I tend to think of them as doing a massive job of preparing the top-soil, 
when it was first laid down....  Guess they'd finished that job by the 
flood, and weren't really needed after.  And I thought we had man's 
footprints and dinosaurs superimposed as well, to show that they 
co-existed?

�    I honestly don't understand why so many people think that dinosaurs
�    contradict anything in the Bible.

I rather suspect that it is purely wish suggestion on the part of those
who are always looking for more fig-leaves to hide from God behind.... 
Like fossils.  (No!  I *didn't mean fossils hide behind fig...;-).

An interesting point is that living creatures were herbivorous until after
the flood.  At least, man was, from God then explicitly giving him meat to
eat.  Whether there were animals this didn't apply to, I rather doubt,
especially in view of the millenial example of herbivorous lions, wolves,
etc in Isaiah... 

Totally rather off the topic, but then I haven't seen the film, so
shouldn't be 'in here'... 

							Andrew

 My 10 year old just returned from California son Scott and I were
 talking dinosaurs yesterday.  (he became a real Jurassic Park fan 
 whilst in Calif, acquiring numerous JP memorabilia).  The last couple
 will help in my discussions with him






Jim

    !      <<< Note 239.11 by CSOA1::LEECH "Wild-eyed southern boy" >>>
    !                     -< my views on dinosaurs... >-
    
    Steve,
      I am pleased that you are willing to believe that large lizards
    lived. However, I am confused by the manner in which you portray
    them. Especially in light of the truth revealed to us in the Bible.
    In addition, every creature was important in the eyes of God, even the
    large lizards.
    
    ! earth (Gen 1).  Then, it skips to the creation of man (Gen 2).  There
    ! is no time frame given between these two events, so it could be a
    ! *very* long time.  During this time, God may have placed different
    
    	I disagree, my current understanding is 1 day. Man was created on
    the sixth day. I suggest you may wish to re-read Genesis and not read
    "into it".
    
    ! species of creatures on this earth for His own reasons...or possibly
    ! for us (old plantlife, over millions of years can create a cache of
    ! oil as it dies and is covered over by earth- to be simplistic).  And is
    
    	My current understanding is that the world that God created is
    much younger than a million years old. I have studied the Bible for
    this very reason - (my conversion) - and have found the Earth to be
    much younger than scientists would have us believe. More over, events
    brought on by God the Father do not need millions of years. The oil
    that you speak of;(?) I have read geology books written by Bible
    believing people, and on numerous occations, I have come across
    meaningful data that would lead me to accept all that oil came as a
    direct result of the flood, during or shortly there after.
    
    ! I honestly don't understand why so many people think that dinosaurs
    
    	I do not understand why people that believe in God, would
    	try to add or take away from that which the Word of God speaks.
        Read Job, it is pretty plain to me that God was speaking of VERY
        large creatures, (of which Job was aware), when talking about the
        Behemoth and the leviathan. What is wrong with a T-Rex in the
        garden of Eden. Before the fall it may have been a plant eater too,
        as was man.
    
    Steve, please understand, brother, I am not trying to be contentious.
    I simply have a problem with the manner in which you have rationalized
    away some basic truths.                
    
    PDM
    
    

    What do folks think in here about the creature described in Job 40? 
    What do you think it is describing?

    Job 40:1  Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said,
      2  Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that
         reproveth God, let him answer it.
      3  Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
      4  Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand
         upon my mouth.
      5  Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will
         proceed no further.
      6  Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
      7  Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and
         declare thou unto me.
      8  Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that
         thou mayest be righteous?
      9  Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like
         him?
     10  Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself
         with glory and beauty.
     11  Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is
         proud, and abase him.
     12  Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down
         the wicked in their place.
     13  Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.
     14  Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can
         save thee. 
     15  Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an
         ox.
     16  Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the
         navel of his belly.
     17  He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are
         wrapped together.
     18  His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars
         of iron.
     19  He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
         sword to approach unto him.
     20  Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of
         the field play.
     21  He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and
         fens.
     22  The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the
         brook compass him about.
     23  Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that
         he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
     24  He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
    
    

    Jim()
       hippos and elephants do not have tails like that of a cedar tree.
       Besides, behemoth litterally means HUGE. Hippos and/or elphants are
       big, but I doubt we would refer to them as behemoth.
    
       God also pointed out that there were leviathans. These being VERY
    large sea creatures. Now it is not as unlikely that the reference is
    to whales. However, recall when Jona was tossed over board, he was said
    to be swallowed up by a fish... I think the general assumption being
    that that fish was a whale.  Now stay with me on this, "iff" this fish
    was a whale, then what was or is larger that would warrant the name
    leviathan?
    
    Anyway, regardless, the point being that man and these LARGE creatures
    co-existed...
    
    PDM

<<Note 239.14 MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions">>   
    
BTW, I like your p_name.  8^)
        
>    Steve,
>      I am pleased that you are willing to believe that large lizards
>    lived. However, I am confused by the manner in which you portray
>    them. Especially in light of the truth revealed to us in the Bible.
>    In addition, every creature was important in the eyes of God, even the
>    large lizards.
 
    What Bible truth?  I never said dinosaurs weren't important to God- I'm
    sure they fit exactly the purpose they were intended to fulfill.  I
    don't see that the Bible says anything on dinosaurs, personally, the
    reference in Job *could* be describing a dinosaur, buy I wouldn't base
    a complete opinion on this scetchy outline of some large creature.  It
    may be talking about something else.
       
>    ! earth (Gen 1).  Then, it skips to the creation of man (Gen 2).  There
>    ! is no time frame given between these two events, so it could be a
>    ! *very* long time.  During this time, God may have placed different
    
>    	I disagree, my current understanding is 1 day. Man was created on
>    the sixth day. I suggest you may wish to re-read Genesis and not read
>    "into it".
 
    The '1 day' may not be a 24-hour period.  One day to the Lord is as a
    thousand years.  It its original text, the word used for 'day' doesn
    not necessarily mean a day as we know it.  It's a rather scetchy time
    period, if I remember correctly.  I don't think I'm reading anything
    into the Biblical account by saying it is not a 24-hour period.
          
>    	My current understanding is that the world that God created is
>    much younger than a million years old. I have studied the Bible for
>    this very reason - (my conversion) - and have found the Earth to be
>    much younger than scientists would have us believe. 
    
    Cabon dating by many differnt scientific groups confirm a 4+ Billion
    year old Earth give or take a few million years.  The Bible does not
    dispute this, IMO.  Much evidence exists that the universe is approx.
    16 billion years old, too.  I don't think all of science is poppy-cock
    and out to misinform the masses.  The many studies are taken by many
    different groups of different affiliations.  Once again, the Bible does
    not, IMO, dispute any of this evidence (or the other way around).
    
    In Genesis 1 (please forgive me, I'm going on memory here), God creates
    the heavens, the earth, light, and man in His own image- which I
    believe refers to man's spirit (as God is a spiritual being, so is
    man).  In Genesis 2, God creates animals, plants, and Adam out of the
    dust (meaning his physical form).  There is no time frame that says
    this was done *right* after He formed the Earth.  His plan may have
    called for the Earth to form in its own time (cool), then bring life
    into the planet when it was ready (remember, time means nothing to God,
    he is everwhere and everywhen at once- how could we understand His full
    purpose in the way things created).
    
    
>    More over, events
>    brought on by God the Father do not need millions of years. The oil
>    that you speak of;(?) I have read geology books written by Bible
>    believing people, and on numerous occations, I have come across
>    meaningful data that would lead me to accept all that oil came as a
>    direct result of the flood, during or shortly there after.
    
    True.  Science is not always accurate in its findings.  I never said
    that it was dinosaurs from millions of years ago that did create all
    the fossil fuels- just that it was one possibility.  God's plans are
    intricate, and I sometimes specualte on things...doesn't mean I've
    bought into it 100%, just that I like to expound on things.
    
>    ! I honestly don't understand why so many people think that dinosaurs
    
>    	I do not understand why people that believe in God, would
>    	try to add or take away from that which the Word of God speaks.
>        Read Job, it is pretty plain to me that God was speaking of VERY
>        large creatures, (of which Job was aware), when talking about the
>        Behemoth and the leviathan. What is wrong with a T-Rex in the
>        garden of Eden. Before the fall it may have been a plant eater too,
>        as was man.
 
    I don't believe I have added nor taken away anything from the Bible. 
    I'm merely trying to fill in the blanks.  The Bible is God's word for
    mankind.  It contains that which is necessary for us to know.  Anything
    else is up to us to find out.  
    
    Sorry if you didn't like my T-Rex in the Garden of Eden joke. 
    Dinosaurs may have well been in the Garden of Eden...I don't now. 
    MAybe they are a figment of teh collective imaginations of the
    scientific community...I don't know.  None of it changes my belief in
    the Bible, or my belief that it is inerrant and ture 100%.  Just means
    that it is a mystery to try and solve.  If not on this earth, we'll
    certainly know in the "new" one.  8^)
        
>    Steve, please understand, brother, I am not trying to be contentious.
>    I simply have a problem with the manner in which you have rationalized
>    away some basic truths.                
    
     I haven't taken this note in a negative fashion at all.  Some of my
    notes state ideas of mine that aren't completely formulated- I post
    them to get feedback and to simply express another thought on a complex
    subject.  I really haven't rationalized away any basic truths of the
    Bible- though I may be rationalizing away some of the logic behind
    'creation*ism*, which I do not feel is accurate.  I believe in divine
    creation, not in a man-made time frame of events.
    
    Good discussion, though.  
    
    -steve
    
    

Another FYI.  The word "Dinosaur" is a relatively new word and would not
be found in the Bible.

MM

>hippo or the elephant?
    
    they don't have tails like that.

>    The '1 day' may not be a 24-hour period.  One day to the Lord is as a
>    thousand years.  It its original text, the word used for 'day' doesn
>    not necessarily mean a day as we know it.  It's a rather scetchy time
>    period, if I remember correctly.  I don't think I'm reading anything
>    into the Biblical account by saying it is not a 24-hour period.
    
    Sorry, according to the original manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek, the
    word describing a literal day (i.e., 24 hour period) is used.
    
>    Cabon dating by many differnt scientific groups confirm a 4+ Billion
>    year old Earth give or take a few million years.  The Bible does not
>    dispute this, IMO.  Much evidence exists that the universe is approx.
>    16 billion years old, too.  I don't think all of science is poppy-cock
>    and out to misinform the masses.  The many studies are taken by many
>    different groups of different affiliations.  Once again, the Bible does
>    not, IMO, dispute any of this evidence (or the other way around).
    
    I wholeheartedly disagree.  Before you go any further, run don't walk
    over to the "Creation vs. Evolution" topic and read Garth Wiebe's
    section on dating methods.  The Bible not only agrees with the fact
    that the earth is young, but there are signs on earth and in our
    universe that support a young earth (< 20,000 years).  Scientific
    dating methods, like Carbon-14, have proven to be very inaccurate. 
    They've also given false readings in billions of years on objects known
    to be only a few thousand years old.
    
    Mike

Re: .20  (Steve)

>    The '1 day' may not be a 24-hour period.  One day to the Lord is as a
>    thousand years.  It its original text, the word used for 'day' doesn
>    not necessarily mean a day as we know it.  It's a rather scetchy time
>    period, if I remember correctly.  I don't think I'm reading anything
>    into the Biblical account by saying it is not a 24-hour period.
          
The 6 days are as literal as the 6 days which the Israelites were to 
work.  Check out the text of the 4th Commandment:

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.  Six days you shall labor and do
all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.  On it
you shall not do any work... 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 20:8-11)

Also keep in mind that the Genesis account numbers the days (1st, 2nd, etc.)
and associates them with "evening and morning".  It is true that "day" can be
taken figuratively in any language, whether Hebrew or English.  But in the 
context of the Genesis account, it is not figurative.

>    Cabon dating by many differnt scientific groups confirm a 4+ Billion
>    year old Earth give or take a few million years.  The Bible does not

False.  You do not understand Carbon dating.  It is accepted fact by all
scientists, including evolutionists, that Carbon dating cannot produce 
accurate results beyond some N0,000 years, and is only good for dating the
organic remains of animals that have died. 

>    dispute this, IMO.  Much evidence exists that the universe is approx.
>    16 billion years old, too.  

I know of no scientific evidence that the universe is 16 billion years old.
Please provide some evidence, right here and now.

>    In Genesis 1 (please forgive me, I'm going on memory here), God creates
>    the heavens, the earth, light, and man in His own image- which I
>    believe refers to man's spirit (as God is a spiritual being, so is
>    man).  In Genesis 2, God creates animals, plants, and Adam out of the
>    dust (meaning his physical form).  There is no time frame that says
>    this was done *right* after He formed the Earth.  His plan may have
>    called for the Earth to form in its own time (cool), then bring life
>    into the planet when it was ready (remember, time means nothing to God,
>    he is everwhere and everywhen at once- how could we understand His full
>    purpose in the way things created).
    
It took 6 days.

"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the
seventh day he rested from all his work.  And God blessed the seventh day
and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that
he had done."  (Gen 2:2-3)

The point of confusion comes because you misunderstand the remainder of
Genesis 2.  Genesis 2 is just describing a bit of the original creation
in more detail, focusing on man and the Garden of Eden, etc.

Re: .24  (Mike)

>    Sorry, according to the original manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek, the
>    word describing a literal day (i.e., 24 hour period) is used.
    
Be careful, Mike.  The Hebrew word 'yom' can be taken either literally or
figuratively, depending on the context.  Just like the English word 'day'.

>    section on dating methods.  The Bible not only agrees with the fact
>    that the earth is young, but there are signs on earth and in our
>    universe that support a young earth (< 20,000 years).  

Be careful here, too.  I stressed in my discussion of dating methods that
all dating methods suffer from the same caveats.  They all make assumptions
about initial conditions, process rates, and considerable extrapolation of
data to get the results.  They are not repeatable or testable in the 
laboratory over the range of time which they are supposed to date.

I cannot stress enough that the "young earth" metrics don't prove that the
earth is young.  Rather they falsify the "old earth" metrics.  But it can
as easily be claimed by the opposition that the "old earth" metrics falsify
the "young earth" metrics. 

    ~      <<< Note 239.20 by ARNOLD::LEECH "Wild-eyed southern boy" >>>
    
	~<<Note 239.14 MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions">>   
    
	~ BTW, I like your p_name.  8^)
    	    Thanks, Steve, I hate to admit it, but I have lived up to
    	    it. (In fact, I still am living, Thank God.) I will be jumping
    	    again before the end of the year, if I am given my way about
    	    it. The difficult part is convincing my wife and doctor. 8^)
    	     ...and Nancy, mom   8^)
    
    Garth, Mike, thank you for your inputs. I buzz in and out and rarely get
    a chance to enter anything in great detail. There was a time when I
    believed as Steve does, that man's understanding and comprehension is
    integral to God's creation. It wasn't until I realized that God, the
    omnipotent being could indeed create what ever He wants, when and how.
    Furthermore, it would be against his very nature to lie about His
    creation or lead us to stumble around it. Steve, the term 'day' that is
    used in Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis, is indeed the same term that is used
    when ever a 24 hour day is discussed in the Bible.
    
    Steve, it was difficult at one time for me to accept completely
    everything that the Bible says. It was difficult for me to accept with
    out understanding. I had made a conscience effort to believe the Bible
    over anything that I find in a science book. Now, my eyes have been
    opened to the majesty and raw power of God. I can easily believe and
    understand now the chronology and time span of the creation of the
    Earth. After all, why can't God simply breath a herd of running buffalo
    into creation, a-mid stride none the less? 8^)  Together will all thier
    instincts and actions... After all, He says He is Almighty. I would
    first give credence to God, ...then man,...and only if God doesn't
    answer,...which is rare...
    
    PDM
    

    re: .23
    
    I'll have to continue this discussion tomorrow...I don't have the time
    to go into it further today.
    
    Stay tuned!
    
    -steve

God is GOD!

He can do as many things in a day as he likes. His Word says he took 6 days, 
he could have taken 6 seconds if he'd wanted to.

Chele

re .26  

	Phil,

;	Steve, the term 'day' that is
;    used in Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis, is indeed the same term that is used
;    when ever a 24 hour day is discussed in the Bible.

	I know this comment was directed at Steve but I felt that it was
	worth a comment.

	The Hebrew word translated "day" has a variety of meanings including
	'a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.' (Old 
	Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.;1978, W. Wilson, p.109)
	This can be seen if you look at the context of Genesis 2:4 and
	that there the term "day" is used to cover the time period of the
	6 creation days (compare Exodus 20:11).

	In Genesis 1:5 God calls the light "Day", again showing that there is
	a different meaning to the word day.

	Also the day of God's rest, the seventh day, continues even now	
	according to Hebrews 4:3-11. God has yet to see that "it is good".
	No doubt this will take place after Satan is destroyed.

	Now seeing that it takes 2,000,000 years for light to travel from
	the Andromeda nebula and to reach earth, one can conclude the 6
	creation days were not literally 24 hour days.

	Phil.
	

    ! <<< Note 239.29 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>
    ! -< Day can mean 'the time covering an extraordinary event" - Rev 4: >-
    
    I said the "same" term for 'day' is used whenever a "24" hour period is
    discussed. I am well aware that there are more applications for the
    word. I am also aware that there are other references to the term \day\
    (using a different word), in the Bible. 
    
     My understanding and study leads me to stubornly hold to the fact that
     the term day in genesis, is a 24 hour day. Anything else would be
     taking from God the truth He has shared.
    
    
    !	Now seeing that it takes 2,000,000 years for light to travel from
    !	the Andromeda nebula and to reach earth, one can conclude the 6
    !	creation days were not literally 24 hour days.
    	  Huh? This sentence makes no sense.  So? what is the point? Who
    	  cares how many years it takes light to travel?!
    
    PDM
    
    

    I appologize that I will have to wait until tomorrow to go into details
    of my original statements regarding creation and time frames thereof. 
    I meant to bring in my Bible today to go over Genesis CH 1&2 today and
    show why I don't believe that stating that the universe *may* be 16
    billion years old is not contradictory to the Bible.  The other source
    of reference as to the dating techniques that agree with my opinion
    (written by a Christian scientist) is sitting right next to it.  
    
    I'll have to remember to bring them in tomorrow.  
    
    Something to consider for now, though: 
    
    The heavens were created before our solar day was
    given to us by God (who set up the 24 hour rotation of the Earth, which
    makes night and day).  I realize that the account was put on paper long
    after creation, but I believe there is a reason that the terminology is
    vague.  One, the Hebrew term can mean a very long period of time,
    possibly meaning that each 'day' of creation may have been a *very*
    long period of time by human standards (also, there may not have been
    an applicable term in Hebrew that means 'billions'...though this is
    speculation, as I am not very knowledgeable of this language).  It also
    is a way to separate the creation time periods.  Two, it sets up for us
    a 7-day 'week' (as the term *can* mean a solar day).  This gives us our
    work week and day of rest and worship.  Also, it does not limit every
    prophetic 'day' to a 24-hour time period.  
    
    So, right from the start, in the very first chapter of Genesis, God gives
    us a lot more than just a quick run down of creation.  It gives us
    order and discipline (the holy day).  Because surely God did not need
    to rest on the 7th 'day', but He knew that we would need to set aside
    one day a week (at least) to rest from our toils and to worship Him-
    not because He needs to be worshipped, but because *we* need to come to
    him (our source of life).  As we are spiritual beings, we need to walk
    with God.
    
    These are just a few thoughts.  They are of course *my opinion* which
    others may not agree.  Please feel free to point out errors in my logic
    if you find any, as I'm always open to learn new way of looking at
    things...as long as they're 'Biblically correct'.  8^)
    
    -steve                 

re .30

	Phil,

;I said the "same" term for 'day' is used whenever a "24" hour period is 
;discussed.

	That makes sense to me, the point I was wanting to make is that one 
	cannot use the rule "day"=24 hours in all instances Genesis 1,2, if any. 
	Btw I don't discount that the term for 'day' could mean 24 hour period, 
	not that the Hewbrews used hours as a measurement of time in Moses's 
	day.
	

    !	Now seeing that it takes 2,000,000 years for light to travel from
    !	the Andromeda nebula and to reach earth, one can conclude the 6
    !	creation days were not literally 24 hour days.
;    	  Huh? This sentence makes no sense.  So? what is the point? Who
;    	  cares how many years it takes light to travel?!

	If the light has been travelling for 2,000,000 years then one would 
	logically believe that the Star was in existence 2,000,000 years ago, 
	no?. This being the case, then the lumanaries in the heavens are not 
	approx. 6000 years old. But if the heavenly lumaries where created 
	in a 24 hour day period, that is the fourth day 2 days before Adam, 
	then we would not see the light from these stars with our bare eyes 
	on a clear night because it would not have arrived here yet. Least 
	that's how I understand it. This is more apparent if you look at light 
	and noise, light travels quicker, so if you see a lightning fork you 
	hear the noise seconds later (depending on the distance). So in effect 
	one is hearing something that happened seconds ago. Hope I'm not 
	confusing things. With the stars we are seeing an event that happened 
	years and years ago because of the vast distance.

	Not that I wanted to debate this, just comment on it. It is upto the 
	reader to discern. What is important about the creation account is 
	found in Revelation 4:11.

	Phil.

      Phil,
    
    !	in a 24 hour day period, that is the fourth day 2 days before Adam, 
    !	then we would not see the light from these stars with our bare eyes 
    !	on a clear night because it would not have arrived here yet. Least 
    !	that's how I understand it.
    	  This sounds like you are trying to limit God to following the
    	  rules of physics that we currently uderstand.  Please correct me
          if that is not what you are intending or implying. My God, can
    	  do anything and what He says is fact. I read that He put the
          stars in place and separated the night (light) from the day
          (light). Since the reference is Earth, that would indicate to me
          that the light seenon Earth at night would be the light of those
          nightly bodies....
    
       PDM
    
    ps. I too dislike retoric , of which this is rapidly approaching. It
        has little to bear on our salvation, but alot to substantiate our
        devotion to TRUST God fully in HIS TRUTH.
    

You would have no choice but believe in God. As that is not how God chose to set
it up, it would seem logical to me that we would need a viable alternative to go
with if you choose not to "by faith" accept the teachings of the Bible as fact. I
find no conflict with creation and dinosaurs. In fact without out dinosaurs there
would then be a hindering of one's free will choice to accept or reject the 
teachings of the Bible. Dinosaurs help confirm to me a loving God's creation to 
give us every oppertunity to accept Jesus Christ on faith and not out of
necessity due to lack of viable alternatives.

Dave

    re: -1
    
    You may be right, 100%.  God can do anything.  On the other hand,
    suggesting that He sets things in motion and allows them to come to
    being (with His guiding hand, otherwise there would be only chaos)
    within the laws of physics that He set up, does not limit Him one iota. 
    In fact, it shows His faithfulness to His creation (allowing it to form
    within the laws of the universe He set into motion).
    
    He *knew* we would discover the speed of light, as well as our ability
    to discover planetary distances, and distances of stars and galaxies. 
    Knowing this, I don't think He would have 'helped' the light along any
    (from the distant stars), though He certainly is able to do just that
    if He wished to.  He set up the laws of physics for us to discover- TO
    SHOW US HOW UNLIMITED HE REALLY IS.  We are to look at the evidence He
    leaves behind for us.  This evidence shows a truly amazing God, IMO.
    
    In the OT, He took a more direct approach with us to show us His
    faithfulness and power.  Today, we have the scientific tools to show us
    much more of His creation than anyone before us could have imagined. 
    We can personally witness His amazing, vast creation in all its power
    and glory (to a limited degree, anyway).  It's sad that many scientists
    have taken God out of science.  I think that the discoveries would have
    much more meaning if they didn't.
    
    -steve (opinionated today)
    

    Bingo .34   nice way of putting it.  I like it.
       PDM

    ! You may be right, 100%.  God can do anything.  On the other hand,
         What other Hand, you said it correctly in your second sentence.
         Stop there.
    
    ! within the laws of physics that He set up, does not limit Him one iota. 
    	Sure it does. It makes God a passive, sit back and relax kinda guy.
    	Furthermore, it contradicts his attributes that he is an active
        partcipating God.
    
    
      PDM
    

re .33

	Phil.

;	  This sounds like you are trying to limit God to following the
;    	  rules of physics that we currently uderstand.  Please correct me
;         if that is not what you are intending or implying.

	This is not what I'm implying. However, Almighty God, is the Grand 
	Designer he was the one whom, through His wisdom, applied the laws 
	to His creation. His creation , which includes the heavenly bodies, 
	follow the physical laws as per His design (all a part from 
	disobedient mankind ofcourse).

	Because of these physical laws, man can calculate to the nearest 
	seconds how long it will take to travel to the moon (these are not 
	man made laws, rather observations).  If man can calulate such things, 
	then what is wrong in him calculating the time and distance light 
	travels to the earth.

	Phil.

	

>    !	Now seeing that it takes 2,000,000 years for light to travel from
>    !	the Andromeda nebula and to reach earth, one can conclude the 6
>    !	creation days were not literally 24 hour days.
>    	  Huh? This sentence makes no sense.  So? what is the point? Who
>    	  cares how many years it takes light to travel?!
    
    I think he means that it's so far away, that it would take more than a 
    day to create something out there.  I think we should be careful about
    putting God in man's little box.  That's what started the trinity
    "debate." ;-)

re .39

	Mike (I hope I've got your name right)

;I think he means that it's so far away, that it would take more than a 
;    day to create something out there.
	
	Quite comical, however this is not what I meant for it could have 
	taken a day or even a second to be created. However, once in existence 
	the light eminating from it is governed by physical laws. One has no 
	reason to believe that the light we see from the stars (even tonight) 
	is not as old as the physical laws indicate. 

	lets just agree to disagree.

	Phil.

	

Re:  Phil and Steve

Address the 4th commandment.  The Israelites worked for 6 days.  The whole of
creation likewise took 6 days.  It says it right there.  

Now, how long did the Israelites work?  Now, how long did creation take?  Pick
a number and plug it into Exodus 20:8-11 and see if it works.

I'll reproduce the text again, so you don't have to go back and look for it:

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.  Six days you shall labor and do
all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.  On it
you shall not do any work... 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 20:8-11)

Again, keep in mind that the Genesis account numbers the days (1st, 2nd, etc.)
and associates them with "evening and morning".  It is true that "day" can be
taken figuratively in any language, whether Hebrew or English.  But in the 
context of the Genesis account, it is not figurative.

Phil and Steve,

Let's settle this starlight issue right here and now.  You say that the
universe is old because the light from stars took that long to get here.

Demonstrate to us that the speed of light was 2.998E+8 meters/second at the
time God created the stars, and has never changed since then. 

I'll be eagerly awaiting your responses.

    re: .42
    
    I have to assume that God first created the rules of the universe, then
    proceeded to set it into motion (thus making it an orderly process).  
    If this is true, then the speed of light would only have been changed 
    if the laws of physics were changed sometime after creation.  I think this 
    is contradictory to an absolute God.  Why would He change things?  His
    plan is perfect from the start...no reason to change any physical laws.
    
    I don't think this line of reasoning fits the personality of our
    absolute and honorable God.  He gives us many hints to His
    greatness, so that we can better appreciate the wonderous things He has
    done.  The only way He could do this is to create the laws of the
    universe before actually setting it into motion.
    
    No, I don't for a minute believe that God changed the physical laws
    at any time, nor do I believe that He set the physical laws in motion
    *after* creation...if just doesn't follow His personality.  (IMO)
    
    [Not that *any* of this has a single thing to do with your or my
    salvation.  It is a fun discussion, though.]  8^)
    
    -steve

<<Note 239.37 MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions">>
    
>    ! You may be right, 100%.  God can do anything.  On the other hand,
>         What other Hand, you said it correctly in your second sentence.
>         Stop there.
 
    Yes, it is true.  No "buts".  This does not mean that He *did* create
    the world in 6 24-hour time periods, though, which is the debate.
       
>    ! within the laws of physics that He set up, does not limit Him one iota. 
>    	Sure it does. It makes God a passive, sit back and relax kinda guy.
>    	Furthermore, it contradicts his attributes that he is an active
>        partcipating God.
 
    Define "passive",  I don't agree with your statement above.  He sets
    the laws of physics, He sets the universe into motion- guideing it by
    His laws.  This is not a 'sit back, passive' attitude.  Besides, one
    day or 100 billion years is all the same to God.  Time is not a concept
    that binds Him.  
    
    As far as actively participating...He has been all along.  From the
    delicate balance of the universe, to direct relations with mankind.  I
    don't see what difference a time frame can make in this regard.
    
    -steve   
    
      PDM
    

          <<< Note 239.43 by CSOA1::LEECH "Wild-eyed southern boy" >>>
    
    
    !  I have to assume that God first created the rules of the universe, then
         ^^^^    ^^^^^^
    	Why?! assume. Why? have to assume?
    
    ! If this is true, then the speed of light would only have been changed 
    ! if the laws of physics were changed sometime after creation.
    	There you go limiting your god again. My God does not follow the
    	rules, because that would make the rules his God. Since God made
        the rules, they are there for the fabric of life that WE
        understand. Thereby giving us a choice to either see Him or man's
        interpretation.  I do not know how God did, it, that for me is
        not paramount to my believe. What I do know is that God said what
        he did, and that is how I believe it. I need not add my own wisdom
        and intelligence to His work.
    
    ! I don't think this line of reasoning fits the personality of our
    ! absolute and honorable God.  He gives us many hints to His
    	Ditto
    
    ! done.  The only way He could do this is to create the laws of the
    	     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    ! universe before actually setting it into motion.
    
    	There you go limiting your god again.
    
    ! No, I don't for a minute believe that God changed the physical laws
          ^                    ^^^^^^^
    ! at any time, nor do I believe that He set the physical laws in motion
                          ^ ^^^^^^^
    	these are strong key words. Reflect on them and the omnipotent God.
    
    
    [Not that *any* of this has a single thing to do with your or my
    salvation.
    	True!
    
      It is a fun discussion, though.]  8^)
    	 Not if it leads another to question the omnipotence and personal
    	 intervention of God. Or worse, to begin to rationalize away God's
         Word.
    
      -Not critical, just saying be cautious, others are listening and
    thinking to them selves, gee, maybe g_d did sit back after the Big Bang
    and pop open a brew. Yea, and then,...maybe g_d can't,...
    
     Think about what your "Beliefs" do to others my friend. I just
    recently  learned what I "believe" is revealed by the Word, what I
     "UNDERSTAND" to be my current orientation is quite diferent. My
    current understanding is that there may not have been any rain until
    the "fall" of the garden of Eden. I BELIEVE, there was a garden of Eden.
    
    My belief is that there was light and darkness the first day. My
    understanding tells me that it must have been the Glorious LIGHT of
    God, because I BELIEVE, God did not create the light by the day and the
    smaller light by night until the second day.
    
    
    PDM
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

Gee guys, If you had the power to create a star out of nothing, would you also 
have the power to create the light that reaches out from that star to beyond
the boundries of thought at the same time. I don't know, but it still seems
pretty basic to be. 

Oh and I totaly agree with your last Steve.
  
>   [Not that *any* of this has a single thing to do with your or my
>   salvation.  It is a fun discussion, though.]  8^)
    
>   -steve


Dave

 pulled from .45

	 My God does not follow the rules,

God above all follows the rules he set in the beginning. However for all our 
education we may have a very limited understanding of thoes laws. Cursing the 
fig tree and causing it to wither, raising the dead, healing the sick, giving
sight to the blind, and creating the universe all only break the laws of the
universe as we understand it. But I hold that the wisdom of man is foolishness
to God and therefor we are wrong and the Bible is right.

Dave 

    Okay, I thought I did so earlier, but just to reiterate:
    
    1) My thoughts on creation are just that...*my* thoughts.  I try to
    take scientific evidence at hand when I can, but this does not mean I
    trust science over God's word (God created the laws of physics, He is
    not bound by them....also, scientists are fallable, God isn't).
    
    2) My speculation is based on science and the Bible.  Science can be
    wrong about things...the Bible isn't.  So, if it comes down to the
    latest discovery that *obviously* goes against the Bible, guess which
    one I believe (yup, the Bible).  Why, because I have faith in God's
    word....much more faith than I do in science.
    
    3) I am just *speculating*.  My purpose is to discuss ideas with folks
    about creation.  The one think *not* in question is that God *did*
    create everything.  Doesn't matter to me if it was 16 billion years ago
    or 16,000 years ago, to be perfectly honest.  None of this has a whit
    to do with my salvation.
    
    4) My speculation is not meant to doubt God's word, nor encourage
    doubt.  I don't have any *proof* backing up any of my speculation.  I'm
    not saying that God *didn't* create the world in 6 24-hour periods of
    time.  I don't doubt He could have created it is 6 milliseconds if that
    was His will.  No limits being placed on God by me.
    
    5) The word used for 'day' in Hebrew could actually mean a litteral
    day.  I merely open up the possibility that modern science does *not*
    have to be disregarded altogether.  Science is just an observer of
    God's rules.  I merely speculate that God did not change the rules, and
    that the creation account in Genesis does not have to be interpreted as
    6 24-hour time periods.  
    
    There.  My disclaimer in detail for all to see.  I'm sorry if I cause
    any doubt with my blatherings...twas not my intent.
    
    I submit that either stance in this debate can be taken without
    liberally interpreting the Bible, and without threat of loosing
    salvation.   Fair enough?
    
    -steve

    !       <<< Note 239.47 by CIM1::FLOYD ""On my way to Heaven"" >>>
    !  -< In my opiinion-------Ding Ding Ding Oh sorry, PDM Wrong Answer >-

 ! pulled from .45

 !	 My God does not follow the rules,
    
! God above all follows the rules he set in the beginning. However for all our 
    But He does not HAVE to follow the rules. The "rules" are NOT HIS God.
    He created the Rules, and therefore does not have to follow them. He
    very well may enforce the rules by following the principles they
    establish, but as far as being confinded by them, eeehhhttt Wrong
    Answer.
    
    Dave, I am not in disagreement with you. However, I am not limiting God
    to the wisdom of man.
    
     -PDM
    

    !      <<< Note 239.48 by CSOA1::LEECH "Wild-eyed southern boy" >>>
    !       -< disclaimer (use these in another conf. all the time) >-
    
    ! I submit that either stance in this debate can be taken without
    ! liberally interpreting the Bible, and without threat of loosing
    ! salvation.   Fair enough?
    	Well. No, but I will respect your thought.
    
        Funny, Steve, you put science before the Bible. That gives me the
    	inpression that first you will listen to man, and if that is
        contrary to your current understanding in the Bible, then and only
        then do you question it.  You are correct 100% on one thing though.
        Whether you believe the world is young or old, has little bearing
        on your salvation.
    
     - It just says something about your relationship with God.
    
       Peace be with you!
         PDM

Have you considered?

	I have removed from you your sins and cast them as far as the East is 
from the West ..here it comes.. never to be remembered. Does this mean God can 
forget or that he chooses to be bound by his word and therefor will not remember.


Dave

    ....just dipping into this conversation briefly to say that I really
    appreciate this conversation and the mutual respect shown to one
    another.
    
    Of course, I wanted to add a brief comment. *&^)  I'm sure you already
    know this but it seems to be worth repeating...
    
    Always remember that the Bible was never written to be a scientific
    book.  Always, consider the Bible God's revelation of Himself and who
    we are in Him to be primary.
    
    So, in other words, I hope no one is expecting the Bible to prove his
    or her theory.
    
    Carry on, all.
    
    -greta

    !       <<< Note 239.51 by CIM1::FLOYD ""On my way to Heaven"" >>>
    !                     -< Nice ACE PDM but........ >-

    ! Have you considered?

    !	I have removed from you your sins and cast them as far as the East is 
    ! from the West ..here it comes.. never to be remembered. Does this mean God can 
    ! forget or that he chooses to be bound by his word and therefor will not remember.
    
    	Entrapment is sooo un becoming. 8^)
    
    	Job chapter 38 speaks to your question. As does, Isaiah 55:8-9
    which I will enter:
    
    Isaiah 55:
    	8. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
    	      neither are your ways my ways,"
    				declares the Lord.
    	9.  "as the heavens are higher than the earth,
    	     so are my ways higher than your ways and
    	      my thoughts than your thoughts.
    
             PDM

re.51 

  !       <<< Note 239.51 by CIM1::FLOYD ""On my way to Heaven"" >>>
    !                     -< Nice ACE PDM but........ >-

	You called??  8*)

	Since I'm here...

	It might be enlightening to this topic to answer the questions..

	When did God create Lucifer, and the angels in relation to Gen 1 & 2?

	When did Lucifer rebel in relation to Genesis 1 & 2?

	And where did the demons come from?

	Of course, these may seem unrelated to most, but perhaps they serve
as clues whereby we can draw some controversial inferences from. 8*) 8*)

regards,
ace

Genesis is certainly a most extraordinary book by any standards.

It virtually declares the speed of light to be a constant and the
discarding of the laws of conservation of energy and matter by the
proof of "Einstein's theories" should be a warning bell for anyone
who would question the authorship of the Bible.  The statement
"Let there be light." where the following verses make it abundantly
clear that that was light as an entity and concept (all light sources
known until very recently were distinctly made later, as was _everything_
else) is truly on a par with any other miracle.

Any unusual wording or event in the Bible is a wake-up call IMHO.  
This is confirmed when all translations are in agreement (there are
some interesting oddities which are not in all).  When we first read
the Bible, we have already learned that a "day" is 24 hours.  We then
learn about creation.  We make a human-natural assumption that our
reference is proper.  It is clearly not, both from a simple logic
standpoint - creation obviously came first in the universe, second to
our experience - and from the wording in Genesis - it _pointedly_ assumes
that a "day" requires definition.

What the Bible tells us for sure in following verses and books, is that
we are to treat the 24-hour period as an equivalent without a lot of
definition other than the Sabbath rules (it seems to me that it is an
impossibility for us to actually grasp what "working" and "resting" would
mean when applied to God).  Therefore, we came to call the 24 hour period
of rotation (notice the references to the sun) as a "day" - or language
equivalent.

More important than any of this is the total question of apparent conflict
in things we think we do understand, or the total mystery in some things.
Once one realizes that there is more than enough clarity and other evidence
to show the Bible's origin, we realize that all such incidents only serve to
point out our ignorance, inability, or limitation.  We are not arbitors of
anything, we can decide no absolute truth, and our resources of understanding
are severly limited.  Like Satan, we humans frequently see ourselves as
having some part in this.  We do not.  What we decide here, "discover" in
science, or anything else is nothing to the universe.

More later or in the topic on the messianic prophecy.

Lew

    re: .50
    
    You mean after reading my entire disclaimer, you still think that I put
    science before the Bible?   I guess we'll have to agree that we
    disagree on this one.
    
    When sharing with others (non-Christians), one thing inevitably comes
    up in the conversation, and that is the question of science refuting
    the Bible's litteral interpretation.  I try to show them that
    scientific evidence (which can be mistaken at times), does not
    *necessarily* refute the Bible's account of creation.  People have a
    real problem with many churches stances on creation*ism*, as it
    seemingly goes against all scientific evidence.  They use this as a way
    to disregard the Bible as not from God (why would God leave all this
    evidence of an old earth, but say in the Bible it is much younger).
    
    Since neither stance can be proven, it is up to us to keep an open mind
    on the subject.  Stubbornly upholding man's interpretation of creation
    will get us no where with the world.  Since believing this litteral
    interpretation is not a prerequisite to salvation, why not get by this
    obsticle by being open to different interpretations that go along with
    scientific evidence?  People are much more likely to listen to you
    (thus possibly be open to accepting Jesus, which is far more important
    than arguing over how old the earth is).
    
    -steve

 Re .56


 Moderator fooling around trying to correct title of note managed
 to mess up the title you had placed on your note..sorry :-}

    A likely story!  8^))

          <<< Note 239.56 by CSOA1::LEECH "Wild-eyed southern boy" >>>
    
    !    You mean after reading my entire disclaimer, you still think that I put
    ! science before the Bible?   I guess we'll have to agree that we
    ! disagree on this one.
    
    	Steve, I only have to read what you write.  As far as salvation, I
    partially agree with your statement. 8^)
    
    
    
        Steve,

        You don't get it do you? You are correct in saying that the age
        of the Earth does not matter to personal salvation. What you
        miss completely is that by giving credence to the science of
        man, where "MAN can discern or learn the mind of God", puts man
        first. - which is what is actually being put forward in some
        scientific circles, - Oh, man has calculated the speed of light
        and, Man has unravelled DNA and Man has accomplished this or
        that. - Steve, science has done nothing to unravell the POWER of
        God.  To say then,

    ! obsticle by being open to different interpretations that go along with
    ! scientific evidence?  People are much more likely to listen to you

        New Age philosophy does the same. Man makes the truth of God
        sound fathomable. - Clearly it is NOT. Why do I argue against
        your interpretaion? Becuase it takes from God the truth that He
        in his inifinite love has poured forth.  I argue against your
        orientation, you continue to put SCIENCE FIRST, it is NOT; God
        is first. To say:
         ! different interpretations that go along with scientific evidence?

        Is NOT the same and saying, " different scientific evidence that
        goes along with the truth of the Bible."  Steve, do you see the
        difference?! It puts God FIRST, not Science.  (Steve, I am not
        arguing against your salvation, I hope you understand that, I am
        merely trying to point out your presentation does not give
        immediate omnipotence to God, but rather to mans' ability to
        DISCERN God.)  (Look, I am not seriously confronting you on your
        belief -> 8^) <-- see smiley face, no contention)
          Please look at your presentation is all I am saying. 

        Steve, I love reading and learning scientific stuff! I look at
        it and say,"Wow, God is sooo good! He has allowed man to see His
        beauty or order." I do not say, "Yea, I agree with that, I think
        that must be how God did,...such and such."

        As for meeting people where they are...I am ALL for that! But I
        will not compromise the Truth of God to do that. I will not
        interpret the Word of God. I earnestly think that the Bible
        interprets itself. I leave it to God and the Holy Spirit to
        allow me the words to show God's plan for us. I do not try to white
        wash the truth so as to convince or make it appealing.
        That is a compromise.

        Steve, it comes down to two things:
        	1. personal relationship
        	2. Free choice.

        Let's look at the first one.
        	1. personal relationship - It is how I give to God and
        how God gives to me. Clearly God has given me all that I am and
        can be. It is up to me to use that which God has given me. What
        does this mean to me in this context? - Trust
        	Where does trust come from? It comes from the fact that
                I put God in control. I give to God all that I am. It
                would be the same trust a child has when he leaps from
                a table top and expects to be caught amid air by his
                dady. It is the trust that allows me to say, I do not
                have all the answers, but God does. 

        	2. Free choice - God has repeatedly said "for those that
        have ears let them hear.", "for those that have eyes let them
        see." What does this mean in our context? It says for those that
        want to see the wisdom of man and how they can discern all
        things, - they will see and hear it.
        For those that want to see God and his infinite grace, mercy and
        peace, - will look around the world and see and hear it. - It is
        just that simple.
         A problem arises when people try to take a little of each and
         apply it to the Word of God. What they fail to see is that they
         DO NOT SEE and what they fail to understand it that they DO
        not hear the Word. - BUT They think they do.

          There is no lie greater than the one that walks closet to the
        truth!  That is what you would accomplish by telling people it
        is ok to believe that the World was not created in 6 days!
        Satan, would be the strenth of your tongue, not the Spirit of
        God.

        Why do you suppose the word "jesus", or "Christ" is a curse? -
        What is the best way (SATAN) can discredit God? - Make people
        use His name as a curse, so when you say, do you Know of Jesus,
        people immediately think of the slang and blashemous term, NOT
        the Saviour Redeemer.

        Steve, what all this verbosity is sooooo pooooorrrrly saying is
        just think about the orientation and presentation of the
        applications that man has become accustom with, especially
        science and theory. Always try to put God first.

         In His (eternal) peace which passes all understanding,
            PDM

re .42

Garth,

It was not my intention to get into a debate about this , but just to
offer a comment. I'll briefly answer your question posed in .41 in 
my next reply. Then leave this topic alone. 

But first..

;Demonstrate to us that the speed of light was 2.998E+8 meters/second at the
;time God created the stars, and has never changed since then. 

;I'll be eagerly awaiting your responses.

You know, like Job, that I was not around when God created things. Also
my memory of Physics is a bit vague on whether the speed of light is constant
in a vacuum. So I can't answer this question and don't wish to attempt to.

Phil. 

re .41

Garth,

Regarding, Exodus 20:8-11, in the translation you quoted it mentioned 
"but he rested on the seventh day". Let's look at God's day of rest, 
unlike the other days there is no mention of "evening and morning" or 
"it is good". In an earlier reply I mentioned that God's day of rest 
continued into the Apostles day (Hewbrews 4). So the seventh day mentioned 
in Genesis was not a 24 hour period like that of the Sabbath day that the 
Israelites had to observe. What the Israelites observed, work 6 days and
rest on the seventh day, was a miniature representation of the creation 
account.

The 6 working days, had to be something that the Israelites would understand
and would fit with their own situation. Man resides in the solar system, 
hence his life is effected by the orbits of the bodies within that system.
Such as 24 hour days that include "evening and morning". Not so with
Almighty God he resides in the heavenly realm (not to be confused with
physical heavenly bodies), and the Psalmist recorded in Psalms 90:4 RSV
"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night.", man's 24 hour day is atleast a thousand years
in comparison to a day to Almighty God. As backed by 2 Peter 3:8 RSV which
reads "But do not ignore this one fact, beloved that with the Lord one day 
is a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." If we look at the
creation from God's viewpoint and not man's situation then these days
could be long periods of time, in that a day to God is atleast a thousand 
years to man. And as Peter mentioned, one should not ignore this fact.

But, you mentioned: 

;Again, keep in mind that the Genesis account numbers the days (1st, 2nd, etc.)
;and associates them with "evening and morning".  It is true that "day" can be
;taken figuratively in any language, whether Hebrew or English.  But in the 
;context of the Genesis account, it is not figurative.

As you say "day" could be taken figuratively, but could not also "evening and 
morning"?. It could signify that this phase of the creation work was 
started and completed during this "day" or this time period. Just as a man 
begins his work in the morning and completes it as the evening draws in.

Btw, I'm not looking to win an arguement just offer an alternative viewpoint
based on how the Bible identifies God in comparison to man with the respect
of time.

Phil.
	

Re: .60  (Phil)

My challenge:

.42>Let's settle this starlight issue right here and now.  You say that the
.42>universe is old because the light from stars took that long to get here.
.42>
.42>Demonstrate to us that the speed of light was 2.998E+8 meters/second at
.42>the time God created the stars, and has never changed since then. 
.42>
.42>I'll be eagerly awaiting your responses.

Your response:

.60>You know, like Job, that I was not around when God created things. Also
.60>my memory of Physics is a bit vague on whether the speed of light is 
.60>constant in a vacuum.  So I can't answer this question and don't wish to
.60>attempt to. 

But you originally said this:

.29>	Now seeing that it takes 2,000,000 years for light to travel from
.29>	the Andromeda nebula and to reach earth, one can conclude the 6
.29>	creation days were not literally 24 hour days.

Do you wish to retract this statement that you made in reply .29?

Re: .61  (Phil)

>"it is good". In an earlier reply I mentioned that God's day of rest 
>continued into the Apostles day (Hewbrews 4). So the seventh day mentioned 
>in Genesis was not a 24 hour period like that of the Sabbath day that the 

God rested on the 7th day after creating the heavens and the earth in 6 days.
The fact that he continued to rest in the days and millenia to follow is
irrelevant.

>physical heavenly bodies), and the Psalmist recorded in Psalms 90:4 RSV
>"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past,
>or as a watch in the night.", man's 24 hour day is atleast a thousand years
>in comparison to a day to Almighty God. As backed by 2 Peter 3:8 RSV which
>reads "But do not ignore this one fact, beloved that with the Lord one day 
>is a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." If we look at the
>creation from God's viewpoint and not man's situation then these days
>could be long periods of time, in that a day to God is atleast a thousand 
>years to man. And as Peter mentioned, one should not ignore this fact.

...and also that a thousand years to God is like a day to man (2 Peter 3:8). 
I'm not interested in how long time seems to pass to God, compared with us.
If the 6 days seemed like an eternity or seemed like a second, what does it
matter?  God told us the creation took 6 days.  When I say "the creation took 6
days", you know what I mean, and don't suggest that I am speaking figuratively.
Why don't you know what God means when he says "6 days"?  Is God less capable
of getting the point across in the bible than I am in notes? 

>As you say "day" could be taken figuratively, but could not also "evening and 
>morning"?. 

"Evening" and "morning" are never taken figuratively in the Bible.

Re: .20  (Steve)

.20>    Cabon dating by many differnt scientific groups confirm a 4+ Billion
.20>    year old Earth give or take a few million years.  The Bible does not

.23>False.  You do not understand Carbon dating.  It is accepted fact by all
.23>scientists, including evolutionists, that Carbon dating cannot produce 
.23>accurate results beyond some N0,000 years, and is only good for dating the
.23>organic remains of animals that have died. 

What are you going to do about your claim that Carbon dating has dated
the earth at "4+ billion years, give or take a few million years"?

.20>    dispute this, IMO.  Much evidence exists that the universe is approx.
.20>    16 billion years old, too.  

.23>I know of no scientific evidence that the universe is 16 billion years old.
.23>Please provide some evidence, right here and now.

You still haven't provided any evidence that the earth is 16 billion years old.
Are you going to?

    Okay, as promised, here is some scientific data with regards to the age
    of the universe. 
    
    1) globular cluster fitting dates the universe at 17.0 +/- 2.4 billion
    years. 
    
    2) nucleochronology dating technique .... 17.0 +/- 4 billion years.
    
    3) Hubble time (the law of red-shifts)... 14.5 +/- 5 billion years.
    
    
    I've left out the details of how these techniques work for reasons of
    time (I don't have time to enter *that* much information in here
    today).  It would make for a very long note.  However, if you like, I
    expand a bit on them later- maybe looking at one technique at a time.
    
    Sources: There are 85 different sources for this chapter (CH 9, The
    Fingerprint of God, by Hugh Ross- where I extracted the above
    information).  I'm sure that they all don't apply to the above, but
    sorting them out may take some time.  I would recommend this book, as
    it looks at science and Biblical information.  It refutes a lot of
    current (and older) scientific theories of the creation of the
    universe, and shows sound scientific evidence pointing to a created
    universe by a grand designer (God).  It also spends a lot of pages on
    Biblical creation account.
    
    -steve

    Steve,
    
    I for one would enjoy hearing a brief description of the techniques you
    mentioned. I could probably guess at one or two, but if you have a few
    minutes I'd like to hear more. Thanks.
    
    	BD�

RE: 239.42 by KALI::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"

There is a discussion on this issue in Pear::soapbox.


Phil 

>    3) Hubble time (the law of red-shifts)... 14.5 +/- 5 billion years.
    
    The problem with this is that astronomers can't agree on a time for the
    Hubble constant.  It ranges from 50-150 Mpc/sec.
    
    Mike

    Thanks for the pointer, Phil, but I just popped over there and didn't
    see much of a discussion. Regardless, since I don't follow SOAPBOX I
    hope that at least a brief description of the three techniques will be
    forthcoming here.
    
    	BD�
    
    P.S. I am tempted to add SOAPBOX to my notebook (as if I don't have
    enough entries already). I have often wondered how astronomers calculate
    the distances to stars.

    ! enough entries already). I have often wondered how astronomers calculate
    ! the distances to stars.
    	 They read SCI-FI novels. :)

>    enough entries already). I have often wondered how astronomers calculate
>    the distances to stars.
    
    Using the Doppler shift, they calculate the velocity at which distant
    galaxies are traveling outbound.  Then using their favorite value of
    the Hubble constant, they calculate the age of the universe based on
    that speed.  The intention is to see how far the distant galaxy has
    traveled from point 0 (Big Bang) to where it currently is, at it's
    current speed, to estimate the age of the universe.
    
    There is also a relationship between magnitude (luminosity) and
    distance that is often used in the equation.  If you want the formulas,
    let me know, I'll bring in my AST1xx books from last semester.
    
    Mike

RE .62

Garth,

You want me to retract my statement in .29 based on your challenge and my
not wanting to answer?.

If so, then the answer is no. I feel that your challenge is foolish 
questioning, so I will shun it as per Paul's admonition to Timothy in 
2 Tim 2:23.

I do not need to question all the observations made by man. Why should I 
doubt if text books say that a star is n light years away, when such 
observations are based on laws put forward by the Grand Designer himself. 
For example, I don't question that a literal day is 24 hours in length and 
yet this measurement of duration of time is based on man made observations. 
Looking at these observations one can assume that literal days have always 
been 24 hours in duration (or there abouts) and similarly one can make an 
assumption about the behaviour of the speed of light over long distances 
(that it is constant in space).

These man made observations highlight the invisible qualities of Almighty God,
as per Romans 1:20. They tell us that The Creator indeed is a Grand Designer 
as well as being a God of order rather than confusion (1 Cor 14:33). Being a 
God of order, I have no reason to doubt man's observation of how long light 
takes to travel from a star to the earth. At the end of the day, man is only 
measuring the standard put forth by the Creator himself.

Phil.

re .63

	Garth,

	Just to clarify....

;Why don't you know what God means when he says "6 days"?   

	Sorry that I have made this impression it was not my intention.
	I do know what God means when he says "6 days" but my interpretation 
	is different to yours. 

;Is God less capable
;of getting the point across in the bible than I am in notes?

	As you are no doubt aware, one cannot just read the pages of the Bible 
	and fully get the point of it. One needs to ask for the aid of God's 
	holy spirit. When you write, I look at it from man's point of view. 
	When God tells about his wonderful works, then should not one try to 
	look at it from his viewpoint?. God's situation is different to man's 
	and begs the question, "How meaningful is a 24 hour day of work ( a day
	is defined in one dictionary as "the time of one revolution of the 
	earth") to a person who resides in the heavenly realm?". To God, a day 
	in comparison to a man's day is a long period of time. The term
	"evening and morning" is indicating that the start and finish of work
	done in a certain creation phase had taken place. Hence "day" should 
	be seen in relation to who did the creative works.

	Similarly, when Paul wrote that "God is love", one does not interpret 
	this from man's viewpoint of what love is for to do so would mean
	getting the wrong meaning as implied by Paul.

	Phil.

 

    Okay, I'll enter a note with regards to how the dating systems I
    entered are used (though the very basics of the law of red shifts and
    the Hubble constant have been covered in a previous note).  I'll do my
    best to keep it simple and brief.
    
    I'll enter it when time permits.
    
    -steve

Re: .72  (Phil)

>RE .62
>
>Garth,
>
>You want me to retract my statement in .29 based on your challenge and my
>not wanting to answer?.
>
>If so, then the answer is no. I feel that your challenge is foolish 
>questioning, so I will shun it as per Paul's admonition to Timothy in 
>2 Tim 2:23.

If you consider it prudent to shun it, then why do you in the very next
paragraph continue to engage me in this argument, persisting in your attempt
to answer my challenge?

So then, let's examine what you proceed to say:

>I do not need to question all the observations made by man. Why should I 
>doubt if text books say that a star is n light years away, when such 
>observations are based on laws put forward by the Grand Designer himself. 
>For example, I don't question that a literal day is 24 hours in length and 
>yet this measurement of duration of time is based on man made observations. 
>Looking at these observations one can assume that literal days have always 
>been 24 hours in duration (or there abouts) and similarly one can make an 
>assumption about the behaviour of the speed of light over long distances 
>(that it is constant in space).
>
>These man made observations highlight the invisible qualities of Almighty God,
>as per Romans 1:20. They tell us that The Creator indeed is a Grand Designer 
>as well as being a God of order rather than confusion (1 Cor 14:33). Being a 
>God of order, I have no reason to doubt man's observation of how long light 
>takes to travel from a star to the earth. At the end of the day, man is only 
>measuring the standard put forth by the Creator himself.

Nobody is challenging how far away a particular star is, nor what the speed
of light is today.  To recap, my challenge was:

.42>Let's settle this starlight issue right here and now.  You say that the
.42>universe is old because the light from stars took that long to get here.
.42>
.42>Demonstrate to us that the speed of light was 2.998E+8 meters/second at
.42>the time God created the stars, and has never changed since then. 

Your response was:

.60>You know, like Job, that I was not around when God created things. Also
.60>my memory of Physics is a bit vague on whether the speed of light is 
.60>constant in a vacuum.  So I can't answer this question and don't wish to
.60>attempt to. 

But you originally said this:

.29>	Now seeing that it takes 2,000,000 years for light to travel from
.29>	the Andromeda nebula and to reach earth, one can conclude the 6
.29>	creation days were not literally 24 hour days.

Now you say that you will not retract this original statement, and attempt
to argue that the speed of light has *always* been constant, even though
you admit that you weren't around to measure it from the time of creation.
To support your argument, you say that this is a standard put forth by
the Creator, and that God is a God of order, not confusion.

Although there is indeed incredible order in the universe, there are a couple
of points to keep in mind.  First of all, since God made the laws of the
natural order, he has authority over them, and can change them any time he
wants.  Miracles are evidence that he can and does.  If you insist on the
uniform and unchanging application of these laws, then you must also discount
all the miracles documented in the bible.  Perhaps the greatest miracle was the
creation of the heavens and the earth *from nothing*, violating perhaps every
known law that we know.  If God performing miracles does not make him a God of
confusion, then God not holding the speed of light constant through all time
and space does not make him a God of confusion.  Indeed, God could have merely
spoken the word, and the light from the stars would obey and arrive instantly
at the time of the creation of the stars.

Secondly, the speed of light may well be governed by a well-defined function
that only appears to be a constant because we have only recently been able to
measure it with accuracy and have done so under limited conditions and
criteria.  If the speed of light is governed by a more complex function than we
now assume, then no miracle may even be needed to explain it.  Scientific
investigation is a constant learning and refining process, where we attempt
to characterize the natural order, not dictate it.

Re:  .73  (Phil)  

>;Is God less capable
>;of getting the point across in the bible than I am in notes?
>
>	As you are no doubt aware, one cannot just read the pages of the Bible 
>	and fully get the point of it. One needs to ask for the aid of God's 
>	holy spirit. 

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned, but "6 days" is hardly a spiritual
thing.  What is spiritual about something taking "6 days"?

>                      When you write, I look at it from man's point of view. 
>	When God tells about his wonderful works, then should not one try to 
>	look at it from his viewpoint?. God's situation is different to man's 
>	and begs the question, "How meaningful is a 24 hour day of work ( a day
>	is defined in one dictionary as "the time of one revolution of the 
>	earth") to a person who resides in the heavenly realm?". To God, a day 
>	in comparison to a man's day is a long period of time. The term
>	"evening and morning" is indicating that the start and finish of work
>	done in a certain creation phase had taken place. Hence "day" should 
>	be seen in relation to who did the creative works.

In Exodus 20:8-11, God relates the 6 days of creation to the Israelites' 6 days
of work, so that we know that they are one and the same chronological measure. 
From God's point of view then, the time it took to create the heavens and the
earth was 6 days as man understands "6 days".  As it is written, 

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.  Six days you shall labor and do
all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.  On it
you shall not do any work... 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 20:8-11)

	Garth,

	Thank you for your tactfull replies, in .75 & .76. 

;If you consider it prudent to shun it, then why do you in the very next
;paragraph continue to engage me in this argument, persisting in your attempt
;to answer my challenge?

	This is a human frailty that I need to discard -).

	I think on the whole this has been a good discussion and would like
	to thank all for the spirit in which it was conducted. As I said
	earlier the important thing is found in Revelation 4:11, that one
	recognises that God is worthy of all worship, glory, praise, honour 
	& power for He created all things and because of His will they exist
	and were created.

	Phil.

    Garth,
       Your presentation is good, but unless the person(s) who hear
    understand that God is Sovereign Almighty and is above and before
    any human understanding or (scientific) law or rule, your argument
    falls upon deaf ears. The strongest and most effective thing you stated
    was the fact that if God defined the laws of physics, then only worked
    within them, there would 'be' no miracles. If the person(s) listening
    truly understood the implications of that one thought, there would be
    no doubt that God would become the omnipotent being they think they
    profess.
    
    -Ah, but the calvanists in us want to be comfortable in the plausible
    and are not willing to accept the divinity of the impossible.
    
    In Christ's Love,
        PDM

    
    You'll notice that I haven't read all the notes in this topic.  
    
    It should be clear that the context of the Hebrew idea of a day is
    present in the Genesis text.  In 1:5 it says "And there was evening and
    there was morning, one day."  To the Hebrews a day was from one sunset
    to the next sunset.  Since the "day"s in the Genesis account are
    further in the context of a week, there is no reason to doubt that it
    is a 24-hour period.
    
    jeff

	I have not read all the replies to this topic.  I recently saw a
	series of sermons conducted by Kent Hovind, a science teacher at
	Pensacola Christian College.  In the series, he was able to
	challenge the fundamentals of the evolutionists and the "billions-
	and-billions" croud.

	Consider the following.

	NASA expected to find the dust on the moon to be 1 mile thick,
	corresponding to it's 2.5 billion year age.  They found one-eighth
	if an inch, which is what they'd expect in about 6000 years.

	If the Mississipi delta were as old as they say it is, its silt
	would've filled the gulf of Mexico several times over, by now.

	If mountains were as old as they say, they would've been eroded to
	smooth bumps.

        The sun is shrinking.  If the size of the sun were calculated using
        the current shrinkage as a constant, then 20 million years ago, it
        would've been large enough to heat the earth to a cinder and its
	mass would've been sufficient to pull the earth into it.

	The big bang theory posits that the entire cosmos was compacted
	into something the size of a period "." .  This period-sized
	proto-cosmos began to spin (where did the energy for THAT come
	from?), and then it flew apart.  The law of the conservation of
	angular momentum states that all its parts should be rotating in
	the same direction as the original disk.  They are not.  Even the
	sun and all the planets are not rotating in the same direction.

	Get Kent Hovind's series.  It's real good.

	Tony
		

    Anyone have Chuck Misler's address?  I thought Sandy did but she has
    been MIA for a while.
    
    Mike

 How does one obtain Mr Hovind's sermons?







 Jim

        
RE:      <<< Note 239.82 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>

>> How does one obtain Mr Hovind's sermons?

        I will post the phone number tomorrow. There are 5 video tapes in
        the series at $9.95 each.  I've seen three of them so far.  He also
        has a host of audio tapes and literature on this and related
	topics.

        He was able to turn around the dynosaur discussion to disprove
        evolutionary theory.  Dynosaurs have been used by the evolutionists
        and the NEA Deweyites to browbeat fundamentalist Christians for
        many years.  He shows where this browbeating led to the doubts
        which fostered compromises in newer translations of Genesis and Job
        in some of the newer versions of the bible, and in the reference
        columns of the newer renditions of older translations.

        He included the discovery of the side-by-side man-dynosaur
        footprints found in the Texas riverbed, very unpopular amoung
        evolutionists.  Incidentally, the man's footprints were size 24 and
        had a 6 foot stride, indicating that he was over 10 feet tall!

	It was tremendous.  

        My original note stating that he teaches at Pensacola Christian
        College was in error.  He teaches at Pensacola Christian High
        School.  The schools are affiliated with eachother and with
        Abekka Books (Christian education curricula).

	Tony
	

Fascinating.  Is this available in the undeveloped parts of the unviverse?
Like the UK?

Trouble is that U.S. videos are diferent from UK ones.  We can't read yours
on domestic machinery (not that I have one, but even if I had, I couldn't).

Still, perhaps I won't get through that host of audio tape and literature 
before the event we're all waiting for...

							Andrew

	Dr. Kent Hovind's phone number: 904-479-8987

	I've already called.  There's an answering machine upon which you
	can leave your mail address to which he will send his catalog and
	literature.  If you also leave your phone number with a request for
	a return call, he will call you back.  He may be a little busy
	after this note is posted ;-).

	Tony
	

        I just got Dr. Hovind's ordering list.  He's got a lot of stuff.
        There is also a series of un-edited debates he's had with
        evolutionists. At the bottom of his introductory letter is an offer
        I heard him make in the videos that I saw, quote,

	"I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone who can offer any
	empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution."

	His address follows:

		Dr. Kent Hovind
		29 Cummings Road
		Pensacola, FL 32503

	Tony
	

Re: .65  (Steve Leech)

>    1) globular cluster fitting dates the universe at 17.0 +/- 2.4 billion
>    years. 
>    
>    2) nucleochronology dating technique .... 17.0 +/- 4 billion years.
>    
>    3) Hubble time (the law of red-shifts)... 14.5 +/- 5 billion years.
    
Have you made any progress on your explanation of these metrics?  

Re: .80  (Kent)

Over the past year, I've rejected the "moon-dust" and "shrinking sun" metrics,
based on new or inconsistent measurement data for the influx of meteoric dust
and conflicting measurements of solar diameter.  I can quote leading
creationist literature on this.

Sadly, creationism suffers from the same problems of dissemination control
that evolution does.  Once a theory is popularized, its hard to squash, even
after it is brought into disrepute, whether it be creation's moon-dust or
evolution's embryonic recapitulation.

Also, leading creationists are split on the Paluxy River tracks.  I have 
personally talked to someone who was there and videotaped them and thinks
they are valid, but have also read more skeptical reviews.  At one point, I
realized that even if the tracks were demonstrated to be dinosaur + man, this
would be irrelevant to the issue of evolution, and would only show that a some
dinosaurs survived to historical times, which the evolutionists would promptly
label "living fossils".  For this reason, I don't bother with them any more.

While we're at it, I've seen the following explanation by evolutionists
already:  "If it turns out that there is an ark on Ararat, it is probably a
structure built by some people long ago at the alleged site of the Flood and
used there as a temple." 

Where there is a will, there is a way to explain something to your advantage.

What we need now is more responsible research, healthy skepticism, and less
hear-say all around.  Above all, we need to be honest enough and willing to
admit our weaknesses when refuted on any point, especially those in the
realm of science.  

>"If it turns out that there is an ark on Ararat, it is probably a
>structure built by some people long ago at the alleged site of the Flood and
>used there as a temple." 

    This reminded me of something.  Did anybody else see the two hour
    special that was on television either early this year or late last year
    about the ark?  We came upon it quite by accident while looking for
    something to watch.  Fortunately, the show was just starting so we
    didn't miss anything.  It was hosted by Darren McGavin (I think that's
    his name) and it provided many accounts of people who have seen the ark
    and in some cases been to and in it.  They had an 800 number at the end
    of the show to order a copy of the tape but I didn't write it down and
    now wish that I had done it.  Did anybody get a copy???

    Ron

RE:        <<< Note 239.88 by KALI::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" >>>
                        -< caution on metrics and etc. >-

	Hi, Garth.

        Can you provide us with pointers to more current and reputable
        creation research?  If we posit something the evolutionists can
        legitimately refute, rather than counter with faux pas on their
        side, like "embryonic recapitulation" or "Lucy", it would be better
        to be armed with the most recent and reputable apologetics for
        creationism.

	Perhaps we could start a note into which such entries may be
	posted.

	Saluti,
		Tony
	

Re: .90  (Tony)

I listed some periodicals and creation research organizations at the very
end of note 25.15.  That might be a good place to start.  

RE: <<< Note 239.91 by KALI::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" >>>

>>I listed some periodicals and creation research organizations at the very
>>end of note 25.15.  That might be a good place to start.  

	I was unaware of note 25.  Great stuff!!  Thanks, Garth.

	Tony
	

Re: .65  (Steve Leech)

>    1) globular cluster fitting dates the universe at 17.0 +/- 2.4 billion
>    years. 
>    
>    2) nucleochronology dating technique .... 17.0 +/- 4 billion years.
>    
>    3) Hubble time (the law of red-shifts)... 14.5 +/- 5 billion years.
    
Are you planning on ever defending these metrics?

    Do you really want me to?  If so, I will endeaver to do so.  I've been
    pretty busy lately, so my reference seeking has been slowed to a crawl.
    
    I know I won't get to it today, so remind me next week.  
    
    -steve (and thank you for being patient...I nearly forgot about this 
    topic)  8^)

Re: .94  (Steve)

>    I know I won't get to it today, so remind me next week.  
    
Hello.  You asked me to remind you.

    Heard a speaker last night who suggested dinosaurs existed.  Here is
    his argument in reverse order;
    
    1)  Job 40:17,19 suggests them as having a tail built like a cedar tree
    (NIV text note suggests an elephant), suggesting the Brontosaurus
    specifically existed around the time of Job (he suggested 1300BC),
    
    2)  Leviticus 11:29-30 declares them unclean (as a great lizard that is
    separated in the text from a monitor lizard which is currently the
    largest known lizard), 
    
    3)  Genesis 7:1-4 indicates that only two of them were taken into the
    ark rather than seven, implying that God was stacking the survival odds
    against them.  Animal husbandry; you need more than two genetic
    patterns to reliably propagate a species.
    
    Interesting.
    
    I don't believe or disbelieve this theory - it's not useful to me
    either way.  Just thought I'd repeat it for you all.
    
    James

re -.1

>    3)  Genesis 7:1-4 indicates that only two of them were taken into the
>    ark rather than seven, implying that God was stacking the survival odds
>    against them.  Animal husbandry; you need more than two genetic
>    patterns to reliably propagate a species.


Isn't it strange that just the dinosaurs died off, and all the other types 
of creatures just managed to survive? It's amazing!!!

Steve O. :-)

Re: .96  (James)

>    3)  Genesis 7:1-4 indicates that only two of them were taken into the
>    ark rather than seven, implying that God was stacking the survival odds
>    against them.  

The fact that seven of each clean animal was taken into the ark does not
imply that "God was stacking the survival odds against" the dinosaurs on
the ark.  It should be noted that some of the clean animals were offered
as sacrifices immediately after the flood was over -- Genesis 8:20.

>Animal husbandry; you need more than two genetic
>    patterns to reliably propagate a species.
    
This has to be false.  How did the human race get going from Adam and Eve,
anyway?

If each of the mating pair is heterozygous for every genetic trait, then you
can get the whole genetic slew of diverse offspring. 

The extinction of dinosaurs does not necesssarily have to be tied to the Flood.

    Re: Note 239.98 by KALI::WIEBE
    
>The fact that seven of each clean animal was taken into the ark does not
>imply that "God was stacking the survival odds against" the dinosaurs on
>the ark.  
    
    I agree.
    
>>Animal husbandry; 
>This has to be false.  How did the human race get going from Adam and Eve,
>anyway?
    
    Originally perfect gene maps?
    
>The extinction of dinosaurs does not necesssarily have to be tied to the Flood.
    
    True.
    
    He's got some holes in his argument for sure.
    
    James

 Jurassic Snarf

    -1 :-) :-) :-) 
    
    What do you call a dinosaur that eats nachos?
    
    
    Tyrannosaurus Mex 
    

    Was .100 an attempt at a snarf of gargantuan proportion?
    

    
>================================================================================
>Note 239.99       Jurassic Park and the Israeli way of life...         99 of 102
>AUSSIE::CAMERON "and God sent him FORTH (Gen 3:23)"  21 lines  29-NOV-1993 02:06
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>Animal husbandry; 
>>This has to be false.  How did the human race get going from Adam and Eve,
>>anyway?
>    
>    Originally perfect gene maps?
    

	This is interesting. It's my opinion (and I'm always right) that
rather than getting better, man is actually "running down" biologically 
speaking - and that modern science and nutrition is masking that fact - 
i.e., man lives longer and is healthier today not because he himself is 
getting better, but because modern science and nutrition is advancing at 
such an extreme rate. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if man today actually 
would live MUCH shorter, less physically/mentally healthy lives if subjected 
to the same food, circumstances, etc that man lived under a few thousand 
years ago, and without today's technology. Man is now carrying 
around so much junk in his genes from supposedly "harmless" genetic 
mutations (not to mention the effects of sin) that in reality he's becoming 
a mess. I bet a lot of the physical and mental illnesses around today didn't 
exist a few thousand years ago. No one would have been a Bulls fan then; 
it's probably a mutated gene, or effects of sin upon sin, that causes this 
response. Just a theory, of course.



>================================================================================
>Note 239.100      Jurassic Park and the Israeli way of life...        100 of 102
>CSLALL::HENDERSON "I'd rather have Jesus"             3 lines  29-NOV-1993 08:31
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Jurassic Snarf
>

	What a classic! This is one of those one where you look at it and
you want to say "boy that was great!" but actually you are  quite envious 
because you really wished you'd thought of it first.



	Anyway, while I highly enjoyed Jurassic Park, I thought it took
WAY too much liberty in stretching the limits of what is possible with 
modern technology, I mean, Spielberg expects us to believe that a complex, 
highly functional theme park can be completely run in a real-time fashion 
by a Unix system? How gullible does he think we all are?

    Re: running down...
    
    Agreed.  People who believe in evolution also say this; they say it's
    because the species is no longer being controlled by physical
    evolutionary forces... and we are trying to keep our blind and crippled
    alive against those forces... [this is the *right* thing to do!  ;-)]
    
    On the other hand, the social evolutionary forces are having
    "interesting" effects...  television for example.
    
    James

Re: .65  (Steve Leech)

(and .66, .74, .87, .93, .94)  

>    1) globular cluster fitting dates the universe at 17.0 +/- 2.4 billion
>    years. 
>    
>    2) nucleochronology dating technique .... 17.0 +/- 4 billion years.
>    
>    3) Hubble time (the law of red-shifts)... 14.5 +/- 5 billion years.
    
Are you planning on ever defending these metrics?

RE: 239.105 by KALI::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"

> Calling Steve Leech... 

You might find Steve in Soapbox,  where ideas can be debated freely.


Phil

> where ideas can be debated freely.

ha ha ha ha ha ha 

    Well to be perfectly honest, I loaned out that particular book to a
    freind who has yet to return it...though he told me he finished it.
    
    I'm not a cosmology major, so I think I'd better wait until I get
    it back to post the definition of these metrics (which was included in
    the book).
    
    Personally, I don't really think God goes into much detail on the
    intricacies of creation, as it would only garner extremely limited
    comprehension and would take up many volumes of text.  The time frame
    of creation is left pretty much open, as the term for "day" can be used
    for a "period of time".  The seven days set up important symbolism for
    getting certain ideas across and setting a time frames for us.  It
    certainly means more than the litteral words say.
    
    In any case, it doesn't really matter if you think the world is 5,000
    or 5,000,000,000 years old...what matters is whether or not you trust
    in God and accept His son into your life.  Though these other debates
    can prove interesting.  8^)
    
    -steve

Hi Steve,

The more I read the Bible, the more precise I find it to be.  The God Who
inspired its writing, shines through more and more, as perfect, complete
and loving. 

Meanwhile, I find that those so-called scientists who would align
themselves against the Bible change their ideas, falsify evidence to
support bankrupt theories, and erode in themselves everything worth living
for.  As well as putting themselves on a false footing by tending to
discount on principle anything in which they find a scent of Godliness. 

When I first read the Bible, I saw it only from the limited mindset of my 
culture, which meant I lost a lot of its significance.  As I read it more, 
I see how things add up in detail which would normally be overlooked.  This 
isn't just adding up the nuts and bolts of creation; it's seeing and 
hearing the God of creation.  Without the 'many volumes' of text...

� It certainly means more than the litteral words say.
But the picture is not only valid as a picture.  Its significance as a 
picture is underlined by the real truth from which it is formed.  Like the 
illustration of Hagar in Galatians 4...

�    In any case, it doesn't really matter if you think the world is 5,000
�    or 5,000,000,000 years old...what matters is whether or not you trust
�    in God and accept His son into your life.  

Precisely!  Which is why my delight in finding that I can trust God in the 
age of the earth acts as a confirmation and reinforcement to my knowledge 
that I can trust His Son as my Saviour....

The argument from less to greater is used in scripture too (Luke 16:10-12).

� Though these other debates can prove interesting.

Agreed, and it's not a salvation crisis debate, but I can't leave it 
discounted when I personally have found my God to be the so much greater 
when I take Him at His Word (Romans 14:16).

						love
							Andrew

    Hi Andrew,
    
    I thought maybe a clarification on my personal views is in order, with
    regards to the current discussion.
    
    Personally, I do not really care how old the earth is, or how much time
    God decided to take when He made it (the only fact that matters to me
    is that He *did* make it, all in accordance with His plan).  He could
    have made it in seven litteral days...no doubt in my mind whatsoever
    that He could do this, or even in 7 seconds.  Time is a concept He gave
    to us, as He is timeless and exists not only everywhere, but
    every*when* as well.  
    
    I argue certain positions not necessarity out of conviction, but out of
    different ways I have at looking at things.  I feel that not all of
    science is bankrupt of truth, even though much of it (evolution for
    one) is a load of bunk taught as fact to our children in schools (but
    that's another subject).
    
    My whole purpose in looking at an old view of Earth and the universe,
    is to show non-believers a *possibility* (as I never say these things
    as fact) which may help them to look at creation  (and perhaps the
    Bible) in a new, and more positive light.  My hope is to shake off some
    of the Darwinisms and popular science theories that dominate the
    mindset of America today, by showing another possibility that doesn't
    necessarily make them rethink their whole stance at one time.  Believe
    it or not, this train of thought helped me to look at the Bible in a
    new light (before I gave my life officially to Christ) while still
    trapped into mainstream anti-Bible theories that were taught to me as
    fact in school.  It is very hard to shake off teachings of a lifetime
    quickly (it took the Holy Spirit a bit of time to convict me of certain
    truths, that's for sure).
    
    How many movies, science shows, and other subtle (to the unelightened)
    reinforcements to Darwinisms do you see in day to day life?  I've been
    paying fairly close attention to such things, and I was very surprised
    as to how many times such things are presented as facts.  
    
    So, when the subject comes up in conversation (and it does in my group
    of friends), I gently throw out a few different possibilities that
    promote further thought, not just on science, but on the Bible.  I find
    that this type of discussion opens up new avenues where I can go into
    more detail on Biblical matters.  Direct confrontation of viewpoints,
    at least in my age group and amoung my friends, seems to promote
    defensiveness and a general mind closing of those in the discussion. 
    This is not beneficial to promote further talks.
    
    Well, at least this is how is usually works with me amoung my friends
    and family (who I keep trying to expose to God...8^) ), other
    approaches may be better for different groups of people.
    
    So, I'm not really defending (though I guess it looks that way in
    print) my views, just discussing them as one way of looking at
    creation.  I hold no definite stance on this one, other than God is the
    author of life and Creator of the universe.
    
    Peace in Him,
    
    -steve

Hi Steve!

Yes - we each have to represent where we stand, as the LORD's witnesses.  I 
find that so much of the media material is permeated with the preconception 
of an evolutionary brainwash that for me it undermines its basic integrity 
and the plausibility of the material as a whole. 

� I feel that not all of science is bankrupt of truth,
The 'scientific' principle is ok - examining what God has made (even where
they don't recognise that He made it!).  The trouble is where the
application is warped by man trying to prove his idea is true, rather
than find out the genuine truth.  If he wasn't so prejudiced against
looking in the Bible, he could find out so much more! 

�    I argue certain positions not necessarity out of conviction...

It can be useful to one's understanding to 'play devil's advocate', to 
argue an opposing stance (with reliable people!), in controlled situations. 
When I was a student, I roomed with an evangelical who was doing a 
post-graduate theology course at a liberal institution.  He would bounce 
the ideas offered off those of us around at the student house...  And also 
sit at the back of the lecture theatre, in case the lightning struck... ;-)

� Direct confrontation of viewpoints...

Agreed, not always helpful!  But the clearer you understand your own
position, the more you can see how to present what can be received without
compromise.  Not always easy!

						God bless
								Andrew

Re: .108  (Steve)

>    Well to be perfectly honest, I loaned out that particular book to a
>    freind who has yet to return it...though he told me he finished it.
>    I'm not a cosmology major, so I think I'd better wait until I get
>    it back to post the definition of these metrics (which was included in
>    the book).
    
I'll wait.  Can you get a commit from him for the return of the book, and
then propose a date in which you will respond?

You were confident enough to post these metrics as supported by "much evidence"
in this public forum.  I think that we have a right and responsibility to 
examine this "evidence".

Re: .108  (Steve)

>    The time frame
>    of creation is left pretty much open, as the term for "day" can be used
>    for a "period of time".  The seven days set up important symbolism for
>    getting certain ideas across and setting a time frames for us.  It
>    certainly means more than the litteral words say.
    
I covered this in .23, .41, .63, and .76.  To recap:

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.  Six days you shall labor and do
all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.  On it
you shall not do any work... 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 20:8-11)

God clearly relates the 6 days of creation to the Israelites' 6 days of work,
so that we know that they are one and the same chronological measure.  From
God's point of view then, the time it took to create the heavens and the earth
was 6 days as man understands "6 days". 

God told us the creation took 6 days.  When I say "the creation took 6 days",
you know what I mean, and don't suggest that I am speaking figuratively.  Why
would you suppose that God doesn't mean "6 days" when He clearly says that it
took "6 days"?  

Again, keep in mind that the Genesis account specifically numbers the days
(1st day, 2nd day, etc.) and associates them with "evening and morning", two
words that are never used figuratively in the bible.  It is true that
"day" can be taken figuratively in any language, whether Hebrew or English. 
But in the context of the Genesis account, it is not figurative.

Why do you not take these accounts at face value for what they say?  I think
it is because you are trying to reconcile the bible with your alleged "much
evidence" that the earth and universe are billions of years old.  If you were
to find out that there was in fact "no evidence", I think you would find no
further reason to stretch the bible.

Garth,

(this isn't my debate, but I wanted to respond to something you wrote...)

in Note 239.113 you say:

>God clearly relates the 6 days of creation to the Israelites' 6 days of work,
>so that we know that they are one and the same chronological measure.  

I think that's an assumption, not something we know for sure.

Is it not possible that G-d used a "picture", something that looks like 6 
24-hour periods to relate to an actual series of 6 24-hour periods as man 
understands 6 days?

Case in point; Yeshua is refered to as "the Lamb who takes away our sins".  
One can see how lamb's blood was used in the Levitical ordinances as a 
shadow of Yeshua's work - but this does not mean that Yeshua and a lamb are 
"one and the same" biologically.

>From
>God's point of view then, the time it took to create the heavens and the earth
>was 6 days as man understands "6 days". 

Perhaps.  However, since the sun was not created until the fourth "yom" 
(day/age/timeframe) of Creation, how can one be sure (in context) that days 
1-3 are 24 hour days?  If these days are shadows that can be related to 
actual 24-hour periods, so can the "evening and morning" of these days be 
shadows meant to point us towards something.

>Why
>would you suppose that God doesn't mean "6 days" when He clearly says that it
>took "6 days"?  

G-d clearly means 6 days (shesh yomim).  No one questions this.

Now - define "day/yom" correctly based on the context of the passage.  
I believe it's inconclusive.

Could it be 6 24-hour periods?  Absolutely!

Could it be 6 periods of time unknown to us scientifically, but actual 
periods of time that G-d calls "days" as shadows of our earth-bound days? 
Absolutely!

Could it be some combination of the two?  Absolutely!

Does the context of the chapter make it absolutely clear?  No.

>Again, keep in mind that the Genesis account specifically numbers the days
>(1st day, 2nd day, etc.) and associates them with "evening and morning", two
>words that are never used figuratively in the bible.  

I will have to do a search on this.  I can think of instances outside of 
the Bible where one might say "he is in the evening of his lifetime", or 
something similar, and it wouldn't be too hard to figure out the symbolic 
meaning of that phrase.  I don't remember off-hand whether such useage 
occurs in the Bible, but I will look.

>It is true that
>"day" can be taken figuratively in any language, whether Hebrew or English. 
>But in the context of the Genesis account, it is not figurative.

Contextually, how do you know for sure they are 24-hour periods, especially 
in light of the fact that the sun wasn't created until the fourth day?

>Why do you not take these accounts at face value for what they say?  I think
>it is because you are trying to reconcile the bible with your alleged "much
>evidence" that the earth and universe are billions of years old.  If you were
>to find out that there was in fact "no evidence", I think you would find no
>further reason to stretch the bible.

I think you're making him (Steve Leech?) out to appear differently than he 
intends.

I believe Steve has said that these 6 days may well have been days as we 
understand them today.  However, there is also plenty of room for 
interpreting the text *in context* to allow for the notion of different 
kinds of days being expressed in the Creation.

On the first day, He said "let there be light" and it was so.  Since the 
sun wasn't around until three days later, what kind of light is He talking 
about at face value?

"You shall not commit adultery."  Take that at face value, and you've got a 
bunch of people burning with lustful desires and fantasies, but thinking 
themselves "clean" since they never "did it".

"But I say to you....."

All I'm saying is that Scripture is *rich* and layers deep with treasures 
for mankind.  Whether G-d created all this in 6 24-hour periods or 6 
periods of unknown duration (perhaps even billions of eons), isn't it 
glorious either way?  I mean - think of it....the fact that the Creator 
fashioned the universe is itself awesome in the truest sense of the word.  

If He accomplished it in 6 24-hour periods - how fantastic!  What praise He 
is worthy to receive!  Imagine creating all this in one literal week!

If He decided to take billions of years to fashion the universe - how 
fantastic!  The Eternal is worthy of praise!  Imagine His eternalness!!!!

Either way, mankind *must* see that the Creator is worthy of praise, not only 
for *how* He did it, but also *because* He did it and for the reasons *why* 
He did it.

Steve

    Good note, Steve.  You covered my view on this quite well.
    
    The important thing to share when discussing this with friends  is the
    one absolute *fact* that we all can agree on...that God *did* create
    the universe and all life in it.  The litteral time frame isn't really
    that important, and trying to force one view and one view only of the
    time of creation may harm the discussion at hand.  Discussing the
    possibilities of the Bible and certain scientifical dating methods
    being in agreement seems to promote interest and further discussion (in
    my experience, anyway).
    
    If my ideas are wrong, then God will tell me when I come before Him. 
    In any case, I don't see the harm in discussing such things to promote
    more indepth study of scripture.  It's not an issue of trust or
    spiritual ramifications in the afterlife.  Either view glorifies God
    for what He has done...maybe we're both wrong.  8^)
    
    
    
    BTW, I will be talking to my friend this weekend, and will try to
    remember to get that book back.  If I do, I'll post the definitions
    next week.   
    
    I'm truly sorry for worming out of this debate for so long.  I'm
    repenting, though!  8^)
    
    -steve

Re: .114  (Steve M.)

>>God clearly relates the 6 days of creation to the Israelites' 6 days of work,
>>so that we know that they are one and the same chronological measure.  
>
>I think that's an assumption, not something we know for sure.

Let's try this from a different angle.  If you or Steve Leech were writing
scripture, and you wanted to communicate the fact that something took 6 days
(now do you understand what I mean by "6 days"?), how would you go about
conveying this more clearly than the bible already does? 

>Is it not possible that G-d used a "picture", something that looks like 6 
>24-hour periods to relate to an actual series of 6 24-hour periods as man 
>understands 6 days?

Many people make the mistake of assuming that something in the bible ought to
be taken either literally (i.e. they mean what they say at face value) or
figuratively (i.e. they have a deeper meaning and illustrate principles), when
in fact both are true. 

>Case in point; Yeshua is refered to as "the Lamb who takes away our sins".  
>One can see how lamb's blood was used in the Levitical ordinances as a 
>shadow of Yeshua's work - but this does not mean that Yeshua and a lamb are 
>"one and the same" biologically.

But the animal's blood was literal blood poured out on a literal alter, which
was *also* symbolic of "the Lamb who takes away our sins".  Obviously, Jesus
was a human, not a lamb.  But the lambs in Leviticus were literal lambs.

That God didn't create the universe instantaneously, but took 6 days means
something more, too.  But we can be sure that it really did take 6 days.  

Obviously, when we enter into his rest (Hebrews 4), we are not to get into some
time machine to go back and visit the 7th day of creation.  Yet the 7th day in
Genesis 2:2-3 was an actual day. 

>However, since the sun was not created until the fourth "yom" 
>(day/age/timeframe) of Creation, how can one be sure (in context) that days 
>1-3 are 24 hour days?  

Because concept precedes implementation.  Which of the following is true:  That
God decided how long a day would be and then created the sun and set the earth
in motion accordingly?  Or, that God had to wait to find out how long a day was
based on observing how fast the earth rotated, once the sun was there? 

We can be sure that God has always known how long a day is, regardless of how
long it takes for the earth to rotate with respect to the sun. 

We can also be sure that we will continue to know how long a day is.  If the
sun suddenly disappeared, you can be sure that our clocks would still work and
the daily newspapers would come out at their usual time tomorrow to tell about
it.

>If these days are shadows that can be related to 
>actual 24-hour periods, so can the "evening and morning" of these days be 
>shadows meant to point us towards something.

Of course.  But they were also actual days and actual "evening and mornings"s.

>>Why
>>would you suppose that God doesn't mean "6 days" when He clearly says that it
>>took "6 days"?  
>
>G-d clearly means 6 days (shesh yomim).  No one questions this.
>
>Now - define "day/yom" correctly based on the context of the passage.  
>I believe it's inconclusive.

Genesis 1 is an historical, chronological account.  Exodus 20 contains an
explicit chronological measure of time for the Israelites to follow:  They were
to take 6 days because God took 6 days. 

>On the first day, He said "let there be light" and it was so.  Since the 
>sun wasn't around until three days later, what kind of light is He talking 
>about at face value?

Real light.  Is anything too hard for God?  Is God dependant upon a device
like the sun to make light appear?

>"You shall not commit adultery."  Take that at face value, and you've got a 
>bunch of people burning with lustful desires and fantasies, but thinking 
>themselves "clean" since they never "did it".

"You shall not commit adultery."  Interpret that like you are interpreting
the 6 days of creation and you've got a bunch of people engaging in sexual
relations with other men/women, but thinking themselves "clean", since they
weren't burning with lustful desires and fantasies when they did it.

>"But I say to you....."

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets..." (Matt 5:17)

"What shall we say then?  Is the Law sin?  Certainly not!  Indeed I would not
have known what sin was except through the law..."  (Romans 7:7)

>All I'm saying is that Scripture is *rich* and layers deep with treasures 
>for mankind.  Whether G-d created all this in 6 24-hour periods or 6 
>periods of unknown duration (perhaps even billions of eons), isn't it 
>glorious either way?  I mean - think of it....the fact that the Creator 
>fashioned the universe is itself awesome in the truest sense of the word.  

Explain this to the man who was stoned to death at God's specific command
for picking up sticks on the sabbath day (Numbers 15:32-36).  Perhaps he,
like you and Steve, thought that it was the principle and not the literal
meaning that mattered.  Perhaps he thought that God was glorious either way.

God means what he says.

The word "yom" occurs 2274 times in the old testament, and is translated as
"day" in only 2008 of them (in the King James version).  It is translated 64
times as "time."  An example of this is in Gen 4:3 "And in the process of
time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an
offering to the LORD."(KJV)  The word translated as "time" is "yom," and in
context it does not mean a 24-hour period.  There's another 63 places where
this is true.  So clearly, "yom" does not mean the absolute, unchangeable 24
hours that you claim it to mean.  It frequently means "a period of time."

And even if there were NO other instances in the Bible of "yom" meaning
anything other than a 24-hour period, that still wouldn't mean that it would
absolutely have to mean a 24-hour period in this case.  In Daniel 9:24-27,
Gabriel tells Daniel about the timing of the coming of the Messiah.  He says
it will be sixty-nine "weeks" from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem.  The word
here is "shabua," and in no other place in the Bible does it mean anything
other than a seven-day period.  Yet in this context, it clearly means a
seven-year period, as Jesus entered Jerusalem exactly 483 years after this
decree.

Paul

Hi Paul, 

I thought 'Yom' was qualified differently in the different contexts - its
final significance not dependent purely on the one word, like Shabua, which
indicates 'seven', where days are usually the obvious default.  I did think
there was another 'shabua' of years, but I'll have to look it up. 

I think the most significant aspect of Yom in Genesis 1 is that what we 
know as a 'day', bounded by morning and evening (as specified) is merely 
something which the divisions indicated by our view of the sun illustrates, 
not the reality itself.  ie - the precise span known as 'day' existed 
first, then the sun, and the rotation of the earth was obedient to that 
principle - like the first wisdom, established before anything material was 
created, in Proverbs 8.

							Andrew

Garth,

Peace.

I'm really not your enemy.  I'm not denying that G-d created the universe.  
Nor am I saying He didn't do it in 6 literal 24-hour periods.  We're just 
having a discussion - no more no less.  I feel like your writings intend
to paint me (and perhaps the other Steve) with the broad tarnished brush of 
heresy.  I recognize the tactic/style only because I have (sadly) used 
it myself in the past with heretics and true believers alike.  Perhaps I'm 
reading more into your writing than you intended....

Or maybe you just don't like "Steves"?  :-)

OK - Let's move on...re: .116

>Let's try this from a different angle.  If you or Steve Leech were writing
>scripture, and you wanted to communicate the fact that something took 6 days
>(now do you understand what I mean by "6 days"?), how would you go about
>conveying this more clearly than the bible already does? 

If I were trying to communicate a sense of the Eternal to mortal men, I 
might relate an "age" (which might be billions of earth rotation years to a 
mortal man, but a mere "tick of the clock" to G-d) to a "day" (a block of 
time more tangible, more easily understood by mortal men).

Or in another example, if I were recounting history, I might speak about 
the day (read: *age*/period) of Creation, the day of the Promise, the day 
of slavery, the day of the exodus, the day of the wandering, the day of
deliverance, the day of Messiah, etc. 

>>Case in point; Yeshua is refered to as "the Lamb who takes away our sins".  
>>One can see how lamb's blood was used in the Levitical ordinances as a 
>>shadow of Yeshua's work - but this does not mean that Yeshua and a lamb are 
>>"one and the same" biologically.
>
>But the animal's blood was literal blood poured out on a literal alter, which
>was *also* symbolic of "the Lamb who takes away our sins".  Obviously, Jesus
>was a human, not a lamb.  But the lambs in Leviticus were literal lambs.

You're making my point for me, Garth - don't you see that?  

G-d used lambs (a real thing, but something different from Yeshua) to 
*point to* Yeshua.  Isn't it *possible* that G-d used "ages" (real things but 
something different from 24-hour days) to *point to* days as we known them?

You seem absolutely dogmatic about something which seems to me to be open
for (non-essential) debate (and, FWIW, has been debated for millenia, 
without conclusion, by greater minds than ours).  Mind you, I'm not saying 
that Creation didn't happen in 6 literal 24-hour days.  I'm just saying that 
I don't think the text affords us the luxury of being dogmatic about it 
either way.  


(continued in next reply)

(continued from previous reply)

>But we can be sure that it really did take 6 days.  

Yes.  G-d created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  We agree.

6 24-hour days?  I've re-read your message and I don't see how you can be 
so sure in context.

>>However, since the sun was not created until the fourth "yom" 
>>(day/age/timeframe) of Creation, how can one be sure (in context) that days 
>>1-3 are 24 hour days?  
>
>Because concept precedes implementation.  

I agree - that's fine.  Surely (in response to your question), it is
true that G-d didn't have to wait to find out how long an earth-day would
be.  However, without the existence of the sun, how can you be sure that
earth's time was marked in the same 24-hour daily increments we mark it now?  
How were evening and morning marked without a sunrise & sunset?  Moreover, 
if you found that these days were actually longer (or shorter) than 24-hour 
periods - would that shake your faith?

I suggest we can be sure that G-d absolutely kept track of each day, but we 
can not be completely sure (from the context of Gen. 1) that these days 
(ages/passages of time) absolutely were or were not 24-hour periods. 

>We can also be sure that we will continue to know how long a day is.  If the
>sun suddenly disappeared, you can be sure that our clocks would still work and
>the daily newspapers would come out at their usual time tomorrow to tell about
>it.

I think we could be sure that if the sun disappeared, we wouldn't be 
worried about the accuracy of our clocks  :-)

That our clocks would still work would be meaningless.  Clocks are a human 
invention meant to mark time as we now understand it.

>>Now - define "day/yom" correctly based on the context of the passage.  
>>I believe it's inconclusive.
>
>Genesis 1 is an historical, chronological account.  Exodus 20 contains an
>explicit chronological measure of time for the Israelites to follow:  They were
>to take 6 days because God took 6 days.

Well now we've gone full circle. :-)

Garth, I understand how you've come to your conclusion, but I don't believe 
you're using the context of Genesis 1 to get there.  That G-d relates our 
workweek/shabbat rest to the week of Creation does not support your 
assertion that the week of Creation surely consisted of 24-hour days; 
anymore than than I could assert that because G-d relates Yeshua's dying to 
the lambs that were slain according to Levitical law, that Yeshua was 
actually a lamb (or that the lambs were actually messiahs).  

I think there is much precedence for G-d's use of magnificent pictures to 
communicate unsearchable, complex truths by relating them to our mundane, 
simple existence.  The days of Creation may or may not be literal 24-hour
periods, but Genesis 1 does not make it abundantly clear either way.  What
is abundantly clear from Genesis 1 is that "In the beginning, G-d.....". 

Without saying they were or weren't literal 24-hour days, I'm saying that I
object to your assertion that they *must* be.  Isn't G-d big enough to have 
done it either way?  Isn't either way equally fantastic?  Doesn't either 
method make you want to praise Him?

>"You shall not commit adultery."  Interpret that like you are interpreting
>the 6 days of creation and you've got a bunch of people engaging in sexual
>relations with other men/women, but thinking themselves "clean", since they
>weren't burning with lustful desires and fantasies when they did it.

Your reversal of my point isn't applicable.  No one with any sense would 
think himself "clean" commiting an act he was expressly forbidden from 
committing.  

>>"But I say to you....."
>
>"Think not that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets..." (Matt 5:17)
>
>"What shall we say then?  Is the Law sin?  Certainly not!  Indeed I would not
>have known what sin was except through the law..."  (Romans 7:7)

And Romans 3:31!

My friend, you're *definitely* preaching to the choir here.  :-)  I think 
you've missed the reason why I raised this point...

>Explain this to the man who was stoned to death at God's specific command
>for picking up sticks on the sabbath day (Numbers 15:32-36).  Perhaps he,
>like you and Steve, thought that it was the principle and not the literal
>meaning that mattered.  Perhaps he thought that God was glorious either way.

Garth, you have completely missed my meaning.  Moreover, your equating me 
with the man who was stoned is an example of the "broad brush" tactic I 
mentioned at the start of this reply. 

I *am* a literalist, I believe without question that every word of the
Bible is true and is the divinely inspired Word of G-d.  I believe that G-d
created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  I am simply saying
that neither of us can say dogmatically whether any/all of those days are
literal 24-hour periods or not, and neither of us is a heretic for viewing
it differently than the other.  

(As to the man who was stoned to death, he clearly violated a specific
command of the L-rd; there was no room for discussion on whether G-d
commanded rest or not - just as there is no room for discussion on whether
G-d created the universe or not.)

Your mind is made up on the issue.  That's great!  I'm glad you're 
confident in what you believe.  

I am confident in my faith that He did it in 6 days (however long or short 
they were) and rested on the 7th.  Rejoice with me!

Steve

Relating to the use of the word "day" ("yom" in Hebrew), a friend and I were 
discussing Genesis 2:4 which says in KJV (not NIV):

Gen 2:4, KJV

"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were 
created, *in the day* that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"
          ^^^^^^^^^^

The phrase "in the day" doesn't show up in NIV, so I thought I'd check a 
Hebrew Bible and see if "b'yom" or "b'hayom" (in day, or in the day) 
showed up in this verse, and sure enough - "b'yom" appears:

Gen 2:4 BHS (transliterated, unprofessionally...)

"Eleh toldot hashamayim v'ha-aretz b'hibaram *b'yom* asut Adonai Elohim 
eretz v'shamayim:"			      ^^^^^

From Gen 1:31-2:3 (paraphrased), you see that G-d surveyed all that He had
made and saw that it was *very good*, there was evening & morning, the 6th
day, "Thus, the *heavens and the earth were completed* in all their vast
array" (on the 6th day) and by the 7th day, G-d had finished all the work
of Creation and He rested and set apart the 7th day because on it, He
rested from *all* the work of creating He had done.

Then in the next verse, Gen 2:4, it says "in the day" the L-rd G-d made the 
earth and the heavens (that is, all of Creation, the 6 days).  But the word 
for day is singular; "b'yom" (in day) not plural; "b'yomim" (in days). 

This verse refers to the "day" of Creation (as I suggested in a previous 
reply...."day/age" of Creation, day of Messiah, etc.) even though we know 
Creation took 6 days.  If the "day" of Gen 2:4 is metaphorical, why 
couldn't the "days" of Gen 1 be so as well?

They may be 24 hour days, or they may be days of an unknown (to us) 
duration.  However long they were, there were 6 of them and a 7th of rest, 
they were created by G-d who is worthy of praise!


Shalom,


Steve

    re .120 (POWDML::SMCCONNELL)

>>But we can be sure that it really did take 6 days.
>
>Yes.  G-d created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  We agree.
>
>6 24-hour days?  I've re-read your message and I don't see how you can be
>so sure in context.
    
    Presumably everyone agrees that our knowledge of God's having rested on
    the 7th day comes from Gen 2:2,3, which says:
    
                    "on the seventh day God finished his work
                    which he had done, and he rested on the
                    seventh day from all his work which he had
                    done.  So God blessed the seventh day and
                    hallowed it, because on it God rested from
                    all his work which he had done in creation."
                    (RSV)
    
    Hebrews 4:1-11 alludes to this rest and quotes this directly:
    
                    "... the promise of entering his rest remains ...
                    For we who have believed enter that rest, ...
                    For he [God] has somewhere spoken of the seventh
                    day in this way, "And God rested on the seventh
                    day from all his works." ... So then there
                    remains a sabbath rest for the people of God;
                    for whoever enters God's rest also ceases from his
                    labors as God did from his.  Let us therefore
                    strive to enter that rest ..."  (1,3a,4,9,10,11a RSV)
    
    One explanation of this is that God's "rest" is actually continuing,
    and those who become believers look forward to joining God in that
    rest; thus the seventh day spoken of in Genesis must actually still be
    in progress (but man, being afflicted with sin, is not truly in that
    rest at the moment; cf. Luke 13:16, where Jesus cures on the sabbath,
    presumably to foreshadow the more large-scale curing of mankind in
    God's greater Sabbath day).
    
    Does anyone believe that this rest is NOT the same rest that began
    after the 6th creative day ended?  If so, then does this mean that
    there is going to be a future, literal 24-hour Sabbath "rest" day that
    all believers will one day join God in (for a day)?
    
    If the rest that believers have the opportunity to enter into IS the
    same rest that began back in the days of Genesis 2, then isn't this
    evidence that the creative days were NOT literally 24 hours long?
    
    
    
    								-mark.
    

    Hi Mark (glad to see your note actually made it in here ;-)
    
    The rest concept is also layers deep with rich truths.  One on level,
    the notion that G-d rested from *all* His works; coupled with the
    several Scriptures that speak of Yeshua's sacrifice being from before
    the foundation of the world, give one much to ponder!
    
    What does it mean to be a "new creation in Messiah"?
    
    If after the original Creation, G-d completed all His work, surveyed it
    and said, "this is very good", and then rested - shouldn't that tell us
    that when He makes us *new* creations in Messiah (all *His* work, not
    ours) through Yeshua's sacrifice, that He surveys these *new* creations
    and says, "this is very good" and wants us to enter into rest from all
    our works to try to please Him since He has completed His work and
    rests?
    
    Some food for thought.
    
    
    Steve

Re: .117  (Paul)

>The word "yom" occurs 2274 times in the old testament, and is translated as
>"day" in only 2008 of them (in the King James version).  It is translated 64
>times as "time."  An example of this is in Gen 4:3 "And in the process of
>time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an
>offering to the LORD."(KJV)  The word translated as "time" is "yom," and in
>context it does not mean a 24-hour period.  There's another 63 places where
>this is true.  So clearly, "yom" does not mean the absolute, unchangeable 24
>hours that you claim it to mean.  It frequently means "a period of time."

In the context of Genesis 1 and Exodus 20, the word "day" means 24 hours, 
for the same reason you know that when I say day in notes I mean 24 hours
(and you know what I mean by "hour", too, despite the fact that "hour" can
be taken figuratively as well.)

>Gabriel tells Daniel about the timing of the coming of the Messiah.  He says
>it will be sixty-nine "weeks" from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem.  The word
>here is "shabua," and in no other place in the Bible does it mean anything
>other than a seven-day period.  Yet in this context, it clearly means a
>seven-year period, as Jesus entered Jerusalem exactly 483 years after this
>decree.

No, "shabua" means "seven", and "day" is implied in most cases.  In Daniel 9,
it is obvious that it was not "sevens" of days, as Andrew also pointed out.

Re: .119  (Steve M.)

>I'm really not your enemy.  I'm not denying that G-d created the universe.  
>Nor am I saying He didn't do it in 6 literal 24-hour periods.  We're just 
>having a discussion - no more no less.  I feel like your writings intend
>to paint me (and perhaps the other Steve) with the broad tarnished brush of 
>heresy.  I recognize the tactic/style only because I have (sadly) used 
>it myself in the past with heretics and true believers alike.  Perhaps I'm 
>reading more into your writing than you intended....

I'm not your enemy.  I'm trying to be your friend.

You can't read things into notes.  I did not call you a heretic.  However, I
do find it sad when professing believers deny the plain and simple facts of
scripture.  I don't have much tolerance for that.  I don't believe I should. 
So I don't consider it inappropriate to be confrontative under the
circumstances. 

Perhaps I should relate you and Steve to a certain individual who formerly
exasperated us with discussions on the unmentionable topic, based on the
plain facts of scripture allegedly not being so plain, and the intent of the
heart apart from the actions being what counted.

>>Let's try this from a different angle.  If you or Steve Leech were writing
>>scripture, and you wanted to communicate the fact that something took 6 days
>>(now do you understand what I mean by "6 days"?), how would you go about
>>conveying this more clearly than the bible already does? 
>
>If I were trying to communicate a sense of the Eternal to mortal men, I 
>might relate an "age" (which might be billions of earth rotation years to a 
...

You didn't answer the question.  If I can say "6 days" and not be 
misunderstood, then how ought the scripture phrase it, if the scripture was
to convey the same concept of time as I am in notes?

>>But the animal's blood was literal blood poured out on a literal alter, which
>>was *also* symbolic of "the Lamb who takes away our sins".  Obviously, Jesus
>>was a human, not a lamb.  But the lambs in Leviticus were literal lambs.
>
>You're making my point for me, Garth - don't you see that?  
>
>G-d used lambs (a real thing, but something different from Yeshua) to 
>*point to* Yeshua.  Isn't it *possible* that G-d used "ages" (real things but 
>something different from 24-hour days) to *point to* days as we known them?

But you're making my point for me, Steve - don't you see that?

The significance was in the Messiah, but the *lambs were real*.  Like the 
*days* of Genesis.  Try telling those Israelites that they weren't to go get
a real animal for their sacrifice seeing as how God was pointing to a greater
sacrifice.

>You seem absolutely dogmatic about something which seems to me to be open
>for (non-essential) debate (and, FWIW, has been debated for millenia, 
>without conclusion, by greater minds than ours).  

Not true.  As far as I know, the day-age idea historically came as a result
of evolutionary thinking.  If you can find a single believer before the 1800s
that wondered about the length of the days in Genesis, let me know.

Re: .120  (Steve M.)

>Yes.  G-d created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  We agree.
>
>6 24-hour days?  I've re-read your message and I don't see how you can be 
>so sure in context.

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.  Six days you shall labor and do
all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.  On it
you shall not do any work... 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 20:8-11)

>be.  However, without the existence of the sun, how can you be sure that
>earth's time was marked in the same 24-hour daily increments we mark it now?  

A unit of time, in concept, does not depend on the existence of a clock to
mark it.

>How were evening and morning marked without a sunrise & sunset?  

It doesn't matter.  God doesn't need the sun to define it.

>Garth, I understand how you've come to your conclusion, but I don't believe 
>you're using the context of Genesis 1 to get there.  That G-d relates our 
>workweek/shabbat rest to the week of Creation does not support your 
>assertion that the week of Creation surely consisted of 24-hour days; 
>anymore than than I could assert that because G-d relates Yeshua's dying to 
>the lambs that were slain according to Levitical law, that Yeshua was 
>actually a lamb (or that the lambs were actually messiahs).  

Your analogy is at fault.  It took 6 days as we know "days", just they were
real "lambs", as we understand lambs.  The "lamb of God" not a literal
lamb, just as the "day of rest" of Hebrews 4 is not a literal day.  Once
your analogy is cleaned up, it works for me.

>I think there is much precedence for G-d's use of magnificent pictures to 
>communicate unsearchable, complex truths by relating them to our mundane, 
>simple existence.  The days of Creation may or may not be literal 24-hour
>periods, but Genesis 1 does not make it abundantly clear either way.  

The above two sentences contradict each other.  The "mundane, simple" fact
is that creation took 6 days.

>What
>is abundantly clear from Genesis 1 is that "In the beginning, G-d.....". 

This is the saddest part of it.  That professing believers must now replace
portions of scripture with "...".  Instead of teaching that the world was
created in 6 days and elaborating on what happened during each of those days,
the typical contemporary believer shrinks off in embarrassment, throws up his
hands, and says, "Well, the details aren't important.  What's important is that
God did it."  Don't be a typical contemporary believer.

>>"You shall not commit adultery."  Interpret that like you are interpreting
>>the 6 days of creation and you've got a bunch of people engaging in sexual
>>relations with other men/women, but thinking themselves "clean", since they
>>weren't burning with lustful desires and fantasies when they did it.
>
>Your reversal of my point isn't applicable.  No one with any sense would 
>think himself "clean" commiting an act he was expressly forbidden from 
>committing.  

Oh, but I thought it was very pertinent.  The fact of the matter is that
some people don't "have any sense", so to speak.  Like certain people regarding
the unmentionable topic.  So they allegorize the text and justify their 
actions.  But the text says "You shall not commit adultery".  And what that
means firstly is "You shall not commit adultery".  

>>Explain this to the man who was stoned to death at God's specific command
>>for picking up sticks on the sabbath day (Numbers 15:32-36).  Perhaps he,
>>like you and Steve, thought that it was the principle and not the literal
>>meaning that mattered.  Perhaps he thought that God was glorious either way.
>
>Garth, you have completely missed my meaning.  Moreover, your equating me 
>with the man who was stoned is an example of the "broad brush" tactic I 
>mentioned at the start of this reply. 

Ok, it was a "broad brush" tactic and a dig.  But aren't I justified in 
making it?

>Your mind is made up on the issue.  That's great!  I'm glad you're 
>confident in what you believe.  

This patronization is a contradiction on your part.  Your extensive replies
rebuking me demonstrate that you do not think it's "great" that I am confident
in what I believe. 

Furthermore, that statement painfully reminds me of similiar statements
made by unbelievers.  "That's great!  I'm glad you're confident in what
you believe [about Jesus, and etc.]"  But I am not discussing this issue to 
compare respective beliefs.  I am discussing it to convince you and others
that you should change your minds.

Re: .121  (Steve M.)

>Gen 2:4, KJV
>
>"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were 
>created, *in the day* that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"
>          ^^^^^^^^^^

This is fine.  We both know and understand that this is a figurative use
of the word "day".  There are many such instances, both in English and
Hebrew.

But in the context of Genesis 1 and Exodus 20, it is not figurative.

Re: .123  (Mark Sornson)

>    rest; thus the seventh day spoken of in Genesis must actually still be
>    in progress (but man, being afflicted with sin, is not truly in that

No, the 7th day of Genesis is over.  God's rest continued, and is still
in progress.

>    Does anyone believe that this rest is NOT the same rest that began
>    after the 6th creative day ended?  If so, then does this mean that
>    there is going to be a future, literal 24-hour Sabbath "rest" day that
>    all believers will one day join God in (for a day)?
    
The "rest" that believers enter into is eternal.

>    If the rest that believers have the opportunity to enter into IS the
>    same rest that began back in the days of Genesis 2, then isn't this
>    evidence that the creative days were NOT literally 24 hours long?
    
The creative days certainly weren't eternal.

However, if Hebrews 4 is evidence that the 7th day is still in progress,
then all of us have entered into it by birth, and no one is excluded from
it.  After all, you would say that this is still the 7th day, yes?

But Hebrews 4 speaks of something that we enter into by faith, not by
temporal existence.  

Note that God created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  He 
continued to rest, as can be inferred from the grammar, but there is no
mention of an 8th day.  This is a similiar sort of symbol and type as
Melchizedek, also spoken of in Hebrews, who was without genealogy, with no
beginning and no end.  In the case of the Sabbath, it was a literal, 24-hour
day observed.  But it is a symbol and type of something eternal.

Garth,

Obviously, we're having a tough time communicating.  Before continuing on, 
let me make it plain up front that I love you, my brother, but I do not 
like the way you've handled this discussion at all.  I want to be sure you 
understand the distinction I make between you (whom I love) and your actions 
(which I'm not fond of, and furthermore, which have no bearing whatsoever on 
my love for you as my brother....).

You say you didn't call me a heretic (which is true, you never used the 
label), but you later admit to using the broad-brush dig (of which I 
accused you) and then ask whether you're justified in doing so.

The answer is no, Garth - you are not justified in doing so.

Moreover, the reasons why it is inappropriate for you to be "confrontative 
under the circumstances" are as follows:

	a) I have not denied the possibility that G-d created the universe in 
	   literal 24-hour days, 
	
	b) you have yet to show in the context of Genesis 1 (not Exodus 20, 
	   but Genesis 1) that the days are literal 24-hour days,

	c) I showed you proof that "yom" can be figurative, even in
	   regard to an account of Creation (Gen 2:4), but you shrugged
	   that off by claiming Gen 1 is literal - yet you still offer NO 
	   CONTEXTUAL PROOF for that claim, and most importantly,

	d) Not only am I not denying a literal understanding of Creation,
	   I am not denying the Gospel, the divinity of the L-rd or the 
	   authority of the Scriptures (subjects worthy of confrontation 
	   if actually denied by a professed believer) upon which we both
	   surely agree.

>Perhaps I should relate you and Steve to a certain individual who formerly
>exasperated us with discussions on the unmentionable topic, based on the
>plain facts of scripture allegedly not being so plain, and the intent of the
>heart apart from the actions being what counted.

This is more broad brush and a low-blow analogy.

Relate as you wish, Garth, but such attempts at denigrating my character
still don't address the issue at hand.  Show from Genesis 1 that the days
*must* be 24 hours.  That you can't is no reason for this kind of attack
upon me or Steve.  You're a bright man, Garth, you don't need to adopt
these tactics; successful apologetics does not depend upon polemics or 
character assassination.

re: >Don't be a typical contemporary believer.

If all you got out of the past series of replies is that I'm embarrassed 
and shrugging off the details, you completely ignored what was said.  The 
only thing I'm embarassed about is having been foolish enough to have 
turned this into such a voluminous "debate" (if it can be called that).  

>>Your mind is made up on the issue.  That's great!  I'm glad you're 
>>confident in what you believe.  
>
>This patronization is a contradiction on your part.  Your extensive replies
>rebuking me demonstrate that you do not think it's "great" that I am confident
>in what I believe. 

Firstly, this is neither patronization nor contradiction on my part.  I am 
*truly* glad for you!  And I've asked you to truly rejoice with me.  I'm sad 
that you won't, but I can't force you to do so.

Secondly, I have never rebuked *you* - there is nothing in my replies that 
can be taken personally by you as an attack, though there is plenty in your 
replies that you've admitted is an attack on me personally (and Steve).  I 
believe I said I object to your insisiting that the days *MUST* be 24-hour 
periods.  

Thirdly, your interpretation of what my replies demonstrate suggests that 
you're either not comprehending my argument, or perhaps comprehending 
but lacking interest in my point of view, or perhaps you're just acting 
stiff-necked; refusing to concede there is a *possibility* that "yom"
could be interpreted differently than you think.

>Furthermore, that statement painfully reminds me of similiar statements
>made by unbelievers.  "That's great!  I'm glad you're confident in what
>you believe [about Jesus, and etc.]"  

More broad brush and your lowest blow yet.  This is truly pathetic, Garth.

Show me how salvation is affected by this issue and I'll publically repent.  

>But I am not discussing this issue to 
>compare respective beliefs.  I am discussing it to convince you and others
>that you should change your minds.

I really wish you had said this earlier.  I thought what I had cautiously 
butted into was an open discussion.  I was clearly mistaken - my fault.  
Your tenacity is admirable, Garth, but your "debate style" and noting 
tactics leave a lot to be desired.  

Formally butting out...


Steve

    Steve, Garth
       I probably should not butt in on your conversation,...but,...I will
    ;^)
    
      Steve, what I understand Garth basically saying to you is,
    Let Scripture be used to interpret Scripture. Do not read into or color
    what is said.
    
    What I hear you telling Garth is; It does not matter what the specifics
    are, the focus if God and His plan.
    
    Therefore, my two pense is, you are both right. What I think I see
    occuring is the earnest desire for each to "teach" the other the truth.
    Well, my dear brothers, Steve, you may not be "where" Garth is right
    now, and Garth, you may not be *where* Steve is right now. - You know
    what? -That has to be ok. Hence, focus first on similarities. Find
    out where you *do* agree and move from there. That would be more in
    alignment with what Paul (Saul) teaches us. "become all things to all
    people, that you may reach them where they are." -loose paraphrase 8^)-
    
    The cordial comments going back and forth here are really accomplishing
    little. To change anothers mind is difficult at best, but to lead and
    to learn the truth is more important than being right. Therefore I
    encourage you too to *find* (as hard as it may be) a COMMON ground from
    which to scrutinize the scripture. Common grounds make for good
    reference points, and for security when the *going* gets tough.
    
     I could go on, but 'nough said...
    
     Shalom,
       PDM

    I repent of stirring the coals of this discussion...it was meant to be
    a discussion of interpretational ideas with regards to Genesis.  The
    whole idea was not to alter scriptures to conform to science, but to
    bring out the truth in both.  Not all of science is bunk, if it were,
    we would've never made it to the moon.
    
    A lot of scientific *theories* are not complete or are misdirected, but
    not all science is wrong.  I'm merely trying to find common ground in
    both that can be used in witnessing.  You'd be surprised at how people
    are amazed that Genesis 1 *may* not mean 7 litteral 24-hour days, and
    how they open up for further discussion, which can only benefit them.
    If this opens them up to  Biblical truths and an acceptance of Jesus
    Christ, then I belive it is worthwhile to continue.  Then, after
    studying the Bible, they can make up thier own minds as to what they
    believe about creation.
    
    I always tell my view as opinion, and if I am wrong, I am guilty of
    misdirecting them in this one instance of which thier salvation does
    not depend on.  Hopefully, they will forgive my ignorance.
    
    -steve

Re: .130  (Steve M.)

Now you're all bent out of shape.  Well, so be it.  But I'll follow the
golden rule:  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  I sure
wish someone had beat me over the head with a bible when I was believing
exactly what you are now about the creation account! 

In any case, I am convinced that I would be so much the better now if 
people had cared enough to lay into me for some of the foolishness that 
I did and believed in the past. 

I'll let you have the last word on the the my character vs. your character
discussion for the moment.  Regarding the issue at hand, to recap: 

>	b) you have yet to show in the context of Genesis 1 (not Exodus 20, 
>	   but Genesis 1) that the days are literal 24-hour days,

I believe I have.  The days are numbered, and associated with evening and
morning.  In any case, Exodus 20 is likewise God-breathed, so even if Genesis 1
was not clear, Exodus 20 would make it clear.  However, Genesis 1 is quite
clear and straightforward by itself.

>	c) I showed you proof that "yom" can be figurative, even in
>	   regard to an account of Creation (Gen 2:4), but you shrugged
>	   that off by claiming Gen 1 is literal - yet you still offer NO 
>	   CONTEXTUAL PROOF for that claim, and most importantly,

I gave the contextual proof:  That the days were numbered, and associated with
evening and morning.  In view of that context, we can be certain that they
were literal.

We have the additional advantage here that in the same way "yom" in Hebrew
can be taken literally or figuratively, "day" in English can be taken
literally or figuratively.  So when the Hebrew "yom" is translated into
the English "day", we end up with the same kind of word.  It is therefore
not a particularly revealing thing to point out that "yom" can be taken either
literally or figuratively.

In any case of written or spoken language, you and I both understand that
the literal, plain sense of a word is assumed unless the context demonstrates
otherwise.  Otherwise, no one could communicate clearly, because everyone 
would always be wondering what each other meant.  The burden of proof is
therefore on you to give a convincing argument that the days of Genesis are 
not what what they mean at face value. 

You have not done that.

Re: .131  (PDM)

>    Therefore, my two pense is, you are both right. 

No, he is wrong, and God is right.  Since you say he is right, that makes you
wrong, too.

Prov 26:17 is relevant here.


Re: .132  (Steve L.)

>    both that can be used in witnessing.  You'd be surprised at how people
>    are amazed that Genesis 1 *may* not mean 7 litteral 24-hour days, and
>    how they open up for further discussion, which can only benefit them.

It is watering down the Word of God.  It does not benefit them.

>    If this opens them up to  Biblical truths and an acceptance of Jesus
>    Christ, then I belive it is worthwhile to continue.  Then, after
    
They will find out that they have been manipulated.

John 6:60-66 is relevant here.

    re 239.129 (KALI::WIEBE)/Garth
    
>>    Does anyone believe that this rest is NOT the same rest that began
>>    after the 6th creative day ended?  If so, then does this mean that
>>    there is going to be a future, literal 24-hour Sabbath "rest" day that
>>    all believers will one day join God in (for a day)?
>    
>The "rest" that believers enter into is eternal.
    
    Since God's day-7 rest wasn't eternal, why is the "rest" of believers
    eternal?  Believers have the opportunity to live forever; but where
    does it say that the "rest" that believers enter into is eternal? After
    all, Hebrews says:
    
    		"So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the
    		people of God; for whoever enters God's rest
    		also ceases from his labors as God did from his."
    		(4:9,10 RSV)
    
    I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you'd admit that this
    verse directly alludes to the 7th day (in Genesis) which you say is 24
    hours long.  Since this particular rest of God's didn't last eternally,
    but only for 24 hours (by your reckoning), what basis is there for
    jumping to the conclusion that the "sabbath rest for the people of God"
    is eternal?  Since there's an obvious parallel between the rest God
    took from his labors (in Gen) and the sabbath rest that awaits
    believers, why shouldn't we conclude that the rest of believers is ALSO
    a 24-hour rest?  After all, the Sabbath was always just the last of
    seven days, which was then followed by another 'work day'.  If God
    himself only needed 1 24-hour day of rest, why should believers need an
    eternity to rest?
    
>However, if Hebrews 4 is evidence that the 7th day is still in progress,
>then all of us have entered into it by birth, and no one is excluded from
>it.  After all, you would say that this is still the 7th day, yes?
    
    I know what you're saying, but I disagree, since the birth we have all
    received was a sinful one.  Although the Bible says Adam was originally
    a legitimate "son of God" (Luke 3:38 RSV), the Bible says that
    Christians are only sons of God by adoption, if they put faith in God
    through Christ (ref. Rom 8:23; cf. 1John 3:10).  Those who reject God
    or do not put faith in him through Christ have as their "father the
    devil" (John 8:44 RSV) -- yet they were obviously literally decended
    from the human Adam.
    
    Just as there's a correspondence between faith in God through Christ
    and true sonship with God [whether spirit or human], there's a
    correspondence between that faith and whether one enters into God's
    rest.  This correspondance also ties genuine sonship with God to that
    rest.
    
    Thus, it's possible to say that God's rest has been in progress though
    humans have been excluded from it, since we are sinful by birth, and
    thus aren't in the "good" condition that the rest of God's earthly 
    creation was in when he ceased from his labors.
    
>Note that God created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  He 
>continued to rest, as can be inferred from the grammar, but there is no
>mention of an 8th day.  
    
    I find it odd that you say this -- perhaps I'm missing your point --
    since the failure to mention an 8th day would be obvious if the 7th day
    was not over; and as you come right out and say, the Hebrew grammar
    indicates that God's 7th day rest is actually continuing, which gets
    back to the point that the creative "day" is not necessarily a 24 hour
    day, but a longer (though perhaps still fixed) period of time.
    
>mention of an 8th day.  This is a similiar sort of symbol and type as
>Melchizedek, also spoken of in Hebrews, who was without genealogy, with no
>beginning and no end.  In the case of the Sabbath, it was a literal, 24-hour
>day observed.  But it is a symbol and type of something eternal.
    
    I see what you're getting at with the point about Melchizedek, but I
    don't think the symbols are exactly parallel.
    
    All sabbaths have been finite.  After the sabbath, one gets back to
    work.  As Jesus often made the point, sabbaths were also for healing,
    since physical healing made one all the more receptable to spiritual
    things -- but still, one can only 'bask in relief' for so long.  Once a
    person was healed, they were ready for work on the next day.
    
    As if I need to ask, what Biblical basis is there for saying the 
    sabbath that believers may enter into is eternal (i.e., why
    catagorically equate eternal life with a sabbath, when by nature
    sabbaths, though regular, were only in and of themselves temporary)?
    
    
    
    								-mark.

Re: .135

>>The "rest" that believers enter into is eternal.
>    
>    Since God's day-7 rest wasn't eternal, why is the "rest" of believers
>    eternal?  Believers have the opportunity to live forever; but where
>    does it say that the "rest" that believers enter into is eternal? After

Again, Hebrews 4 underscores the significance.  God rested on the 7th day. 
There was no mention of an 8th, yet God continued His rest *somewhere*.  
Since the 7th day, God has continued to work, as Jesus himself testified "My
Father is always at his work to this very day...".  We can infer that the
rest which we are to enter is outside the bounds of the present age.  

As the hope of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ is eternal, so
we can assume that the "rest" associated with it is too.  The context of 
Hebrews 3 and 4 relates this rest as a consequence of our faith.  As the
scripture says, 

	"We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the
	confidence that we had at first."  (Hebrews 3:14)

>    		"So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the
>    		people of God; for whoever enters God's rest
>    		also ceases from his labors as God did from his."
>    		(4:9,10 RSV)
>    
>    I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you'd admit that this
>    verse directly alludes to the 7th day (in Genesis) which you say is 24
>    hours long.  

Yes.  The 7th day of Genesis is a type and symbol of the "sabbath rest for
the people of God".  The Israelites also repeated the "6 days plus 7th"
endlessly as a symbol and pointer to God's perfect rest, as they also 
performed sacrifices endlessly as a symbol and pointer to God's perfect
sacrifice.

>Since this particular rest of God's didn't last eternally,
>    but only for 24 hours (by your reckoning), what basis is there for
>    jumping to the conclusion that the "sabbath rest for the people of God"
>    is eternal?  Since there's an obvious parallel between the rest God
>    took from his labors (in Gen) and the sabbath rest that awaits
>    believers, why shouldn't we conclude that the rest of believers is ALSO
>    a 24-hour rest?  After all, the Sabbath was always just the last of
>    seven days, which was then followed by another 'work day'.  If God
>    himself only needed 1 24-hour day of rest, why should believers need an
>    eternity to rest?
    
Ah, but again, God's rest continued beyond the 7th day.  Otherwise the
scripture "They shall never enter my rest" would be meaningless.  Yet we
know that God has continued his work in this age.

>>However, if Hebrews 4 is evidence that the 7th day is still in progress,
>>then all of us have entered into it by birth, and no one is excluded from
>>it.  After all, you would say that this is still the 7th day, yes?
>    
>    I know what you're saying, but I disagree, since the birth we have all
>    received was a sinful one.  

But what does sin have to do with it?  If this is the continuance of the
7th day, then we are all living in it, regardless of whether we are sons
of God or sons of the devil.
    
>    Thus, it's possible to say that God's rest has been in progress though
>    humans have been excluded from it, since we are sinful by birth, and
>    thus aren't in the "good" condition that the rest of God's earthly 
>    creation was in when he ceased from his labors.
    
But again, God has continued in his work since the days of creation, and
in mighty and powerful workings and miracles, no less, to bring fulfillment
of his plan for the age.  Who can deny that? 

No, the rest God speaks of is not of this age.  It is a heavenly one, not
an earthly one.

>>Note that God created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  He 
>>continued to rest, as can be inferred from the grammar, but there is no
>>mention of an 8th day.  
>    
>    I find it odd that you say this -- perhaps I'm missing your point --
>    since the failure to mention an 8th day would be obvious if the 7th day
>    was not over; and as you come right out and say, the Hebrew grammar
>    indicates that God's 7th day rest is actually continuing, 

The 7th day is over, God's rest continued, but not in the days following, for
God continues to work to this day.  What a beautiful forshadowing of the gospel
starting right there in Genesis 1!  The reader must conclude that God's rest is
beyond the bounds of this age, so no amount of work in this age will earn it.

>which gets
>    back to the point that the creative "day" is not necessarily a 24 hour
>    day, but a longer (though perhaps still fixed) period of time.
    
By my apology then, the above conclusion you make is invalidated.

>    All sabbaths have been finite.  After the sabbath, one gets back to
>    work.  As Jesus often made the point, sabbaths were also for healing,
>    since physical healing made one all the more receptable to spiritual
>    things -- but still, one can only 'bask in relief' for so long.  Once a
>    person was healed, they were ready for work on the next day.
>
>    As if I need to ask, what Biblical basis is there for saying the 
>    sabbath that believers may enter into is eternal (i.e., why
>    catagorically equate eternal life with a sabbath, when by nature
>    sabbaths, though regular, were only in and of themselves temporary)?
    
What an endless cycle.  Will this fall/sin/sacrifice/redemption cylce be
repeated forever, like the levitical ordinances?  Will Jesus have to go back
and do again and again what he has already done?  No, but rather the entire
story and context of Hebrews chapters 1-10 paint a picture of something done
once and for all by One who is eternal.  The throne of the Son is forever
(1-2).  The consequence of sin is forever (3).  The rest is forever (4).
The priest is forever (5-7).  The covenant is forever (8).  And the sacrifice
is forever (9-10).  And you'd better believe it (10).  Because we have every
reason to believe it (11).  So you'd better not question it (12).  But rather,
let's live like we believe it (13).

    re .136 (KALI::WIEBE)/Garth.
    
    Thanks for taking the time to reply.
    
    -mark.

    Garth, how am I manipulating people when I tell them that *it is my
    opinion (meaning not proven, nor absolute) that the 7 days of Genesis
    are not 7 24-hour time periods?  
    
    If they accept Jesus down the road because I opened their mind to the
    Bible by my opinion on interpretation of Genesis, then I still see this
    as good.  I can't imagine someone holding my opinion against me if they
    accept Jesus and are granted eternal life...which God's first 
    priority for us to do.  Without this one decision, the rest is moot.
    
    If God holds this against me, then it is between me and Him, and He
    will deal with me.  I trust Him to convict me, if what I do is wrong in
    His eyes.
    
    -steve

    BTW,
    
    I've heard Pastors preach as Steve[s] have indicated.  That the 7 days
    it took for creation may not be days as we recognize them in 24 hour
    increments.
    
    And I've heard Pastors lambast people who believe this citing that
    *faith* does not require logic and rationalization.  If God used days
    as indicated in the creation story the moon and the sun, then whether
    we can explain it or not is irrelevant.  
    
    Trying to justifiy the Bible through Science is merely releasing the
    very attribute that God requires from us, our faith.
    
    Again, these opposing views will always exist... and while I cannot say
    I don't believe God could do what he wanted in 24 hour periods, I also
    know that time is not of any consequence to our Lord.  However, I do
    believe that *faith* is an important attribute that ought not be
    explained away by science.
    
    My thoughts and theirs,
    Nancy

!                <<< Note 239.134 by KALI::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" >>>

!Re: .131  (PDM)

!>    Therefore, my two pense is, you are both right. 

! No, he is wrong, and God is right.  Since you say he is right, that makes you
! wrong, too.
    	My dear brother, Garth. First let me assure you that I believe the
    same as you concerning the days of creation. However, I believe I
    either did not state my point correctly or you may have misinterpreted
    the meaning I was trying to express. Garth, you yourself said that you
    wished you had had someone there to correct you when you were learning
    and following invalid practices and beliefs, BUT! Look at you now! Are
    you any worse off?? No. You are in a far better position to defend and
    to correct. - So, rather than force your current understanding down
    Steve's throat, (which you yourself must know does not work.) - I
    merely said you are *where* you are and he is *where* he is and that
    you can go back to your brother and help him to walk where he is
    crawling.
    
       Enough said on that...Garth, I am neigther offended or hurt by your
    assertion of my being incorrect. I am sorry however that I did not
    make my point well enough to be understood. For that I ask your pardon
    but I recommend you use a smaller spoon and baby food instead of the
    soup spoon and side of beef you are giving to your brother(s).
    
    In Christ's love,                                 
        PDM

    

    I was just reflecting on some instances that brought me to the Lord.
    I was thinking of some of the hells I endured and what they meant to
    me later...  Reflecting on this, I realized that God was nuturing me
    regardless of what I was doing or how I was living. Early on, I
    believed that Genesis was a nice arrangment of stories, not to be
    believed. But as I grew in Christ, I found that I had to believe what
    God said was truth. My eyes then read the Word with a different
    mindset. Rather than employing my (earthly human) wisdom, I allowed the
    mystery and awe of scripture to take on a new meaning and life of its own.
    This I have come to know as "faith". - For I believed all that which I
    read as God breathed and true regardless of how confusing and
    objectionable I found it to be at first.
    
    When coming to Christ, I had a number of difficult hurdles to climb. I
    had mountains of selfishness and pompousness. Did I evolve? No! I
    changed. I had many people, (some good christians), telling me where I
    "ought" to be. BUT I wasn't there yet and their words fell on deaf or
    childish ears...Later, much later as my faith increased, I was able to
    reflect back and to adopt and to examine the words I had heard in the
    past. Does that make me wrong that I did not listen at first? No! Does
    it make me foolish? no. It makes me a normal child who needed to grow.
    
    So to those that express that the Earth was formed in six days, I can
    now say also, "This is what I believe." To those that say the earth was
    formed in six unknown periods of time, "called days" I do not hold it
    against them. (I simply recognize as they are now, so once was I, and -
    where I am now, so may they become.) Can I convert a gentile to Christ?
    NO! Can they? no. What I say does it make a difference to the
    unbeliever, - draw them to Christ? MAYBE! And for my weaker brother,
    can he too not touch the spirit of a gentile? MAYBE! But it is not for
    me or him to quarrel over *where we are* for this is what the gentile
    will focus on rather than the truth they need to hear.  - I am still
    learning this. It is difficult for me. I desire so much for my weaker
    brothers to espouse the truth in all its unfathomable quality, but the
    truth of the matter is not what I want, by Thy [God's] will be done.
    My current belief - is - simply make what I know KNOWN! Let God do the
    rest. - I firmly believe, my personal relationship with God is more
    important than anyone else's salvation. For if I can not grow and
    follow Christ, how can I ever expect to let my light shine, - that
    others seeing my light may not they be drawn to it like the moth to the
    flame!?
    
     Well, I have been long winded again. I will apologize upfront if I
    have offended. Let it be known however, my intent is not to upset but
    rather convey a thought and feeling that I struggle to express well.
    I will never be accused of being articulate or eloquent.  ;^)
    
     In Christ's love,
        PDM

    PDM, you are a blessing. :-)

    Hi,
    
    I called Garth last night and we chatted for a while.  He has asked me
    to re-think my thinking (wot?) on the matter and I have asked him to
    re-think his delivery.  I have also asked him to consider me his weaker
    brother and to apply the Romans 14 principle to me.
    
    So now - we're both thinking alot :-)
    
    Love y'all,
    
    
    Steve

Re: .143

FWIW, I also admitted to Steve that social etiquette was not my forte.

I'll keep working on my delivery.  

    Having talked to Steve M., in the past, I wonder if Garth was as
    endeared to Steve as I was. :-)  Steve, you're a great guy with a big heart,
    albeit rather stern at times, but I've grown very fond of you.
    
    Garth, okay so only women have the *delivery* department down, but as a
    female I can tell you delivery is PAINFUL! :-)  I also respect your
    stand and care for the Truth.  And I love your notes "most of the
    time". :-)
    
    I love it when differences can be expressed, and God's love still comes 
    through.
    
    Guys, thanks for sharing with all of us.
    
    Nancy
    
    
    

    re: .144
    
    OK, Garth...you've got 6 days...
    
    
    (that's a joke, son... :-)

    Well, what do you know,....my prayer was answered. Imagine that!
     PDM_smiling_inside

    I've been following this note "offline" (in batch extracts) for several
    days.  I'd like to offer my observations and personal experience. 
    First, upfront, let me say that I am not convinced that Genesis one is
    explicitly communicating six 24-hour periods of creation.  I do believe
    that God is capable of that and less (could have done it in 6 minutes).
    
    Personal Experience:
    
    I grew up being taught and believing in six days (which I took to be
    the same as our six days).  Then I went to college, studied biology and
    physics and rejected evolutionary biology but accepted "old-age" earth
    and 15-20 billion year old universe.  As I read Genesis one, I couldn't
    believe that God would have done it that way!  Thus I began to doubt
    that the days were 24-hours days.  
    
    I was wrong in questioning the information given in Genesis.  I am not
    God.  He ways are not my ways.  I could not execute a creation even if
    I had directly observed it myself.  I could not even OBSERVE it if
    Jesus took me back in time to see it!  It took me 5-10 years to come to
    this conclusion.  Since then, I've gone back to Genesis with the
    attitude that I want to learn whatever God has chosen to reveal.  
    
    Having said that, it STILL appears questionable to me that Genesis is
    advocating 6 24-hour periods of creation.  Two reasons:  
    
    	1)The re-capitulation of the account of creation in chapter two 
    	of Genesis focuses on a different time scale.  It seems to happen
    	in one day or in an unspecified time.  Birds which are created on 
    	day five in chapter one, are also created on the same day as Adam 
    	in chapter two when God creates flying creatures and brings them 
    	to Adam to name.  Both Genesis one and two are "literal" and true.
    
    
    	2) Time is a relative, not an absolute measurement.  When we say
    	24-hour periods, we are giving a relative measurement.  It is
    	relative to the speed of rotation of the earth.  It is the time
    	it takes for the earth to make one revolution on its axis.  Evening
    	and morning are concepts relative to a particular point on the
    	earth and require the presence of the sun to establish a reference
    	point for the completion of one revolution.  The concept of a day
    	is significant to us because we came into being AFTER the Sun which
    	was created on day four.  So when we say that the first 3 days of 
    	creation were 24-hour periods, I'm not sure what WE mean.  I know
    	this;  If God made the Sun on day four (which I believe), then the
    	first three days were not started and terminated by a Sunset.   
    
    	Further, 24-hours then was close to but not exactly the same
    	as 24-hours today; our "days" are longer due to the small but
    	measureable loss of angular momentum (speed of rotation) of the
    	Earth.  In spite of these relative changes, God can still use our
    	concept of a day to teach us to rest one out of seven and to expect
    	an eternal rest (made even longer by the slowing down of the
    	Earth's rotation ...  ;)   ) on the final "seventh" day.
    
    	So my questions about each day of creation containing exactly
    	24-hours relate more to the nature of what God said he did, 
    	than with any doubts I have about the veracity of scripture or 
    	God's ability.  God teaches me the unexpected:  The Sun was not
    	created until day four.  SURPRISE!  What else did He do differently
    	than I would have expected?
    
    
    	FWIW,
    
    	David
    

> FWIW, I also admitted to Steve that social etiquette was not my forte.

	This is true however, as one who has knocked on a few doors with Garth
let me add this...

	The sincere, caring, and considerate side of brother Garth doesn't
transfer well thru the tube. Sorry to ruin your reputation Garth! 8*).

ace

Re: .146  (Steve M.)

>                   -< c'mon...you were all thinking it.... >-
>
>    re: .144
>    
>    OK, Garth...you've got 6 days...
>    
>    
>    (that's a joke, son... :-)

Ah yes, but what do you mean by "6 days"?  Need I ask?

(Couldn't resist.)

Re: .148  (David)

Gen 1 is a chronology.  Gen 2 is not.

    re .151 (KALI::WIEBE)
    
>Gen 1 is a chronology.  Gen 2 is not.
    
    	True, but the events of Gen 2 obviously fit within the chronology
    of Gen 1, right?
    
    	Unless I've misunderstood, there does seem to be agreement that the
    "6 days" of creation took place in 'real time'.  [That's why belief
    that they are literally 24 hours is so hard for some to accept, right?] 
    Those who believe the 6 days were 24 hours long simply take it as a
    given that God was able to do everything that was done within those 24
    hour periods of time because he is Almighty; his great power made it
    possible.  It also goes without saying that those who believe the 6
    days were longer than 24 hours also believe that what was done was by
    God's Almighty power; it's just that more 'real time' elapsed.
    
    	Both views implicitly assume that God didn't play with time.  He
    didn't have to.  His power was sufficiently great to get the job done
    in the alotted time.
    
    	What I find hard to believe about the 24-hour/day view is that all
    that Gen 2 describes as happening on the 6th day took place in a
    literal 24 hours.
    
    	Gen 1:24 says that on day 6 all "cattle ... creeping things ... and
    beasts of the earth" were created; and 1:26ff says that Man (both man
    and woman) was created in the 6th day as well.
    
    	According to Gen 2, God "took the man and put him in the garden of
    Eden to till it and keep it." (v.15 RSV).  God decreed that "It is not
    good that the man should be alone" (v.16), and therefore he "brought
    [every beast of the field and bird of the air] to the man to see what
    he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature,
    that was its name."  Adam found no helper for himself among the beasts
    (which was obviously God's intention); and thus God caused a "deep
    sleep" to fall on Adam, during which time he created Eve.
    
    	Even if we take it as a given that the amount of time it took God
    to create each kind of creature was nearly instantaneous, it still must
    have taken some time for God to bring each beast and bird to Adam so
    that he could then name them.  Even if God works quickly due to his
    power, so that a shortage of time isn't a problem, God obviously must
    have created Adam with the same perception of time, and the same
    general abilities that we possess today.  Even if Adam was able to name
    each beast and bird instantly (or maybe in, say 5 or 10 seconds of
    having seen them), if we assume that God really brought every living
    thing to him, that must have taken up a considerable amount of time.
    
    	If we assume that God created/awakened Adam in the daylight, so
    that he could see what God was putting him in charge of, that must have
    been, at the earliest, say, 5:00 am (just to be conservative).  If he
    had the entire daylight-day to name the animals and birds, and we
    assume that the sun set at 8:00 pm (after which Eve was created),
    that's 15 hours, or 900 minutes.  If it took 10 seconds for Adam to
    study and name each animal, that would have allowed Adam to name 9000
    animals and birds. I don't know off the top of my head, but are there
    less than 9000 distinct kinds of animals and birds (including the ones
    that are now extinct, thanks to man)?
    
    	Would it really have been possible for Adam to name every animal
    and bird in one day, regardless of God's ability to create them all in
    one day?  Really, this doesn't even take into account everything else
    that happened:
    
    		* God formed man out of the ground (v.7)
    		* God planted Eden, made it grow
    		* God put Adam in Eden
    		* God showed him around the garden to see all its
    			produce, including the "tree of life" and
    			the "tree of knowledge"
    		* God may have showed him the river that originated
    			in Eden, which split into 4
    		* God explained to him that he was to keep and till
    			the garden; and presumably explained to him
    			something about agriculture
    		* God explained the significance of the "tree of
    			knowledge" to him
    		* Enough time passed for it to have been true that
    			Adam was "alone" (v.18), without a "helper"
    			(which means enough time passed to make
    			it obvious that Adam needed one).
    		* God formed and brought "every living creature" to
    			Adam to be named [this probably took the
    			most time]
    		* After no "helper" was found, God put Adam in a
    			"deep sleep" and formed Eve.
    		* At seeing Eve, Adam exclaimed, "At last is bone of
    			my bones, flesh of my flesh" -- thus 
    			enough time must have elapsed for Adam to
    			develop a natural longing for a mate of his
    			own kind.
    
    
    Could all of this have been done involving Adam in the daylight hours?
    Again, it's one thing to say Jehovah did all he did because he is God;
    but Adam was not.  Since the Bible indicates that these things happened
    in real time (and not in a vision, or something supernatural), would
    there really have been enough time in less than one 24-hour day for
    these things to have taken place with Man involved?
    
    	In summary, as I read Genesis 2:4-24, I can't help but being left
    with the impression that what was described took place over more than
    24 hours, given that what happened from 2:7 onward all took place in
    the 6th creative day .  Gen 2:5,6, which may have been prior to day 6,
    also reads as though a considerable period of time had elapsed.
    
    
    								-mark.

Re: .152  (Mark)

>>Gen 1 is a chronology.  Gen 2 is not.
>    
>    	True, but the events of Gen 2 obviously fit within the chronology
>    of Gen 1, right?
    
Not necessarily all of the events.

One possibility is that Adam simply *didn't* name all the animals on the
6th (Adam's 1st) day.  

>    that's 15 hours, or 900 minutes.  If it took 10 seconds for Adam to
>    study and name each animal, that would have allowed Adam to name 9000
>    animals and birds. I don't know off the top of my head, but are there
>    less than 9000 distinct kinds of animals and birds (including the ones
>    that are now extinct, thanks to man)?
    
The only estimate I personally know of is that of Ernst Mayr, totalling
17,600 air-breathing land animal and bird species.  However, Adam may not have
had to name that many.  There seem to be many more classifications called
"species" today than may be properly called "species".  A "species" is a group
of interbreeding animals.  But many "species" today interbreed with members of
other "species".  For example, dogs, wolves, and coyotes interbreed.  Perhaps
there was only one "dog" kind originally created, from which we now have
dogs, wolves, and coyotes.

Also, there is nothing precluding a significant amount of speciation having
occurred since the creation event.  (And by that I do not mean neo-Darwinian
evolution, by the way.)

So it seems we're only about 1 order of magnitude away from a realistic, 
albeit all-day task.  Between misclassification and speciation, it seems
well within the realm of plausibility.

In any case, I believe that the "6 days" of Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:8-11 are
clear and explicit.  In light of these scriptures, we must search for a way
around the "17,600/day" dilemma. 

Genesis 1 - Genesis 2:3 is the chronological record.  I always assumed that
Genesis 2:4 - 2:23 was then a record of events, without timing attached. 
Is there any special reason to assume that 2:4 - 2:23 happened on day 6,
other than to include the creation of Eve on the 6th day? Possibly 1:27
could be read to indicate that Eve was created on day 6, but in that she
was taken from Adam (same DNA, etc), rather than being a separate creation,
I would think that 2:22 could be a later day than Creation day 6, as she 
was there in potential, in Adam.

							Andrew

The scriptures say that "God created man in his own image, in the image of
God he created him; male and female he created them... and there was 
evening and there was morning -- the sixth day"  (Gen 1:27,31)

Note that I wasn't suggesting that Eve was created on another day.  I was
questioning whether the naming of the animals was completed on the 6th day. 

The assumption most people make is that Adam had to name all the animals, so
that he could find out that there was no "suitable helper", so that God could
then create Eve.  I don't see that the text actually indicates this.

Hi Garth, 

I was presuming that the naming of the creatures preceded Eve's arrival,
because of the way 2:20 concludes 'but for Adam, no suitable helper was
found'. 

ie for this to mean what it appears to at face value it seems that the 
naming of the animals preceded Eve.  So if you take 1:27,31 to mean that 
Eve was there as an individual on the 6th day, then yes, the naming of the 
animals happened earlier that day.

We were just coming from different directions.

							Andrew

Re: .115  (Steve Leech)
    
>    BTW, I will be talking to my friend this weekend, and will try to
>    remember to get that book back.  If I do, I'll post the definitions
>    next week.   
>    
>    I'm truly sorry for worming out of this debate for so long.  I'm
>    repenting, though!  8^)
    
Any progress on getting that book?  

    I'm not even going to enter an excuse.  Just call me brain dead and
    leave it at that.  
    
    My friend is on the network, though, so I'll leave him a note to bring
    the book by.  He usually drops by on Sat.  We go out to the buffet and
    stuff ourselves silly while discussing world events.  
    
    As an aside, he is somewhat agnostic (a habit I've been trying to break
    him of  8^) ), so any prayers for him would be appreciated.  His name
    is Richard.  He liked the book, BTW, and is slowly coming around from
    the secular humanistic garbage that has been engineered into him by
    society.
    
    -steve

Re: .158  (Steve)

>    I'm not even going to enter an excuse.  Just call me brain dead and
>    leave it at that.  
>    
>    My friend is on the network, though, so I'll leave him a note to bring
>    the book by.  He usually drops by on Sat.  We go out to the buffet and
>    stuff ourselves silly while discussing world events.  
    
Any progress on getting that book back yet?

    He didn't bring the book by.  I will remind him.
    
    -steve

Re: .160  (Steve Leech)

>    He didn't bring the book by.  I will remind him.
    
Did you remind him?

Re: .161

Are you out there, Steve?  You committed to provide that information.

What's the status?

    Actually, I conceded the argument.  If you are really interested in it,
    I will have to get that book back (something that I never seem to think
    of when the weekend rolls around).
    
    I just got an e-mail from my friend, so maybe I'll go and ask him about
    it while it's fresh on my mind...
    
    At this point, I forget exactly what the details of the debate were...
    
    -steve

Re: .163  (Steve Leech)

>    Actually, I conceded the argument.  If you are really interested in it,
>    I will have to get that book back (something that I never seem to think
>    of when the weekend rolls around).
    
I don't recall you conceding any arguments.  Perhaps I have missed something.
Could you be specific about what you have conceded?
    
>    At this point, I forget exactly what the details of the debate were...
    
================================================================================
Note 239.64       Jurassic Park and the Israeli way of life...         64 of 163
KALI::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"                            21 lines  27-AUG-1993 17:05
                 -< Billion-year-old earth/universe - (Steve) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .20  (Steve)

.20>    Cabon dating by many differnt scientific groups confirm a 4+ Billion
.20>    year old Earth give or take a few million years.  The Bible does not

.23>False.  You do not understand Carbon dating.  It is accepted fact by all
.23>scientists, including evolutionists, that Carbon dating cannot produce 
.23>accurate results beyond some N0,000 years, and is only good for dating the
.23>organic remains of animals that have died. 

What are you going to do about your claim that Carbon dating has dated
the earth at "4+ billion years, give or take a few million years"?

.20>    dispute this, IMO.  Much evidence exists that the universe is approx.
.20>    16 billion years old, too.  

.23>I know of no scientific evidence that the universe is 16 billion years old.
.23>Please provide some evidence, right here and now.

You still haven't provided any evidence that the earth is 16 billion years old.
Are you going to?

================================================================================
Note 239.65       Jurassic Park and the Israeli way of life...         65 of 163
CSOA1::LEECH "Wild-eyed southern boy"                27 lines  30-AUG-1993 11:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Okay, as promised, here is some scientific data with regards to the age
    of the universe. 
    
    1) globular cluster fitting dates the universe at 17.0 +/- 2.4 billion
    years. 
    
    2) nucleochronology dating technique .... 17.0 +/- 4 billion years.
    
    3) Hubble time (the law of red-shifts)... 14.5 +/- 5 billion years.
    
    
    I've left out the details of how these techniques work for reasons of
    time (I don't have time to enter *that* much information in here
    today).  It would make for a very long note.  However, if you like, I
    expand a bit on them later- maybe looking at one technique at a time.
    
    Sources: There are 85 different sources for this chapter (CH 9, The
    Fingerprint of God, by Hugh Ross- where I extracted the above
    information).  I'm sure that they all don't apply to the above, but
    sorting them out may take some time.  I would recommend this book, as
    it looks at science and Biblical information.  It refutes a lot of
    current (and older) scientific theories of the creation of the
    universe, and shows sound scientific evidence pointing to a created
    universe by a grand designer (God).  It also spends a lot of pages on
    Biblical creation account.
    
    -steve

================================================================================
Note 239.66       Jurassic Park and the Israeli way of life...         66 of 163
DYPSS1::DYSERT "Barry - Custom Software Development"  7 lines  30-AUG-1993 12:32
                -< plz provide a synopsis of how they're used >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Steve,
    
    I for one would enjoy hearing a brief description of the techniques you
    mentioned. I could probably guess at one or two, but if you have a few
    minutes I'd like to hear more. Thanks.
    
    	BD�

================================================================================
Note 239.74       Jurassic Park and the Israeli way of life...         74 of 163
CSOA1::LEECH "Wild-eyed southern boy"                 8 lines  31-AUG-1993 10:55
           -< cosmology isn't my expertise, but I'll give it a shot >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Okay, I'll enter a note with regards to how the dating systems I
    entered are used (though the very basics of the law of red shifts and
    the Hubble constant have been covered in a previous note).  I'll do my
    best to keep it simple and brief.
    
    I'll enter it when time permits.
    
    -steve

    Thanks...I remember now.  I mailed my friend who has the book and he
    said he will try to remember to dig it out and bring it over next time
    he comes over.
    
    One thing that I think we all may be assuming, is that man was placed
    on this earth soon after it was created.  This may not be true.  There
    are certain Biblical accounts (though you have to peice them together)
    that may point towards the universe being created long before Satan
    fell from heaven, and that when he and his angels did fall, they
    created much chaos throughout the universe.  God picked one planet to
    place man on to test him.  He rejuvenated the planet and placed Adam's
    personality into his physical body.
    
    Once Adam fell, then chaos once again took hold of the planet.  Satan
    ruins everything he touches, and the earth (which he had complete
    rights to until Jesus bought it back for the believers  with his
    blood).
    
    I'm not going to promise finding the scriptures that would seem to back
    this up, though I will make an effort to do so.  8^)
    
    All this comes down to is that *if* this line of thought *is* Biblical
    (and I believe it is scriptural), then this planet and the universe
    have been around much longer than mankind, who is a recent deposit on
    this world by the Almighty.
    
    Something to think about, anyway.
    
    -steve

Re: .165 (Steve Leech)

>    One thing that I think we all may be assuming, is that man was placed
>    on this earth soon after it was created.  This may not be true.  There

(...)    

>    All this comes down to is that *if* this line of thought *is* Biblical
>    (and I believe it is scriptural), then this planet and the universe
>    have been around much longer than mankind, who is a recent deposit on
>    this world by the Almighty.
    
"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.  6 days you shall labor and
do all your work... For in 6 days the Lord made the heavens and the earth,
the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the 7th day." 
(Exodus 20:8-9,11)

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male
and female he created them... God saw all that he had made, and it was very
good.  And there was evening, and there was morning -- the 6th day." 
(Gen 1:27,31)

re.167 Garth

> For in 6 days the Lord made the heavens and the earth
> God saw all that he had made,

	The word for "made" in these two verses does not mean made out of
nothing, it means formed out of existing material. which seems to lend credence
that 6 day creation account in Genesis 1 was a restoration not the original
creation.

I explained this in another note, perhaps it was in this one.

Regards,
Ace

    re: .168
    
    Yes, that is what I was getting at mostly.  There are other supporting
    scriptures for this, too.
    
    (besides, it's been pretty slow in this topic lately- though certainly
    some of the fault lies with me for my most untimely reponses to the
    previous discussion)  8^)

Re: .168  (Ace)

If God first created the raw materials out of nothing and then formed 
everything out of these raw materials, so what?

In fact, this would seem to me to make for a stronger parallel in the Exodus
20 account.  The Israelites were to work for 6 days because God worked for 6
days.  But that work did not consist of speaking things into existence out of
nothing! 

In any case, it was on the 4th day that the sun, moon, and stars were made,
and it is upon measuring the characteristics of these that Steve Leech's
cosmology is based.  

    You give me too much credit...it is certainly not *my* cosmology.  8^) 
    I'm not that scientifically oriented...perhaps if I had finished out my
    stay at the University.  8^)
    
    -steve

re.170

	Garth,

	If this conversation gets into carbon dating techniques or galaxy
expansion velocities you'll most definitely leave me in the dust!  8*)

> If God first created the raw materials out of nothing and then formed 
> everything out of these raw materials, so what?

	Personally, it doesn't matter to me how God chose to do it. He did, and
now we're all here. However, it seems relevant to the discussion you're having
with Steve. I don't know what Steve believes, he may in fact be way out to lunch
(good morning Steve 8*). 
	I care for the Bible first and foremost. If science supports the
biblical revelation, then science has caught up. If science opposes the biblical
revelation, then science is lagging behind. I do not need to reconcile science
with the Bible. The Bible is right, everything else is subject to fallibility.
Plain and simple I don't care for theories, philosophies, etc and I especially
disagree with the demonic teaching of evolution.. 

	So I would only say this much (unless you provoke me 8*). The account in
Gen 1:3 and forward show the restoration of the earth from preexisting material.
The question is when was the preexisting material spoken into being. Of course
the answer is in Gen 1:1, where the word for created ("bara" I think) means to
create out of nothing. If we only had Gen 1:1 and then Gen 1:3 and forward then
we could conclude that God created matter formless and then beginning in Gen 1:3
He fashioned the entire universe as a potter does with clay. But fortunately we
have to deal with Gen 1:2 which states that the earth was without form and void.
This is not difficult in and by itself except that another verse says that God
didn't create (bara), the earth waste and void (Isa 45:18) rather it was
intended to be inhabited after he created "bara" it.. 

	This leads me to believe that the earth in Gen 1:1 was originally
created to be inhabited. Gen 1:2 indicates that something happened to cause the
earth to become (Hebrew for "was void" in Gen 1:2 should be "became void") and
incur God's judgment by water. Then Gen 1:3 we see God's restoration of the
earth and the six days of creation. 

	As for the period of time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:3 it could have been
a day or a billion years. I do not know, but that is my understanding of the
biblical revelation concerning the creation and restoration of the earth. I
cannot say that this is precisely what really happened, but it seems to coincide
with other events such as the origin and fall of Lucifer. 

Regards,
Ace

	

Re: .172  (Ace)

>	So I would only say this much (unless you provoke me 8*). The account
>in Gen 1:3 and forward show the restoration of the earth from preexisting
>material. 

Where are you getting the word "restoration"?  I don't find that in the text
anywhere, explicit or implied.

>have to deal with Gen 1:2 which states that the earth was without form and
>void. This is not difficult in and by itself except that another verse says
>that God didn't create (bara), the earth waste and void (Isa 45:18) rather it
>was intended to be inhabited after he created "bara" it.. 

"he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited"  (Isa 45:18)

I don't see how this conflicts with anything.  Gen 1:2 declares that the
earth was formless and void, and Isa 45:18 declares that it was intended to
be not so and inhabited.  In God's timing (within a few days, actually), 
Isaiah 45:18 was fulfilled.

>earth to become (Hebrew for "was void" in Gen 1:2 should be "became void") and

Nearly 98% of 4900 times that word occurs in the Hebrew, it is rendered "was". 
Why do you say it "should be" rendered "became"? 

Re: .165  (Steve Leech)

>                  -< I may get the book back this weekend... >-
>
>    Thanks...I remember now.  I mailed my friend who has the book and he
>    said he will try to remember to dig it out and bring it over next time
>    he comes over.

Well, it's been over a month.  What's the story?

Are you ever going to attempt to back up those statements that you made
last year with anything of substance?

    My guess:  I don't think he is.  But thanks for the reminder!  :-)

    No.
    
    He hasn't found the book yet.
    
    
    Besides, I conceeded the argument a long time ago.  8^)  
    
    I did talk to my friend, as I said I would, and he did say he would
    look for the book.  He didn't find it, and since then, we both forgot
    all about it.
    
    Cosmology isn't my strong point.  I was posting scientific theories out
    of a book that dated the universe to be approx. 16 billion years old. 
    Four different dating techniques.
    
    Since I don't have the book to post the explanation of how the
    techniques work, I dub thee winner of said debate and withdraw my
    argument (can't argue without facts, you know)  8^) 
    
    Cheers,
    -steve

Re: .176  (Steve Leech)

>    Since I don't have the book to post the explanation of how the
>    techniques work, I dub thee winner of said debate and withdraw my
>    argument (can't argue without facts, you know)  8^) 
    
Thank you.

To close this thread, then, I will restate that I know of no scientific 
evidence that the universe is more than a few thousand years old.  The
notion that it is more than a few thousand years old has been circulating
around in the various textbooks and media for quite some time.  However, when
challenged to substantiate such claims, people tend to come up empty-handed.
We can assume that the claims are scientifically without defense, and that 
the account in the Bible is true as stated. 

I rest my case.

    I found it!!! Jill2 Check out this topic! :-)