1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    06 May '12 11:25
    No one can explain everything to everybodies satisfaction. But the following is from a young earth viewpoint of geology.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/geologic-column
  2. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    06 May '12 11:33
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    No one can explain everything to everybodies satisfaction. But the following is from a young earth viewpoint of geology.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/geologic-column
    Can you defend the YEC supposed "biblical creation" with just reference to the Bible ?

    I notice that you appeal to a lot of scientific arguments. Can you restrict your argument to theological considerations and defend YEC ?
  3. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    06 May '12 12:005 edits
    RJHinds,

    Thankyou for your answer. I suppose then that you believe the pitch was manufactured by Noah.

    The writer of the article admits that he doesn't know for certain, but believes it a possibility:

    Now while I cannot say for sure that Noah obtained pitch for the ark exactly in this fashion, it does illustrate that you don’t have to be able to extract either oil or coal from the ground in order to make pitch. Anyone who had cut down as many trees as Noah and his helpers for the manufacture of an ocean-going ark would certainly have found out about tree resins. If Europeans had a well known and widely used method of making pitch before the discovery of petroleum, obviously Noah could also have had the same satisfactory way of waterproofing the ark with its covering of pitch.


    Tar pits are mentioned in the Old Testament. I suppose you would count those tar pits as the product of the world-wide flood, but the pitch used by Noah as manufactured by Noah.

    In this thread I may probe some of your mainly theological reasons for insisting on YEC. I will not be arguing much science because I think your insistence on only one YEC interpretation of the Bible is not that valid.

    Even if the writer intended us to understand 24 hour days it is not certain that those 24 hour days were the only days to occur in the universe. The following statement would still be true if God had destroyed an earlier world, left it in a state of waste for a time, and recovered, reformed, and re-molded it -

    "For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day ... " (Exodus 20:11)

    I say that if a previous creation had been overturned, ruined, destroyed, and made in a situation of without form and void, that God "made" the world in six days, could still be a true statement.

    Comment on this. But please use theological rather than scientific reasons in your reply.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    06 May '12 18:52
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Can you defend the YEC supposed "biblical creation" with just reference to the Bible ?

    I notice that you appeal to a lot of scientific arguments. Can you restrict your argument to theological considerations and defend YEC ?
    Unless one is a believer, just referencing the Holy Bible is is like referencing a faily tale or "Little Bo Peep", it would not receive serious consideration.

    YouTube
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    06 May '12 19:345 edits
    Originally posted by jaywill
    RJHinds,

    Thankyou for your answer. I suppose then that you believe the [b]pitch
    was manufactured by Noah.

    The writer of the article admits that he doesn't know for certain, but believes it a possibility:

    [quote] Now while I cannot say for sure that Noah obtained pitch for the ark exactly in this fashion, it does illustrate that you don
    Comment on this. But please use theological rather than scientific reasons in your reply.[/b]
    You are right that complete details do not seem to be there in Genesis to say conclusively that the days are 24 hour days. But from a simple reading of the text, it seems that 24 hour days is what is meant because the week Moses established for Israel consists of 7 (24 hour) days and the seventh day is used as a day of rest from work to remember that God's creation took 6 days and He rested on the 7th day. Then the week starts all over again and work is done for another 6 days and again the 7th day Sabbath is kept in honor or God. The Hebrew word for day is not restricted to days of 24 hours in length however. So the best as we can do is try to get the meaning from how it is used in the text.

    Christ said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. And that He was Lord of the Sabbath and He and His Father worked still. So God needs no day to rest and He did it as an example for how we should not overwork ourselves, since we do need rest.

    Like I said in my first post, one can not prove everything to everyone's satisfaction. We do the best we can to understand and pass on the information to others, who can do with it as they please. The Holy Bible says we can not please God without faith, so where is faith if everything is proved to everyone without a doubt. At this point I am sstisfied that the creation days are 24 hour days. But I am open to another interpretation, if 24 hour days no longer seems correct to me. But to me the most logical interpretation is that the creation days are 24 hour days, especially if we don't consider what scientist say.

    Now, as to the origin of the pitch, the Holy Bible does not say. But if God commanded Noah to use pitch, God must of also made it available to Noah by some method. I was only pointing out one possibility and not necessarily the only possibility.

    P.S. For the "without form and void" see the following reference which only references the Holy Bible. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

    http://rcg.org/questions/p193.a.html
  6. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    07 May '12 14:431 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Unless one is a believer, just referencing the Holy Bible is is like referencing a faily tale or "Little Bo Peep", it would not receive serious consideration.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdaeQLCTa6g
    Unless one is a believer, just referencing the Holy Bible is is like referencing a faily tale or "Little Bo Peep", it would not receive serious consideration.


    They may think that that is the case. His word shall not return void you know? But regardless, you and I are Bible believers.
  7. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    07 May '12 14:512 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You are right that complete details do not seem to be there in Genesis to say conclusively that the days are 24 hour days. But from a simple reading of the text, it seems that 24 hour days is what is meant because the week Moses established for Israel consists of 7 (24 hour) days and the seventh day is used as a day of rest from work to remember that God's s the Holy Bible. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

    http://rcg.org/questions/p193.a.html
    You are right that complete details do not seem to be there in Genesis to say conclusively that the days are 24 hour days.


    I didn't really say that.

    What I said was there are not enough details to insist that these 24 hours have to be the first days that ever existed in the universe.

    Now I could be wrong. This is an open minded exploration. Theologically, an older earth, to many of us, squares more with the details we are given. And not all of those details are in Genesis.

    Now one thing I like Huge Ross for (if not his Day Age theory) is that he reminds the reader that there are multiple passages in the Bible about the creation of the world. He accounts for not only Genesis 1 and 2, or just Exodus 20:11. He brings to bear what other passages say for a holistic view.

    I have little problem with 24 hour days in Moses's vision of what God revealed to him. I have a few questions for your strong YEC approach. But I didn't even finish reading this post of yours yet.
  8. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    07 May '12 14:57
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Unless one is a believer, just referencing the Holy Bible is is like referencing a fairy tale or "Little Bo Peep", it would not receive serious consideration.
    Wow...

    I didn't think you had actually cottoned on to this.

    We have progress.

    Now can you explain WHY a non-believer is not going to give any serious consideration to the claims of the bible?

    (or any other holy book for that matter)
  9. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    07 May '12 14:57
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You are right that complete details do not seem to be there in Genesis to say conclusively that the days are 24 hour days. But from a simple reading of the text, it seems that 24 hour days is what is meant because the week Moses established for Israel consists of 7 (24 hour) days and the seventh day is used as a day of rest from work to remember that God's ...[text shortened]... s the Holy Bible. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

    http://rcg.org/questions/p193.a.html
    But from a simple reading of the text, it seems that 24 hour days is what is meant because the week Moses established for Israel consists of 7 (24 hour) days and the seventh day is used as a day of rest from work to remember that God's creation took 6 days and He rested on the 7th day.


    We agree here. Amen.

    What I ask is about "How can we insist no other days ever existed in all time and creation from "the beginning" ? I think if God here does not count previous days which are unimportant to His present revelation, it is still true that in six days God made heaven and earth.

    But we're going to explore this.
  10. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    07 May '12 15:012 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You are right that complete details do not seem to be there in Genesis to say conclusively that the days are 24 hour days. But from a simple reading of the text, it seems that 24 hour days is what is meant because the week Moses established for Israel consists of 7 (24 hour) days and the seventh day is used as a day of rest from work to remember that God's s the Holy Bible. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

    http://rcg.org/questions/p193.a.html
    So God needs no day to rest and He did it as an example for how we should not overwork ourselves, since we do need rest.


    I regard the rest of God there, (and the Bible does say God RESTED), related not to refreshment because of FATIGUE.

    I regard this resting of God to signify God obtaining satisfaction. He was satisfied in the sense of an artist completing a great picture or a composer completing a symphony.

    This is the rest of satisfaction not the rest because He is fatigued and worn out.
  11. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    07 May '12 15:304 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You are right that complete details do not seem to be there in Genesis to say conclusively that the days are 24 hour days. But from a simple reading of the text, it seems that 24 hour days is what is meant because the week Moses established for Israel consists of 7 (24 hour) days and the seventh day is used as a day of rest from work to remember that God's s the Holy Bible. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

    http://rcg.org/questions/p193.a.html
    At this point I am sstisfied that the creation days are 24 hour days. But I am open to another interpretation, if 24 hour days no longer seems correct to me. But to me the most logical interpretation is that the creation days are 24 hour days, especially if we don't consider what scientist say.



    I think Moses meant us to understand 24 hour days or typical solar days.

    Now let me ask you this about the light and the sun and the stars. If you really want to be strict YEC then shouldn't you say that the FIRST thing God created was DARKNESS ?

    We see God say "Let there be light". But if before we see light we see DARKNESS - " But the earth was waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep." (1:2) darkness seems created by Him first.

    Did you ever wonder why it doesn have God FIRST say "Let there DARKNESS" and then latter "Let there be light" ?

    We are introduced to the universe where already there is:

    1. matter
    2. water
    3. gravity
    4. darkness

    "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (1:1)

    It does not speak of God creating darkness which logically it might if it is revealing the absolute beginning of everything.

    What follows reads more like a limiting of chaos, a limiting of the effect of entropy, and a pushing back on the all pervading encoachment of darkness.

    The references to LIGHT in the New Testament seem to have this tone also:

    "And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it." (John 1:5) - refering to the eternal Logos of Christ who is with God and God.

    This is LIGHT overcoming something opposed to LIGHT - "the darkness did not overcome it." I think John is making an allusion to Genesis.

    Again Paul speaks of the glorious message of the gospel -


    "Because the God who said, Out of darkness light shall shine, is the One who shined in our hearts to illuminate the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (2 Cor. 4:6)

    In both these New Testament passages, the apostles use darkness to indicate something in opposition to life and truth. In both these passages which refer back to Genesis, the tone is one of recovery, restricting or overccoming that which is opposed to God and God's life.

    So I think the waste, void, and darkness within which God commanded "Let there be life" presupposes something working against God's ordering hand.

    A pre- Adamic age, I think, is indicated in which something when wrong. And in six days God commenced a new order beginning with assaulting the darkness with the command for LIGHT to be.

    Notice in Revelation the new heaven and new earth are without the sea.

    "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, AND THE SEA IS NO MORE." (Rev. 21:1)

    Some symbol of death and judgment, the sea must have. "But the earth became waste and emptiness, and fdarkness was on the surface of the deep" (Genesis 1:2 RcV)

    Before God says 'Let there be light" the sea which shall be no more, is seen under thick darkness.

    I think this Genesis 1 and 2 is a work of recovery and further creation signifying a previous order. Something is left over from this previous order - a subtle serpent which seems to have some evil knowledge gained from experience.

    "And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die! For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will become like God, lnowing good and evil." (Gen. 3:1)

    How does he know ?
    From where did he gain this knowledge ?
    Was it recently he gained this insight or was it gained in some previous age ?

    And what is this negative enfluence doing in the Paradise garden of God in the first place ?

    Was Adam's mandate to GUARD the garden and keep it ? Was Adam to guard the garden from the likes of creeping, subtle, lying creatures like this serpent ?

    I don't wish to argue about Carbon dating or Moon dust. Theologically, this evil serpent as the practical embodiment of Satan and the pervading darkness all indicate a previous age of Satanic rebellion. And other DAYS may have occured in that pre-Adamic world.
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    07 May '12 15:51
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You are right that complete details do not seem to be there in Genesis to say conclusively that the days are 24 hour days. But from a simple reading of the text, it seems that 24 hour days is what is meant because the week Moses established for Israel consists of 7 (24 hour) days and the seventh day is used as a day of rest from work to remember that God's ...[text shortened]... s the Holy Bible. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

    http://rcg.org/questions/p193.a.html
    But the first 'day' was before the earth was allegedly created so how was a 24 hour period generated if there was no earth? A day we define as one revolution of Earth on its own axis. If there was no earth, there was no axis, there wasn't a day. So how can you define the first day as 24 literal hours? According to the text, it doesn't include the making of time so how can you take such things literally?
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    07 May '12 19:56
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Unless one is a believer, just referencing the Holy Bible is is like referencing a faily tale or "Little Bo Peep", it would not receive serious consideration.


    They may [b]think
    that that is the case. His word shall not return void you know? But regardless, you and I are Bible believers.[/b]
    The point is that if we present God's word to someone it will have some effect on them. Whether it will soften or harden their hearts, we can not know. Is that the meaning you get from that verse?
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    07 May '12 20:02
    Originally posted by jaywill
    You are right that complete details do not seem to be there in Genesis to say conclusively that the days are 24 hour days.


    I didn't really say that.

    What I [b]said
    was there are not enough details to insist that these 24 hours have to be the first days that ever existed in the universe.

    Now I could be wrong. This is an open ...[text shortened]... stions for your strong YEC approach. But I didn't even finish reading this post of yours yet.[/b]
    Well, if you can show me from the Holy Bible that my understanding is wrong, then I think I would be humble enough to change my view.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    07 May '12 20:07
    Originally posted by jaywill
    So God needs no day to rest and He did it as an example for how we should not overwork ourselves, since we do need rest.


    I regard the rest of God there, (and the Bible does say God RESTED), related not to refreshment because of FATIGUE.

    I regard this resting of God to signify God obtaining satisfaction. He was satisfied in the sense ...[text shortened]... symphony.

    This is the rest of satisfaction not the rest because He is fatigued and worn out.
    So you do not believe He made the Sabbath for man as Christ said?
    God just wanted to take the time to admire His work, right?
Back to Top