Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Barry, you might want to check out "Genesis & the Big Bang" by Dr.
    Gerald Schroeder as well.  Excellent reading, and he doesn't subscribe
    to some of the strange anti-Biblical theories that Hugh Ross does.
    
    Mike

	Well, I know that Hugh Ross believes in an *old* universe (i.e.
tens of billions of years old).  I think he believes that the Genesis
Flood was localized (i.e. did not cover the whole earth), so he may also
believe in an *old* (i.e. ~5-billion-year-old) earth.

	What does he believe about the origin of life?  It would seriously
contradict the Creation account (which is foundational to faith in Christ),
to believe that there was any death (of "sub-humans", or maybe even of
plants!) before the fall.

Re Note 764.43 (Mike)

>    Barry, you might want to check out "Genesis & the Big Bang" by Dr.
>    Gerald Schroeder as well.  Excellent reading, and he doesn't subscribe
>    to some of the strange anti-Biblical theories that Hugh Ross does.
    
    Thanks for the pointer to Gerald Schroeder. I've put it on my list to
    check out. As for your other comment, I've read three of Hugh Ross'
    books and listened to several of his tapes. I don't recall any "strange
    anti-Biblical theories" in any of it. To be sure, there are areas where
    some could take issue with some interpretations of things, but in no
    case would I claim he's saying anything that's indisputably anti-
    Biblical.
    

Re Note 764.44 (CUJO::SAMPSON)
>                       -< what does Hugh Ross believe? >-

>	Well, I know that Hugh Ross believes in an *old* universe (i.e.
> tens of billions of years old).  I think he believes that the Genesis
> Flood was localized (i.e. did not cover the whole earth), so he may also
> believe in an *old* (i.e. ~5-billion-year-old) earth.
    
    You're in the right ballpark re the universe and the earth. (He puts
    the universe around 16B years and the earth around 4B years.) I haven't
    come across anything where he talks about the Flood. And in case someone
    wonders about these dates being anti-Biblical, I remind everyone that
    the Bible doesn't assign a date to the creation.

> 	What does he believe about the origin of life?  It would seriously
> contradict the Creation account (which is foundational to faith in Christ),
> to believe that there was any death (of "sub-humans", or maybe even of
> plants!) before the fall.
    
    He believes that God created life. He also believes that "bipedal
    hominids", which resemble humans and are responsible for the very old
    "humanoid-like" fossils, were created long ago but that Adam and Eve
    were probably created only around 30,000 years ago.
    
    As for death before the Fall, his position is that there was death -
    but not *spiritual* death, i.e. death of spirit beings, until the Fall.
    The verse of contention is, I believe, Rom. 5:12 -> "Therefore, just as
    through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus
    death spread to all men, because all sinned...". Not only does he see
    the context of this passage to indicate spiritual death, he also
    maintains that physical death would have had to be occurring in plants,
    bacteria, etc., for life to exist (e.g. what did the animals eat?).
    
    So, I suggest that if you haven't read/studied any of his stuff
    personally, that you not write him off as a heretic just yet.
    
    	BD�

>   <<< Note 764.48 by DYPSS1::DYSERT "Barry - Custom Software Development" >>>
>                             -< more on Hugh Ross >-
    >
>    check out. As for your other comment, I've read three of Hugh Ross'
>    books and listened to several of his tapes. I don't recall any "strange
>    anti-Biblical theories" in any of it. To be sure, there are areas where
    
    Barry, Dr. Ross is a progressive creationist - which basically means
    that God intervened at various times over billions of years to create
    new life forms.  There's a new book out called "Creation & Time - A
    Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross" written by
    Mark Van Bebber and Paul Taylor (Eden Publications, Mesa, Arizona) that
    refute Ross' theories.  
    
    Ross believes that the Flood was local only, there was a race of
    spiritless men and women before Adam and Eve, and other views that
    undermine the Gospel message and authority of God's Word.
    
    Mike

    Re: Note 764.96 by OUTSRC::HEISER
    
    Hi Mike,
    
    Maybe we should start a Hugh Ross note :-).
    
    I'm not defending Ross, but I am interested to know what problems (vis
    a vis the Bible) people have with his teachings. If you care to discuss
    this I'd be glad to hear from you.
    
�    Barry, Dr. Ross is a progressive creationist - which basically means
�    that God intervened at various times over billions of years to create
�    new life forms.
    
    How is this anti-Biblical?
        
�    Ross believes that the Flood was local only, there was a race of
�    spiritless men and women before Adam and Eve, and other views that
�    undermine the Gospel message and authority of God's Word.
    
    I have never heard Ross say (or write) that the Flood was local only.
    Can you provide a pointer that has Ross (as opposed to one of his
    detractors) saying/writing that?
    
    As for the "race of spiritless men and women", this is what he calls
    the "bipedal hominids". Once you say "men and women" that implies
    spirits - but that's not what Ross teaches. So if we use his term (and
    therefore distinguish creatures with spirits from creatures without
    spirits), what's the problem with non-spirit creatures that bore some
    resemblance to humans?
    
    God created plenty of non-spirit creatures that bear "some" resemblance
    to humans (the degree of resemblance is obviously subjective). I don't
    see the Bible precluding creatures of all sorts. The Bible's creation
    account tells us that Adam & Eve were the first spiritual beings that
    He created, and that there were plenty of non-spirit creatures created
    also. (For the nitpickers, angels were certainly created earlier, but
    they *are* spirits whereas men & women *have* spirits.) Maybe some of
    these other non-spirit creatures looked a lot like men & women. (I know
    some folks who bear a striking resemblance to chameleons ;-)
    
    Thanks for the pointer to "Creation & Time" - it's on my list. Btw, I'm
    reading the other book you pointed me to: "Genesis and the Big Bang." I
    like it. Schroeder makes the science very understandable. Thanks.
    
    	BD�

Re: .97  (Barry)

>>    Barry, Dr. Ross is a progressive creationist - which basically means
>>    that God intervened at various times over billions of years to create
>>    new life forms.
>    
>    How is this anti-Biblical?
        
Because creation did not happen in a time span of billions of years.  Remember
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)

That should end the discussion.  Sadly however, there are those who insist on
harmonizing pseudo-scientific speculation with God's word.  

    Nice to see you, Garth. Of course I'm well aware of your position on
    this, but I haven't "landed" on a particular side of the fence myself.
    So I'm trying to do some objective analysis. As for the passage you
    quoted, it's not at all clear that "our" six days must comprise the
    same number of hours as God's six days (or if they did, are our hours
    God's hours?). Time is relative, after all. This passage could be doing
    nothing more that providing God's preferred ratio of work to rest.
    
    I don't want to pollute your excellent topic where you provide the
    evidence to support your position, nor do I want to continue diverting
    the current discussion away from extra-terrestrials. (Hey - if extra-
    terrestrials really did exist I think they'd deserve their own topic!)
    If someone has the desire to start a Hugh Ross or a Creation topic,
    that would be the place to get into the details of this issue. (I'm
    better at using REPLY than I am using WRITE :-).
    
    	BD�

    
    Barry I believe Hugh Ross preaches that there was a pre-Adam race
    of people who died out.  Now...if sin entered the world with Adam
    and death is the result of sin...ummm...Hugh I think you have a 
    big problem there.  "Creation & Time" is a definite since it directly
    refutes Hugh Ross's claims.  Beyond that you may want to contact
    Master Books, the publishing company for the Creation Research 
    Institute.  I have their 800# if you need it.  Don't think I'm
    allowed to post it here.  
    
    Jilla

>That should end the discussion.  
    
    Not so!  When God's Word says Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away
    the sins of the world, are we to believe He has lanolin in His fleece? 
    Of course not - the reference is figurative, a word picture to help us
    understand what He wants to teach us.  
    
    I believe that "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" was written in the same spirit, to help us understand His concept.  
    
    In fact, you have somewhat of a problem with the logic of a literal
    view, for a "day" is defined (and measured) as one full revolution of
    the *Earth* (allowing for the sideral effect).  Just how long was the
    first day; how long did it take the earth to rotate?  
    
>                                 Sadly however, there are those who insist on
>harmonizing pseudo-scientific speculation with God's word.  
    
    But let's not throw out real science with the whackos.  People getting
    literal with God's Word, where it was intended to be figurative, almost
    got Galileo executed -- let's not head back into those dark ages!  
    
    /John
                                                          

    Re: Note 764.101 by CSC32::KINSELLA
    
�    Barry I believe Hugh Ross preaches that there was a pre-Adam race
�    of people who died out.  Now...if sin entered the world with Adam
�    and death is the result of sin...ummm...Hugh I think you have a 
�    big problem there.
    
    I have never heard/read where Ross teaches a pre-Adam race of "people".
    Again, he does subscribe to the notion of "bipedal hominids", but as
    I've said before he's careful to point out that these creatures were
    not spirit beings. Adam was the first spirit being.
    
    As for the death thing, are we to believe that no death of any kind
    existed before the Fall? Not bacteria, microbes, or plants? What did
    the creatures eat, and how did they digest their food? Seems that
    *physical* death would have had to exist before the Fall.
    
    Isn't it possible that Rom. 5:12 is talking about *spiritual* death?
    Remember that God told Adam & Eve that "in the day that you eat of it
    you shall surely die" - yet they physically lived for hundreds of years
    after that.
    
    	BD�

 Hugh Ross discussion moved here from 764.  Sorry if I missed a note or 2.




 Jim

Let's try this again:

"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Say to the Israelites, "You must observe my
Sabbaths.  This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to 
come, so you may know that I am the Lord, who makes you holy.  Observe the
Sabbath, because it is holy to you.  Anyone who desecrates it must be put
to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people.
For six day, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest,
holy to the Lord.  Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to
death.  The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the
generations to come as a lasting covenant.  It will be a sign between me and
the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the
earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested."'"
(Exodus 31:12-17)

How much more explicit can it be?

    
    RE: .10
    
    I'm just curious Barry...what reason would God have for death if
    not for sin?  
    
    And yes, I do accept that there was no death before the fall.  It
    doesn't matter how long it took for death to come, the point is it came.
    
    BTW...I probably won't see your note until next week.
    
    Ciao, Jilla

What I would like to know is, why is it that some of you people know exactly
what mean when I say that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days,
but you can't seem to figure out what God means when He says that the heavens
and the earth were created in 6 days? 

Is God less capable of expressing himself clearly than I am?

For anyone truly interested, I want to point out that we already beat this
issue of how long 6 days to death in the "Jurassic Park" note, beginning with
239.20.

      Hi,
    
        I agree with Jill's point which I think is powerful.  The idea
        of there being any death at all outside of sin is something I
        have a hard time with.  I realize that the word _death_ has
        several applications and the spiritual are more important than
        the physical, but still!  I have a hard time that God created
        a world in which any death at all was a part of things.
    
        I think the idea of God creating things with apparent age is
        relevent.  Adam was created and yet did not start (at time zero)
        as a fertilized egg.  He was an adult.  There is apparent age.
        Likewise, when God created the stars for light, I believe He
        was not forced to wait for the light to get to earth.  He could
        give the stars the apparent age of the time it would take for
        light to get to earth - perhaps millions of years.
    
        Finally, I have to smile at the thought of the 4th commandment
        being quoted word for word and yet being in a forum where the
        vast majority of the participants think nothing of the call to
        "rest on the seventh day from all their works"!!!!
    
        Not a jot or a tittle, right?!!
    
        And yes, the Sabbath is just a symbol.  We are called to rest
        every moment in Christ.  The rest is a physical one and is 
        certainly a symbol as baptism, communion, and foot washing are.
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

    Hello,
    
    I've not read all of the strings that have led up to this one.  I've
    only read this one on progressive creationism.  I've not done any
    serious studying on the subject mostly for the reason that I don't
    believe that on this side of heaven we are ever going to understand the 
    answers to questions such as was there a "Preadamic race", etc... 
    
    Having said that, the only thing that I have to add to this discussion
    is Gen 1:1  (from an occasionally senile memory, so please correct me
    [and slap me around] if I'm misquoting anything here  :-) ).
    
    "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.   And the
    Earth was without form and void, and darkness prevailed ...
    
    My point is that there is no way of really knowing how much time may
    have elapsed between these 2 statements.   Was there a race before Adam 
    (in existence between these 2 statements) that was destroyed and the 
    destruction was so great that the Earth became "without form and void"? 
    Who knows?
    
    A more personal opinion of mine however is Who cares?   Whether there was a
    "PreAdamic" race with monkeymen running around, etc or whether the world 
    is a gizillion years old or 10000 years old, the answers to these 
    questions in no way invalidates anything written after these statements in 
    Gen 1:1 (including the 6 days to create the rest of all of this good
    stuff that we all enjoy :-) ).   
       
    Anyway, thought I'd throw in my 2 cents worth.
    
    Cheers,
    Guido
    
          
         

    Re: Note 788.13 by CSC32::KINSELLA
    
�    I'm just curious Barry...what reason would God have for death if
�    not for sin?  
    
    I'm not good with "why" questions. I still don't know what reason God
    would have for allowing the suffering of children - and this is
    happening in the present, not thousands of years in the past. Sorry,
    but I can't address your question (it's a good one, too!).
    
    What I'm doing, though, is looking at Gen. 2:17 where God told Adam
    that in the "day" he eats of the tree he would surely die. It seems to
    me that either that "day" was really several hundred years long or that
    He's talking about something other that physical death. I think that
    most (conservative) commentators agree that in fact God was talking
    about spiritual death. Assuming that position, then, I don't know of
    any Scripture that precludes physical death from occurring before the
    Fall (the Romans verse I pointed to in my previous note assumes the
    same context as Gen 2:17 imo).
    
    	BD�

    Personally, I don't believe in living matter on this earth before
    creation.  Does that sound funny? CREATION implies the beginning.  Now
    we know that Jesus is the beginning and the end.  What does this imply?
    
    And I certainly don't believe that man's intellect [science] is
    correct.  Scientist can theory based on a few known facts many many
    things, much like I make up stories for my children about REAL animals
    and people we know.  The basis of my story is on something real, but
    logical imagination contributes the rest.
    
    I think we Christians often let ourselves get in a thither over
    something that is only expected today... man must be god.  This is a
    faith issue, just as much as salvation.
    
    Nancy
    

    Re: Note 788.14 by NETCAD::WIEBE

�What I would like to know is, why is it that some of you people know exactly
�what mean when I say that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days,
�but you can't seem to figure out what God means when He says that the heavens
�and the earth were created in 6 days? 
    
    Not to be trite, but the difficulty may lie in the fact that you're not
    God. As humans we all share a common experience, are bound by the same
    physical laws, live within the same time dimension, etc. God, on the
    other hand, lives outside of the constraints of these dimensions
    (obviously, since He created them).
    
    Can we fully understand how Three can simultaneously be One? Can we
    fully understand how a Man can simultaneously be God? Can we fully
    understand how God can allow us to freely choose our destinies while
    simultaneously telling us that He has predestined us? These truths, and
    plenty of others, are clearly taught all through the Bible, yet I doubt
    that any of us is prepared to claim that we totally understand them. It
    is no surprise that we would not totally understand God's revelation of
    the Creation - even given the fact that He is certainly capable of
    expressing Himself better than any human could.
    
    God's ways are not our ways; His thoughts are much higher than our
    thoughts (Isa. 55:9). Indeed, God's "answer" to Job really emphasizes
    how ill-prepared we are to grasp the big picture.
    
    	BD�
    
    P.S. So that I'm not misunderstood: I do think there are plenty of
    things in the Bible that are certainly understandable. I'm just saying
    that there are some things that we won't fully comprehend this side of
    eternity. Creation may be one of those things. If so, we shouldn't let
    it be a devisive issue.

>        Finally, I have to smile at the thought of the 4th commandment
>        being quoted word for word and yet being in a forum where the
>        vast majority of the participants think nothing of the call to
>        "rest on the seventh day from all their works"!!!!
>    
>        And yes, the Sabbath is just a symbol.  We are called to rest
>        every moment in Christ.  The rest is a physical one and is 
>        certainly a symbol as baptism, communion, and foot washing are.
    
    Tony, I rest everyday in Christ, but usually take my physical rest on
    Sundays (Romans 14).
    
    Mike

Re: .20  (Barry Dysert)

Barry you almost answered the fallacy of your own reasoning in the following
paragraph:

>    Not to be trite, but the difficulty may lie in the fact that you're not
>    God. As humans we all share a common experience, are bound by the same
>    physical laws, live within the same time dimension, etc. God, on the
>    other hand, lives outside of the constraints of these dimensions
>    (obviously, since He created them).
    
Of course, we cannot expect to fully comprehend the nature of God or the
things of eternity that are outside the realm of creation.  But what we are
dealing with here is within the constraints of our realm of creation.

That it took 6 days for God to create the heavens and the earth is a very 
simple temporal concept.  Given that our omnipotent God could have done it
in any amount of time he chose, I don't see any precedent for believing 
otherwise.

Furthermore, the 4th Commandment quotes that I posted specifically tie the
the timeframe of creation to the Israelites' work week.  They were to work
"6 days" *because* God took "6 days."  

Re: .17  (Guido)
         
Since, according to the texts of the 4th Commandment that I posted, the
heavens and the earth were created in 6 days, we can rest assured there
was no gap in Gen 1:1

Re: .9  (John Stock)

>    Not so!  When God's Word says Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away
>    the sins of the world, are we to believe He has lanolin in His fleece? 
>    Of course not - the reference is figurative, a word picture to help us
>    understand what He wants to teach us.  
    
This is a straw-man.  It is obvious that Mary did not give birth to a four-
footed animal with lanolin and fleece.  There is plenty of precedent for us
to not believe Jesus was a literal lamb.

Not so with the days of creation.  What precedent do you have for believing
that it was anything other than 6 days, or that 6 days was an unreasonable
amount of time for God to create everything?

>    In fact, you have somewhat of a problem with the logic of a literal
>    view, for a "day" is defined (and measured) as one full revolution of
>    the *Earth* (allowing for the sideral effect).  Just how long was the
>    first day; how long did it take the earth to rotate?  
   
Concept precedes implementation.  God's concept of a day preceded its
implementation.  God did not have to wait until the earth and sun existed and
were set in motion to "find out" how long a day was, like we do.  God first
decided how long a "day" was going to be, then set the earth rotating
accordingly. 

Furthermore, now that we have found out how long a "day" is, we will still
know how long it is, even if the earth stopped rotating.  Our clocks will
keep ticking according to that unit of measure until they cease to function
correctly.

>>  Sadly however, there are those who insist on
>>harmonizing pseudo-scientific speculation with God's word.  
>    
>    But let's not throw out real science with the whackos.  People getting
>    literal with God's Word, where it was intended to be figurative, almost
>    got Galileo executed -- let's not head back into those dark ages!  
    
I've not got a problem with real science.  Do you have some real science to
share with us? 

For those who may be unaware, I have written a 2500-line paper entitled 
"Creation vs. Evolution."  It is in note 640.*.

re: .18
    
>    What I'm doing, though, is looking at Gen. 2:17 where God told Adam
>    that in the "day" he eats of the tree he would surely die. It seems to
>    me that either that "day" was really several hundred years long or that
>    He's talking about something other that physical death. I think that
>    most (conservative) commentators agree that in fact God was talking
>    about spiritual death. 
    
    But due to sin, death entered the world (physical death).  The earth
    was cursed on account of Adam's sin.
    
    Now, since to God a thousand years is like a day (and vice versa- to
    pull a scripture out of my hat), then it would seem that Adam did die
    within THAT day (1000 years, he lived to be over 900 but less than
    1000).  In fact, no one is recorded as having lived to be 1000 or more.
    
    [personally, I feel the "thousand years as a day" scripture points
    towards God being outside of time, but it kinda-sorta fits the subject
    at hand, too]
    
    
    -steve (fence-sitter who's throwing out ideas  8^) )

    RE: .23
    
    >Since, according to the texts of the 4th Commandment that I posted,
    >the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days, we can rest assured 
    >there was no gap in Gen 1:1
           
    Good point, Garth.  See I told you that I didn't study it :-) 
    
    Anyway, the 4th commandment seems to be much clearer on the timeline than 
    the actual account of creation in Genesis is.   I reread the account in 
    Genesis and the Earth and the Heavens are created before (the concept of) 
    night and day are even introduced.   This can lead to some speculation to
    those who want to believe in a preAdamic race (Sound like the OJ trial
    or what?) or anything else that may have happened between the 2
    statements in Genesis 1:1.   The 4th commandment however would suggest 
    that the heavens and the Earth must have been created an extremly short
    period of time (perhaps almost simultaneously) before day and night rather
    than a zillion years and does seem to destroy this theory.     
    
    Oh well, I'm convinced.  Good shootin' Garth.
    
    Cheers,
    Guido

    Garth,

    Per your suggestion I read all of the notes from 239.20-.LAST. Thanks
    for the pointer, I'd hate to waste a lot of disk space re-hashing old
    ground.

    Given the background from that discussion, let me see if I can provide
    an "executive summary" of the issues. Please let me know if I misstate
    your position. Btw, I'll be in training next week, so if a discussion
    breaks out, I may not be able to join in. I did want to reply, though,
    while these things were fresh in my mind.

    Based upon Exodus 20:11 we know that "in six days the Lord made the
    heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the
    seventh day." I accept this statement as truth, as I'm sure you do. The
    only thing I'm wondering about is what these "days" are.

    As you are no doubt aware, the three main steps to Bible study are: (1)
    what does the passage say; (2) what does the passage mean by what it
    says; (3) how can this meaning be applied. I think we can agree on
    steps 1 and 3. The only question in my mind is wrt step 2.

    You've made several points about why you think these days are 24 hours
    long. I'd like to bulletize what I think are your main points and state
    why the case isn't as clear-cut for me as it apparently is for you.
    Again, please correct me if I read you wrong. We both realize that the
    Hebrew for "day" can be taken either literally or figuratively, and
    that context must decide. The difference is that (I think) you believe
    that the Genesis 1 context indicates that these days be taken as
    24-hour periods of time, whereas I'm not so sure. I haven't ruled it
    out, but I'm not prepared to be dogmatic about it either.

      1. You say that Exo. 20:8-11 establishes an equality between the
      Israelites' days and God's days. I say it isn't necessarily so.
      The Exodus passage could instead be simply showing the desired
      work-to-rest ratio. The pattern is: just as God was doing creating
      for 6 of His "days" and rested on the 7th, so the Israelites were
      to do their work for 6 of their "days" and rest on the 7th. I'm
      reluctant to read into this passage a definition for "day" or to
      say that it teaches an identity between how God (who is infinite,
      eternal, outside of the time dimension, etc.) and we mark time.

      2. You appeal to the fact that I understand what you mean when you
      say "6 days"; why wouldn't I understand what God means when He
      says "6 days". The difference here is that you and I share a
      common human experience. We do not share the Divine experience.
      Moreover, there are still times when even I wouldn't know for sure
      what you meant by that expression. If you asked me what I did the
      other day I might say that "I spent the day with my wife". Now, do
      you know what I mean by "day" in that sentence? Did I spend 24
      hours with her? Perhaps I only meant the daylight hours. Perhaps I
      only meant those hours that I would have typically spent at work.
      So even in our human experience it's rarely unambiguous what we
      mean by the terms we use - how much more so with God, whose ways
      and thoughts are so far above ours.

    Now I have a few questions that will help me better understand your
    position. Do you think each of the creation days was exactly 24 hours?
    Or do you think each day was actually the period of time that it takes
    for the earth to rotate once on its axis (which is a tad less than 24
    hours)?

    I also believe (but have nothing to substantiate this belief) that the
    earth's rotational period is slightly different today from what it was
    even 6000 years ago, which I believe was slightly different from what
    it was when Moses wrote Genesis. Which "day" is the correct one?

    Finally, is each of the Creation days delimited by "evening and
    morning" or by some absolute measure of time (e.g. some fixed number of
    hours)? The reason I ask is that if "evening and morning" delimits the
    day, then that spawns other questions. For example, is this the time
    duration as measured at the equator? Where Moses wrote Genesis? Where
    the Garden of Eden was? What season of the year would be applicable?

    Obviously, the number of daylight hours (i.e. the number of hours
    delimited by evening and morning) that exist in a 24-hour period are
    not the same at different latitudes and at different seasons. If God
    were trying to define exactly what constituted a "day" then we are
    still lacking some information.

    Actually, the whole idea of evening and morning seems out of place
    since the sun didn't exist for the first few days anyway. The
    straightforward understanding of the words "evening and morning" denote
    sunset and sunrise. These don't exist where there is no sun, yet
    Genesis 1 says there was evening and morning. Could it be that these
    terms denote something else?

    So, while I have no problem with calling the Creation days literal
    days, I'm not prepared to say exactly what that means. It seems we
    don't have enough information to say what it means, and the popular
    explanations seem to have some problems. I'm content to say that the
    days are God's days, and they may or may not be equivalent to our days.
    
    	BD�

Re: .28  (Barry Dysert)

Thanks for reading 239.*, Barry.  It's encouraging to see people who are
interesting in reading before they write.  You also correctly represented my
position on all points.

>      1. You say that Exo. 20:8-11 establishes an equality between the
>      Israelites' days and God's days. I say it isn't necessarily so.
>      The Exodus passage could instead be simply showing the desired
>      work-to-rest ratio. The pattern is: just as God was doing creating
>      for 6 of His "days" and rested on the 7th, so the Israelites were
>      to do their work for 6 of their "days" and rest on the 7th. I'm

Not for your benefit, but for the benefit of those who will never bother
reading 239.*, let me reiterate the following:

	"While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering
	wood on the Sabbath day.  Those who found him gathering wood brought
	him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in
	custody, because it was not clear what should be done with him.  Then
	the Lord said to Moses, 'The man must die.  The whole assembly must
	stone him outside the camp.'  So the assembly took him outside the
	camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses."  
	(Numbers 15:32-36)

Now, suppose this fellow said to himself, "I'll work for 6 weeks and rest
on the 7th.  It's the work-to-rest ratio that matters."

I believe that this underscores the point that God meant business when he
said "6 days."  If God did not create in "6 days" as the Israelites knew them,
then there is some deception going on in Genesis 1.  

This man was not executed on a mere technicality.  The "6 days" took 6 days. 
Because God rested on the 7th day, the Israelites were to rest on the 7th day.
The man was working on the 7th day, so he was put to death.

>      2. You appeal to the fact that I understand what you mean when you
>      say "6 days"; why wouldn't I understand what God means when He
>      says "6 days". The difference here is that you and I share a
>      common human experience. We do not share the Divine experience.

Again, time, space, energy, and matter are part of the realm of creation,
and are not a "Divine experience."  We are talking about 6 days, not the
Trinity.

>      Moreover, there are still times when even I wouldn't know for sure
>      what you meant by that expression. If you asked me what I did the
>      other day I might say that "I spent the day with my wife". Now, do
>      you know what I mean by "day" in that sentence? Did I spend 24
>      hours with her? Perhaps I only meant the daylight hours. Perhaps I
>      only meant those hours that I would have typically spent at work.
>      So even in our human experience it's rarely unambiguous what we
>      mean by the terms we use - how much more so with God, whose ways
>      and thoughts are so far above ours.

The ambiguity illustrated by your example is a point well taken.  But it is a
straw man.  Your example should be something of the sort, "I spent 6 days with
my wife."  Now, we can debate about whether we were together during the night 
as well as during the day, or whatever.  But it is certain that the time we
spent together occurred during a period bounded by 6*24 hours. 

Again, it is the combination of an ordinal or cardinal number with the word
"day" that makes it a unit of measure.  Just like "6 seconds," "6 years,"
"6 inches," "6 ounces," "6 volts", "6 ducks," or "6" of anything else.

So how long did God take?  I say, "6 days."  And you _know_ what I mean.

>    Now I have a few questions that will help me better understand your
>    position. Do you think each of the creation days was exactly 24 hours?
>    Or do you think each day was actually the period of time that it takes
>    for the earth to rotate once on its axis (which is a tad less than 24
>    hours)?
>
>    I also believe (but have nothing to substantiate this belief) that the
>    earth's rotational period is slightly different today from what it was
>    even 6000 years ago, which I believe was slightly different from what
>    it was when Moses wrote Genesis. Which "day" is the correct one?

Again, God defined how long a "day" was, and it was good enough for the
Israelites to mark time with, such that the sabbath-breaker of Numbers 15
could be convicted and put to death based on the actual day of the week he
was found working.  If you want to add or subtract a few seconds or minutes
from the 144 hours, it won't bother me doctrinally.  On the other hand, if
you want to add a few million years, then I've got a problem with that. 

>    Finally, is each of the Creation days delimited by "evening and
>    morning" or by some absolute measure of time (e.g. some fixed number of
>    hours)? The reason I ask is that if "evening and morning" delimits the
>    day, then that spawns other questions. For example, is this the time
>    duration as measured at the equator? Where Moses wrote Genesis? Where
>    the Garden of Eden was? What season of the year would be applicable?
>
>    Obviously, the number of daylight hours (i.e. the number of hours
>    delimited by evening and morning) that exist in a 24-hour period are
>    not the same at different latitudes and at different seasons. If God
>    were trying to define exactly what constituted a "day" then we are
>    still lacking some information.
>
>    Actually, the whole idea of evening and morning seems out of place
>    since the sun didn't exist for the first few days anyway. The
>    straightforward understanding of the words "evening and morning" denote
>    sunset and sunrise. These don't exist where there is no sun, yet
>    Genesis 1 says there was evening and morning. Could it be that these
>    terms denote something else?

Once again, concept precedes, and is independant of implementation.  If you
and I were stuck in a cave, there would still be an evening and a morning.
Hopefully, we'd still have our watches on and some light to see them, so we
could keep track of when it was morning and when it was evening.

    Re: Note 788.29 by NETCAD::WIEBE
    
�Thanks for reading 239.*, Barry.  It's encouraging to see people who are

    Just call me Barry the encourager. (The nickname Barnabas just hasn't
    caught on, though :-)

�Now, suppose this fellow said to himself, "I'll work for 6 weeks and rest
�on the 7th.  It's the work-to-rest ratio that matters."

�I believe that this underscores the point that God meant business when he
�said "6 days."  If God did not create in "6 days" as the Israelites knew them,
�then there is some deception going on in Genesis 1.  

�This man was not executed on a mere technicality.  The "6 days" took 6 days. 
�Because God rested on the 7th day, the Israelites were to rest on the 7th day.
�The man was working on the 7th day, so he was put to death.
    
    Yes, the man did violate God's command. You could have just as easily
    countered with the fact that which ratio is the right one. Do we work 6
    minutes, then take off the 7th? Work 6 hours and take off the 7th?
    
    Where I'm not in total agreement, though, is with whose time frame
    you're talking about. Again, I see it that God "worked" for 6 of His
    days and rested on the 7th. He then decreed that man would work for 6
    of their days and rested on the 7th. This is obviously a point where
    you and I are stuck.

�Again, it is the combination of an ordinal or cardinal number with the word
�"day" that makes it a unit of measure.  Just like "6 seconds," "6 years,"
�"6 inches," "6 ounces," "6 volts", "6 ducks," or "6" of anything else.
    
    Yes, I saw you make this point in the Jurassic note. I did not notice,
    though, how you came up with the idea that it makes a difference that
    a cardinal number is attached.

�Again, God defined how long a "day" was, and it was good enough for the
�Israelites to mark time with, such that the sabbath-breaker of Numbers 15
�could be convicted and put to death based on the actual day of the week he
�was found working.  If you want to add or subtract a few seconds or minutes
�from the 144 hours, it won't bother me doctrinally.  On the other hand, if
�you want to add a few million years, then I've got a problem with that. 
    
    Actually, I don't think God "defined" how long a day was; He just said
    it took Him 6 days to create and that man is to work 6 days. I see no
    definition of "day", unless you say He's defining "day" as that period
    of time delimited by "evening and morning". Are you?

�Once again, concept precedes, and is independant of implementation.  If you
�and I were stuck in a cave, there would still be an evening and a morning.
�Hopefully, we'd still have our watches on and some light to see them, so we
�could keep track of when it was morning and when it was evening.
    
    Genesis 1:5 (et al.) specifically says "there was evening and there was
    morning". I ask you, what is the definition of evening and/or morning?
    Isn't it the setting/rising of the sun with respect to earth? If so,
    how could these events occur prior the the existence of the sun? There
    would be evening and morning for us in a cave because the earth is
    rotating and the sun exists whether we see it or not. Before Day 4,
    though, there was no sun.
    
    	BD�

	But there was light prior to day four, and there was evening and
morning.  This strongly implies literal days, based upon the earth's
rotation and a separate source of light, which could have been God himself
until the sun was created.  Note that all plant life was created on day
three, prior to the sun's creation on day four.  Most plants need a source
of light to survive and grow.  The plants either had a light source that
preceeded the sun, or the length of time (one day) they had to wait for
the sun was so short that it didn't cause any harm or significant delay
to their growth, or both.  For me, it's a real stretch to read anything
other than literal days from the seven days of creation.

    As Bob implies in the previous, if you start trying to "reconcile"
    Scripture with 'science', then you find yourself going through all
    sorts of hoops to do that. Seems to me, you need *more* faith to
    'believe' that, than just a straight - "God did it as He wrote it".

    Ok, so it doesn't reconcile with what science says (today), but if I
    remember correctly, science is the continued quest for knowledge, not
    a 'nailing down' once and for all, because basically, as mankind
    discovers new things, it impacts on the understanding of many other
    areas of knowledge.

    I read, a while back, an interesting "treatise" on Univers Origins in a
    book called "A Brief History of Eternity", where the author (can't
    remember his name) suggests that Einsteinian Relativity may enter the
    "fray", especially with God "outside" the Universe. Thus His time
    period of 24hours (1 day) would relate to x million years inside the
    Universe due to the Relatavistic velocities involved during Creation
    (Lorentz-Fitzgerald type stuff).

    Me? I prefer to apply "Occam's Razor".

    If there is a complicated answer, and a simple answer, opt for the
    simple answer every time.

Re: .30  (Barry Dysert)
    
>    Where I'm not in total agreement, though, is with whose time frame
>    you're talking about. Again, I see it that God "worked" for 6 of His
>    days and rested on the 7th. He then decreed that man would work for 6
>    of their days and rested on the 7th. This is obviously a point where
>    you and I are stuck.

But that is not what the text says.  The text says:

	"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 or God.  On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your
	son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals,
	nor the alien within your gates.  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)

I simply cannot see how you can avoid concluding that the days of creation
and the days of the week must be one and the same measure, from this verse and
the parallel verse Exodus 31:15.

Even without those passages, you must have some sort of precedent for supposing
that it is not.  If the plain sense makes sense, then seek no other sense, lest
you end up with nonsense.  What is your precedent? 

You have emphasized the point, "I don't know how long a day is to God."  But
God is eternal and exists outside of time, so that's a moot point to make.  
Time belongs to the realm of creation, which is our realm, and God wrote the
bible for our benefit, not his.

>    Actually, I don't think God "defined" how long a day was; He just said
>    it took Him 6 days to create and that man is to work 6 days. I see no
>    definition of "day", unless you say He's defining "day" as that period
>    of time delimited by "evening and morning". Are you?

"Day" is linked to the work week of the Israelites in Exodus 20:11 and 31:15.
That is how long a day was.

>    Genesis 1:5 (et al.) specifically says "there was evening and there was
>    morning". I ask you, what is the definition of evening and/or morning?
>    Isn't it the setting/rising of the sun with respect to earth? If so,
>    how could these events occur prior the the existence of the sun? 
    
In Gen 1:14, God says "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons
and days and years..."  From this we see that the purpose of the various 
celestial objects is to help us mark time.  It is not the case that time
did not exist before the celestial objects.  I don't see why "evening" and
"morning" are invalid just because of the lack of some celestial object.
They still represent different periods within a day.

>    There
>    would be evening and morning for us in a cave because the earth is
>    rotating and the sun exists whether we see it or not. Before Day 4,
>    though, there was no sun.

Okay then, extinguish the sun or stop the earth from rotating.  The morning
newspaper will still be published and evening news will still be broadcast
until the printing presses and broadcast equipment or their operators freeze
up or burn up.

The passage of time does not depend on the motion of celestial objects.

    I forgot to mention in .0 that this also applies to Theistic
    Evolutionists so I updated the title.
    
    A Theistic Evolutionist believes that God created through naturalistic
    evolutionary processes.
    
    You can even toss in Deists as well (those who believe in a 'god' who
    created the world but has since remained indifferent to his creation).
    
    Mike

Re Note 788.31 (CUJO::SAMPSON)
>                       -< why do you need longer days? >-
    
    The short answer: I don't need longer days. I'm merely investigating
    the possibility of whether they might be longer while still staying
    true to the Scriptures.

>	But there was light prior to day four, and there was evening and
>morning.  This strongly implies literal days, based upon the earth's
>rotation and a separate source of light, which could have been God himself
>until the sun was created.
    
    I'm not into Hebrew, but doesn't Gen. 1:3-5 indicate that the light was
    "created"? If so, the light certainly wasn't God.
    
    I also don't see how it "strongly implies literal [24-hour] days" just
    because there was light prior to day four and there was evening and
    morning. As I indicated earlier, the fact that there was evening and
    morning before the sun - which is the only entity vis a vis earth which
    determines evening (sunset) and morning (sunrise) - is a clue to me
    that we're not talking about the same terms.
    

Re Note 788.32 (Harry)

>    As Bob implies in the previous, if you start trying to "reconcile"
>    Scripture with 'science', then you find yourself going through all
>    sorts of hoops to do that. Seems to me, you need *more* faith to
>    'believe' that, than just a straight - "God did it as He wrote it".
    
    I'm not trying to reconcile Scripture with science. If the two are in
    conflict it's science that's wrong! I know the Bible is true! The only
    thing I'm investigating is if the text allows for creation days to be
    anything other than (approx) 24 hours in length.

>    Me? I prefer to apply "Occam's Razor".
    
    I do too. But we must still be careful to not cut ourselves. There are
    times (and it seems that this unique creation event might be one of
    them) when there is a bit more depth to the Word than Occam would
    allow.


Re Note 788.33 (Garth)

>I simply cannot see how you can avoid concluding that the days of creation
>and the days of the week must be one and the same measure, from this verse and
>the parallel verse Exodus 31:15.
    
    That's why I said this was a point where we'd be stuck.
    
    What did Jesus mean when He was talking about the temple in John 2:19->
    "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up"? Doubtless
    most folks who heard this assumed that He was talking about the stone
    temple with which they were so familiar. That would be the simplest
    reading of the text, would it not? Unfortunately, they missed out on a
    great truth because of their erroneous assumption. I don't want to miss
    out on a great truth because I assume that the creation days are 24
    hours long (in the absence of a clear definition).

>Even without those passages, you must have some sort of precedent for supposing
>that it is not.  If the plain sense makes sense, then seek no other sense, lest
>you end up with nonsense.  What is your precedent? 
    
    This is an excellent point. It sounds silly for me to be saying this
    because I am what most folks would call a literalist (just ask my
    Revelation class). I also know, though, that at times there is greater
    depth. When one decides to plumb these depths is indeed a difficult
    issue.
    
    I don't know that my precedent is valid, but a "plain reading" of
    Genesis 1 tells me that there's something special going on. Let's face
    it, the word "day" is used to mean several different things. In v5a God
    is calling the *light* day, but just a few words later He says that
    there was evening and morning: one day.
    
    Then there's the idea of what He means by evening and morning when
    there was no sunset or sunrise. Of course, I've already beaten that
    drum long enough, so no need to reiterate that one.
    
    When we get to v17 we see that the sun & moon were created to separate
    the day from the night. Clearly this "day" is specific to the period of
    daylight as distinguished from the nighttime.
    
    Finally in 2:4 we see that the whole "week" is called the "day that the
    Lord God made earth and heaven".
    
    So to summarize, my precedent is the knowledge that elsewhere in
    Scripture Occam's razor doesn't quite cut straight. When I see clues
    scattered throughout the first two chapters of Genesis (which certainly
    are narrating a singular event) that the same words are taking on
    different meanings I am intrigued enough to consider the possibility of
    a deeper meaning. Let's face it: the word "day" cannot mean 24 hours in
    each of the instances that I just cited.

>"Day" is linked to the work week of the Israelites in Exodus 20:11 and 31:15.
>That is how long a day was.
    
    Probably my last reply along this one: The "work" that the Israelites
    did was not the same as the "work" that God did during creation. The
    time frame in which the Israelites lived was not the same as the time
    frame (or lack thereof) that God lives in. The physical need for rest
    endemic to the Israelites is nonexistent to God. Why should we all of a
    sudden come the conclusion that the "day"s are the same?
    
    These passages aren't defining what constitutes a day. They're saying
    that the Israelites are to work 6 days and rest 1 day because God
    "worked" 6 days and "rested" 1 day. There's no definition of day here.

>In Gen 1:14, God says "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
>separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons
>and days and years..."  From this we see that the purpose of the various 
>celestial objects is to help us mark time.  It is not the case that time
>did not exist before the celestial objects.  I don't see why "evening" and
>"morning" are invalid just because of the lack of some celestial object.
>They still represent different periods within a day.
    
    I agree that God created time. I agree that celestial objects help us
    mark time. I have never said that "time did not exist before the
    celestial objects". What I am pondering is what is meant by the
    term evening and morning. Doesn't Occam tell us that it is the term
    used for the sunset and sunrise? It's impossible to have a sunset and a
    sunrise without the sun.
    
>Okay then, extinguish the sun or stop the earth from rotating.  The morning
>newspaper will still be published and evening news will still be broadcast
>until the printing presses and broadcast equipment or their operators freeze
>up or burn up.
    
    Unless you change the definition of "morning", while the morning
    newspaper may still be published there will certainly be no morning
    (i.e. sunrise) if the earth stopped rotating or the sun's light didn't
    shine.

>The passage of time does not depend on the motion of celestial objects.
    
    Agreed. But (once more, with feeling), Gen. 1:5 doesn't say "there was
    passage of time: one day"; it says "there was evening and there was
    morning: one day".
    
    	BD�

    If Garth's replies haven't convinced you yet, maybe this will.  Here
    you have, in my opinion, the 2 key verses that give TE's and PC's the 
    most problems.

Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Mark 10:6  But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

    The Hebrew phrase for "In the beginning" is written as though it was one 
    word with no space between "In" and "beginning."  There is no article
    in the Hebrew.  The Hebrew word for "beginning" is "re'shiyth," which
    is translated "beginning" in most dictionaries but can also mean
    "first, firstfruits, best, chiefest, or principal."  There are 51
    occurrences of "re'shiyth" in the O.T.  In only 11 of these do we find
    a preposition:

    Hebrew             Number               English
      be                 6                   in, at, by, etc.
      me                 4                   from
      le                 1                   to, for

    There is also one place where there is no preposition but "re'shiyth"
    is used as an adverb and translators added an English preposition.  In
    all 12 cases, "re'shiyth" means "beginning, first, or early."

    In Genesis 1:1 the Hebrew preposition is "be" which is usually
    translated as "in."  The French and German translations use the
    equivalent of "at" - "Au commencement" and "am Anfang" or "At the
    beginning," which sounds better.  Why?  The word "in" has acquired 
    fairy tale status over the years, as in "once upon a time."  "At" is 
    preferable because Genesis 1:1 refers to a point in time, not a duration.  
    The TE and PC views are evolutionary in their roots and not a completed 
    work as noted in the point in time of Genesis 1. 

    I still maintain that the views of TE's and PC's degrade God's Word and
    the message of the Gospel.  The Precambrian period is said to have
    begun 4.5B years ago and the origin of the universe 8-12B years ago
    (based on recent Hubble calculations).  The problem here is the time
    it's taken the material of the alleged "Big Bang" to form into a
    spherical globe we call earth.  From these figures, it's obvious that
    the creation of the heavens and the earth could not, in an
    evolutionary framework, have both occurred "At the beginning."  The
    earth would have only formed 70% along the timeline until now.

    As for humans, TE's and PC's allow for 6 whole ages to pass (6 days of
    Creation) so that they can reconcile science and the Bible.  The
    problem here is that our Lord Jesus Christ in Mark 10:6 says otherwise. 
    In other versions, the Greek preposition "apo" is translated "from"
    (KJV), but this also includes "at," so once again we're facing "At the
    beginning."  There is no room in Scripture for the gap theory.  It
    undermines the authority of God's Word.

    How does this degrade the Gospel message?  First of all, it tells us
    that we have a God that allows a huge amount of time to pass before
    creating us, implying that He's not really interested in us.  It's also
    saying that the earth is His experimental lab rather than the home of
    His created loved ones.  Almighty God doesn't need to experiment.  The
    TE/PC theories also postpone Christ's Second Coming with a extremely
    short time period on one end, prefaced by an extremely long boring
    period.  The final episode will be an "exciting" but sinful short
    period right at the end.  Once again, you have lopsided history.

    Finally, Genesis 2:1 says "thus" (i.e., as in Genesis 1) were the
    heavens **completed.**  Surely the earth wasn't complete in God's eyes
    until humans had arrived as a separate people "in His image."

    Mike

    
    .28
    
    Hmmm...God does not share a common human experience with us?  
    
    Ummm...yes He did.  Jesus, Jesus, Jesus - there's just something
    			about that name!
    
    Jilla

 Jesus, Jesus, Jesus
 Sweetest name I know
 Fills my every longing
 Keeps me singing as I go!

	Barry,

	I didn't intend to imply that God *was* the light, I was just
guessing that He could have been the *source* of the created light,
which shone on the earth prior to the sun's creation on day four.

	From "evening and morning", I infer that there apparently was a light,
shining from a particular direction on the earth, which was already rotating.
The sun in that case would not be needed to mark the passage of each day;
there would still be an evening and a morning from a vantage point on the
rotating surface of the earth, because of the vaguely-defined light source
that preceded the sun, moon, and stars.

    Isn't the name of Jesus wonderful - so many wonderful meanings, I
    particularly like Immanuel "God with us"
    
    Glroy to His Name
    Glory to His Name
    All may change but Jesus never
    Glory to His Name
    
    Love
    Ben

Re: .35  (Barry Dysert)

>    What did Jesus mean when He was talking about the temple in John 2:19->
>    "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up"? Doubtless
>    most folks who heard this assumed that He was talking about the stone
>    temple with which they were so familiar. That would be the simplest
>    reading of the text, would it not? Unfortunately, they missed out on a
>    great truth because of their erroneous assumption. I don't want to miss
>    out on a great truth because I assume that the creation days are 24
>    hours long (in the absence of a clear definition).

Now just look at the verse you quoted!  Even though Jesus was speaking purely
figuratively about the temple, when he said "3 days" he meant it!  Once again
the rule applies that if you put a number next to it, it's literal.

Regarding the destroying/restoring of the "temple," you might be surprised to
hear me say that I think it was perfectly reasonable for people to assume that
he was speaking of the physical stone temple that he had just purged of its
vendors.

Let's look at the verse in context:

"...he said, 'Get these out of here!  How dare you turn my Father's house into
a market!'  His disciples remembered that it is written: 'Zeal for your house
will consume me.'  Then the Jews demanded of him, 'What miraculous sign can
you show us to prove your authority to do all this?'  Jesus answered them,
'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.'  The Jews 
replied, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going
to raise it in three days?'  But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said.
Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken."
(John 2:16-22)

Note that not even his disciples understood what he was talking about until
after he had risen from the dead.  And keep in mind that Jesus only spoke
frankly to his disciples about his coming death, burial, and resurrection.
It was a subject he did not discuss in detail in public, beyond his allusions
to "the sign of Jonah."

But such is prophecy.  I have come to expect prophecy to be full of hidden
meanings yet to be revealed.  On the other hand, the days of creation are not
prophecy, but history, which I have come to expect to consist of simple and 
straightforward descriptions of events past and completed.

>>Even without those passages, you must have some sort of precedent for
>>supposing that it is not.  If the plain sense makes sense, then seek no other
>>sense, lest you end up with nonsense.  What is your precedent? 
>    
>    This is an excellent point. It sounds silly for me to be saying this
>    because I am what most folks would call a literalist (just ask my
>    Revelation class). I also know, though, that at times there is greater
>    depth. When one decides to plumb these depths is indeed a difficult
>    issue.

>    So to summarize, my precedent is the knowledge that elsewhere in
>    Scripture Occam's razor doesn't quite cut straight. When I see clues
>    scattered throughout the first two chapters of Genesis (which certainly
>    are narrating a singular event) that the same words are taking on
>    different meanings I am intrigued enough to consider the possibility of
>    a deeper meaning. Let's face it: the word "day" cannot mean 24 hours in
>    each of the instances that I just cited.

Why cannot there be the plain sense AND greater depth?  Why cannot there be
both a stone temple and a spiritual temple?  And if Jesus is able to raise
his body after 3 days, does this cause us to doubt that Jesus is able to
raise a destroyed stone building in 3 days?

Shouldn't we be taking God at his word concerning the things of this world,
before we ponder the deeper meanings of things not of this world? 

    Re: Note 788.37 by CSC32::KINSELLA
    
�    Hmmm...God does not share a common human experience with us?  
    
�    Ummm...yes He did.  Jesus, Jesus, Jesus - there's just something
�    			about that name!
    
    Jilla,
    
    In rereading my note, I don't see where I said that "God does not share
    a common human experience with us." I don't know what you took offense
    at, but what I said in .28 was "We do not share the Divine experience".
    
    If you look at what I was saying in context, I hope you'll see that my
    meaning was simply that we're not God: we are constrained by physical
    laws, by time, by the three spatial dimensions, etc; God is not.
    
    I hope I've clarified that a bit.
    
    	BD�

    
    Well, that's a shame that you don't see that Barry.  But here's
    what it sounds like:
    
    We share a common human experience...therefore I can understand 
    you when you say day.  But we do not share a common divine 
    experience so we can't tell what God meant when he said day.
    
    My point is that you didn't take this far enough.  We couldn't 
    share divine experience, so God shared human experience with
    us, and to go one further...Moses who wrote Genesis did too.  
    
    Luke 16:31  "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets,
    neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead."
    
    Jilla

    Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance & necessity +
                mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long 
                time periods.
    
    Theistic Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance & necessity + 
                         mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long
                         time periods + GOD.
    
    1. Misrepresentation of the Nature of God (Matthew 5:48, Isaiah 6:3,
       Jeremiah 32:17, I John 4:16, Deuteronomy 32:4).
    2. God becomes a God of the Gaps (I Corinthians 8:6).
    3. Denial of Central Biblical Teachings (II Timothy 3:16).
    4. Loss of the Way for Finding God (Romans 7:18-19, Luke 19:10).
    5. The Doctrine of God's Incarnation is Undermined (Philippians 2:5-7).
    6. The Biblical basis of Jesus' Work of Redemption is Mythologized
       (Romans 5:12, Genesis 2:17, Romans 5:16-18).
    7. Loss of Biblical Chronology (Genesis 1:1, Matthew 24:14, Exodus
       20:11, Galatians 4:4).
    8. Loss of Creation Concepts (God creating without using available
       material).
    9. Misrepresentation of Reality (Bible carries the authoritative seal of 
       truth from which mankind can't depart).
    10. Missing the Purpose:
        a. Mankind is God's purpose of creation (Genesis 1:27-28).
        b. Mankind is the purpose of God's plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
        c. Mankind is the purpose of the mission of God's Son (I John 4:9).
        d. We are the purpose of God's inheritance (Titus 3:7).
        e. Heaven is our destination (I Peter 1:4).

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command,
so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."  (Heb 11:3)

re .45

That verse is, of course, a bulwark of one of the first articles of faith:

		"Creation from Nothing"

It also firmly establishes that those things which exist do so by the
word of God.

It neither confirms nor denies whether humans evolved from a protoplasmal
primordial atomic globule, like Pooh-Bah.

It does, however, state that the humans got here by a method which God
willed -- a method he chose in order to create us in his likeness.

/john

Forgive me if I missed it, but I think 788.44 omitted the fact that 
evolution (whether theistic or otherwise) leans heavily on death existing 
before the fall.  I take the following verses to indicate that death did 
not exist in any form before the fall:

    "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
     and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"
							Romans 5:12 

    "For since by man came death, by man came also 
     the resurrection of the dead."
							1 Corinthians 15:21   

[theistic] evolution relies on a state of intense conflict - an agonising
survival battle - for the living creatures to develop, rather than it
existing as the place of peace and perfection - expressing the character of
the God Who designed and created it - which is represented in Genesis 1 and 2. 

								Andrew 

>It neither confirms nor denies whether humans evolved from a protoplasmal
>primordial atomic globule, like Pooh-Bah.
    
    We're made in God's image, and God isn't any of the above (see God's
    triune nature).
    
    Mike

re .48

Being made in God's image has nothing to do with _how_ God made us.

Furthermore, God's _human_ nature (the flesh and blood of Christ) was
taken from his mother, a human who was created through whatever process
God used to create us.

God is flesh and blood because of the Incarnation.  He shares our flesh,
even if it was created through God's direction of the evolutionary process.

If (I repeat: if) God used evolution to create us, what appears to us
to be random mutations are most likely actually God's specific choices,
made from before the worlds began, in order to create humankind in his
image.

/john

Re: .49  (John Covert)

>If (I repeat: if) God used evolution to create us, what appears to us
>to be random mutations are most likely actually God's specific choices,
>made from before the worlds began, in order to create humankind in his
>image.

I've got another one for you:

"If (I repeat: if) the moon is made of green cheese, it would not contradict
the fact that it was a creation of God, even if God used a cosmic cow's milk
to make it." 

The point is that evolution is such utter nonsense that it is not worthy of 
hypothetical consideration by an intelligent, critical thinker such as
yourself. 

See my note 640.*

I don't believe in random evolution, unless the "random" sequence was chosen
by God.

I do believe the fossil record attests to different species living at
different times.

If the method God used to create man in his image (and I believe God did
this, as I believe God created all things through the Word and by the Holy
Ghost) involved a process which to the scientists appears random, that is
because they do not fully understand the mind of God.

Neither do I, but I will not _limit_ God by saying that he could _not_
have used the progression from single-celled animals to Man that scientists
are theorizing about in his design of the physical bodies that we live
within in this life.

Neither does the Bible limit God in this way.

/john

    John,
    
    the 'difficulty' is, that the fossil record could just as readily be
    explained by a world-wide catastrophic flood (viz. Genesis 7ff). Unless
    your inclination is to assume a 'long time period' and therefore
    interpret the evidence in that manner.
    
    In a simplistic manner, the geologic column (in which the fossil record
    is embedded) is assumed to have been built up over an extended period
    of time due to the 'gentle' forces we see in effect today acting over
    that period of time. 
    
    Admittedly, in recent years, there have been allowances for certain
    'catastrophes' (e.g. comet/meteor strikes, or even 'localised'
    flooding) to occur at certain long intervals, but in general the sense
    is one of slow relentless change at the pace seen today.
    
    It is possible, however, to interpret the data in a manner more
    consistent (imho) with a literal reading of the Gensis record.
    
    By the addition of a world wide flood (and many cultures have in their
    'mythology' a flood of some sort), and the forces involved in the
    movement of such volumes and masses of water, the effect this would
    have on the physiology of the earth's surface would be very difficult
    to have predicted beforehand.
    
    It seems you have made your decision to use the 'long-time-span' model,
    and fit the Bible to that. Others choose the 'young-earth' model, and
    interpret 'science' in light of that.
    
    The amusing thing may be, in the end, a synthesis of the two. Think
    'Einstienian Relativity' ;')

Re: .51 (John Covert)

>I do believe the fossil record attests to different species living at
>different times.

What do you mean by "attest"?  As far as I know, the fossils don't have dates
attached to them in any coded form.

Please see 640.10, 640.11, and 640.12.

>Neither do I, but I will not _limit_ God by saying that he could _not_
>have used the progression from single-celled animals to Man that scientists
>are theorizing about in his design of the physical bodies that we live
>within in this life.
>
>Neither does the Bible limit God in this way.

God said that he created everything in 6 days (Gen 1, Ex 20:8-11, Ex 31:15-17),
so we can be confident that what the scientists you are referring to are
theorizing about is foolishness. 

� What do you mean by "attest"?  As far as I know, the fossils don't have dates
� attached to them in any coded form.

YES - You can tell the digital ones by their badge number.



Oh!  Sorry.  I'm the only fossil with a badge number...

							;-)
								&

The fossil record does have dates attached to it.

How to relate those dates to the biblical creation account is not
yet understood.

Both can be true, in their own way, when seen through a full understanding
of time, which we don't have today.

Don't limit God to your limited understanding.

/john

Re: .55 (John Covert)

>The fossil record does have dates attached to it.

Really??  Okay then, I'm calling you on this one.

Please cite for me, right here and now, a fossil, what date was attached to it,
and how the date was attached to it.  Any fossil.  (Note:  Andrew Yuille
does not count as a fossil.) 

>Don't limit God to your limited understanding.

Read the documentation that God wrote.  Since he said "6 days", then it is not
we who are putting the limits on God, but God who is putting the limits on us.

    (and no fair using 'circular-dating' logic) 

The dating is relative, backwards from the current time.

Various methods are used.  Carbon, layers, levels of development.

The absolute time estimated by the scientists may not be equivalent to
time in our day for events which took place during God's "six days".

Let me put you on the spot:  When did the dinosaurs exist?  How many
years ago?

/john

    Couldn't have been too long ago since documents, written by people, exist
    that describe encounters with them.
    
    Mike

Re: .58  (John Covert)

>The dating is relative, backwards from the current time.
>
>Various methods are used.  Carbon, layers, levels of development.
>
>The absolute time estimated by the scientists may not be equivalent to
>time in our day for events which took place during God's "six days".

You did not answer the question, so let's try it again:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .55 (John Covert)

>The fossil record does have dates attached to it.

Really??  Okay then, I'm calling you on this one.

Please cite for me, right here and now, a fossil, what date was attached to it,
and how the date was attached to it.  Any fossil.  (Note:  Andrew Yuille
does not count as a fossil.) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: .58  (again)

>Let me put you on the spot:  When did the dinosaurs exist?  How many
>years ago?

Dinosaurs are animals, and God created the animals during the creation week,
which was on the order of 6000 or so years ago, give or take any generations
that were unaccounted for in the biblical historical record of "begats" between
Adam and Christ.

Exactly when the dinosaurs became generally extinct, I don't know for sure.

    Garth,
    
    I think John realises that he _can't_ provide "proof". The methods he
    lists ("Carbon, layers, levels of development") all assume that the
    conditions we see today (e.g. rate of decay of radio-isotopes, speed of
    sediment deposition, and "progression" [!!??] of 'lower' to 'higher'
    life-forms !!!??? ) have *always* progressed at the same rate.
    Therefore, by extrapolating 'backwards' we get a time-frame in the
    order of (large number) of years. The reason I put "(large number)", is
    that each method, in and of itself, will give a different 'large
    number' ;')
    
    This whole thing breaks down in a crumbling heap if we allow just one
    catastrophe that can change the rate of radio-isotope decay, massive
    deposition of sedimentation, fossilisation and the destruction of many
    species.
    
    As for the death of the dino's? The Flood?

Don't assume I'm assuming anything the scientists assume.

If you say that the dinosaurs existed 6000 or so years ago and flourished
for a few hours, that just might be the case.  I'm unaware of any documented
human encounters with Pterodactyls, T-Rexes, or Brontosauri.  You can measure
time by the bible's frame of reference, and the scientists can measure time
by their frame of reference.

The concept of a frame of reference accounts for the numbers being different
in each frame of reference.  It doesn't mean either is wrong.

[Aside: Certainly God designed the dinosaurs and their extinction with Adam
[in mind, so that his descendants would be able to build machines that run
[off of the oil produced from their dead bodies.

The numbers the scientists get come from all sorts of things including, for
example, their knowledge of how long it would take for the dinosaurs to turn
into oil using current physical and chemical processes.  God turns water into
wine every year, through a lengthy chemical process.  He's also known to have
sped up that process on at least one occasion.

Frame of reference is what it's all about, which is why both Ptolemy
and Copernicus are right.  The bible says that the sun rises, or that
it moves across the sky, or that it stops, and it's right, in its frame
of reference.  The scientists say that the earth revolves around the
sun, and they are right in a different frame of reference.

/john

    Review ancient Chinese and Gaelic historical records for human
    encounters with dinosaurs (i.e., "dragons").  Even as recent as 1977,
    Japanese fishermen pulled what was thought to be a plesiosaur out of 
    the Pacific ocean.
    
    Mike

Re: .63  (Mike Heiser)

>    Even as recent as 1977,
>    Japanese fishermen pulled what was thought to be a plesiosaur out of 
>    the Pacific ocean.
    
I've seen a color picture of this, by the way.  I had to return the picture, 
but I made some b/w photocopies of it, if anyone is interested.

FWIW.

Re: .61 (WOODWARDC)
    
>    I think John realises that he _can't_ provide "proof". The methods he
>    lists ("Carbon, layers, levels of development") all assume that the

I'm not assuming that John realises anything at all right now.  So I'm taking
things one small step at a time with him.

Re: .62  (John Covert)

>If you say that the dinosaurs existed 6000 or so years ago and flourished
>for a few hours, that just might be the case.  I'm unaware of any documented
>human encounters with Pterodactyls, T-Rexes, or Brontosauri.  

Are you constructing an argument from silence here?  Must dinosaurs have not 
existed whenever and wherever no one wrote about them?  For that matter, was
the Apostle Paul potty-trained? 

Question for you:  What animal fits the description of the Behemoth of
Job 40:15-24?  Or Leviathan of Job 41?  Those are a couple of animals to
think about.

>You can measure
>time by the bible's frame of reference, and the scientists can measure time
>by their frame of reference.
>
>The concept of a frame of reference accounts for the numbers being different
>in each frame of reference.  It doesn't mean either is wrong.

Philosophical gibberish.  What scientists measure should line up with 
documented history.  If scientists come up with times that are contradicted
by historical fact, then they are doing their measurements wrong.

>[Aside: Certainly God designed the dinosaurs and their extinction with Adam
>[in mind, so that his descendants would be able to build machines that run
>[off of the oil produced from their dead bodies.

Petroleum is the product of dead dinosaurs???  God is an advocate of 
technology for man's sake???  8^O !!!

Let's get back to the fossils with dates attached to them.  Now, you stated
in reply .55 the following:

>The fossil record does have dates attached to it.

I called you on your claim, and am still waiting for some specifics.  Have you
personally or anyone you know found a fossil with a date on it?  Please explain
what you know and cite your sources.  All I've seen thus far is some 
hand-waving about vague and unspecific things by some un-named scientists. 
What I am looking for are the particulars concerning things you can
substantiate.  

Or else retract the statement or admit that it is just hearsay so many times
removed from its source. 

I have nothing further to add to this discussion.

    Re: -1
    
    What's that supposed to mean?

    Awww John,
    
    you made a statement, that sounded like 'fact'. Garth has 'called you
    out', and now you say 'no comment'???
    
    My friend, *you* have challenged my thinking on many topics in the
    past, for which I thank you.

    Chris and Lucy entered a building looking for Manuel.  In a room they
found a note and a lighted candle.  Chris looked at the note and read it aloud:
"Hi!  It's 2:30, and I'm leaving to run some errands.  I'll be back in a couple
of hours.  BTW, the electricity is out, so I lit a candle for you.  -Manuel". 

    Then Lucy said, "I know how we can find out how long it's been since he 
left!  Look, the candle has been burning since he lit it and has a significant
amount of wax that's melted and dripped down.  If we figure out what the rate
is which the wax is melting and measure the amount of wax that has thus far
dripped, we can work backwards to find out how long it has been since he left."

    Chris said, "Why waste your time?  The note says he left at 2:30."  Lucy
said, "Don't believe everything you read."  Chris replied, "Look, I've known 
Manuel for a long time, and this is his handwriting.  Don't be ridiculous."
Lucy replied, "Ah yes, but what does he *mean* by '2:30'?  A note like that
is subject to interpretation.  Suppose he was talking about another time zone
or something."  And so a short philosophical argument ensued about the note. 
However, Lucy prevailed and insisted on performing the measurement and
calculations.

    A few minutes later, Lucy announced:  "Well, I've got bad news for us.
Based on the amount of wax that has melted and the rate at which the wax is 
melting, I can confidently tell you that it has been at least one whole day
since this guy left.  He was probably talking about 2:30 yesterday.  And since
he said that he'd be back 'in a couple of hours', we can assume that something
happened to him and he's not coming back at all.  So much for your 'note'.

    Just then, Manuel walked in.  Lucy said, "Are you this guy 'Manuel'?  What
took you so long?"  Manuel replied, "What are you talking about?  I left you
guys a note saying I'd be back in a couple of hours.  It hasn't even been that
long."  Lucy said, "Never mind the note.  I measured the amount of wax that has
dripped off your candle, and the rate which the wax was melting.  I know you've
been gone since yesterday." 

    Manuel replied,  "First of all, that candle isn't burning anywhere near
as brightly as when I first lit it.  Second of all, I didn't light a new
candle, but a used one.  And thirdly, I used another candle to light this
candle and in the process the wax from that candle spilled all over this one."

    Lucy said, "So you set up that candle to deceive us, to make it look
like you left the room over a day ago, when in fact it's been less than a
couple of hours."  Manuel replied,  "Look, I left you a note telling you 
when I left.  I never intended for you to conduct some silly experiment 
measuring wax dripping off of a candle to figure out when I left.  I put 
the candle there so you guys would have some light." 

    HA!  Thanks for entering that Garth.
    
    Mike