PDA

View Full Version : Your creation belief


shag
04-23-2012, 09:20 PM
I'm just curious if anyone believes in theisetic evolution. Thought maybe some folks on here that have in the past voiced a belief in a Genesis gap theory concerning the word "day", might also believe in theistic evolution.

Sam
04-23-2012, 10:27 PM
I believe that God is the Originator and Creator.
I think this is taught in Genesis.
I think that's all we need to know.
I don't know about the how, when, etc.

Dedicated Mind
04-23-2012, 10:57 PM
can you define creation science?

shag
04-24-2012, 06:18 AM
can you define creation science?

From what I gather...

"Special Creation" (creation science)Refers to God's work of calling the universe and all that is in it into existance out of nothing, and of making complex living organisms out of simple componets as when He formed man from the dust of the ground. A study of the biblical creation accounts indicate that God simply spoke the earth and the universe into existance on the first day, and spent the next 5 days organizing the physical elements to form the sun, stars, plants, animals, and mankind. His creative work was cimaxed by the formation of man out of the "dust of the ground". (Adam)




Theistic Evolutionist:
“Theistic evolutionists claim the Bible teaches that God created the world and humanity, but it does not tell us how He did it. Mixing their interpretation of Scripture with what they consider to be scientific evidence for evolution, theistic evolutionists conclude that God initially began creation, and then He directed and controlled the processes of naturalistic evolution to produce the universe as we know it today. God acted as a kind of ‘impersonal life force inherent in the system.’ He allegedly entered into the process of time on occasion to modify what was developing … Most theistic evolutionists hold to the day-age theory, though some believe the ‘days’ in Genesis are ‘revelatory days’ when God gave revelation about the creation … Theistic evolutionists typically deny the historicity of Adam and Eve (as direct creations of God) in the book of Genesis. They generally argue that at some point in the process of evolution, God took an already-existing higher primate (an ape), modified it, put a soul within it, and transformed it into Adam, in the ‘image of God.’ (God also transformed an existing female higher primate into Eve.) In this view, then, God directly created the spiritual nature of humanity, but the physical nature was a product of evolution.

“Theistic evolutionists recognize that this seems to disagree with the statement in Genesis 2:7 that God created Adam from the dust of the ground, so they reinterpret ‘dust of the ground’ metaphorically to refer to previously existing animals. By taking a non-literal approach to Genesis, theistic evolutionists are able to fit their evolutionist views into it."





(This started thread stemmed from a discussion on another cite having to do with evolution of chloroplast, within conservation and study of plantlife. And in that thread, someone stated that creationism at its base, is an attack on science.)

bbyrd009
04-24-2012, 07:26 AM
Ok well it's early, but I read "creation science" and "theistic evolution," and I'm still not sure the diff...one is instantaneous, the other over time? Ty
http://i.imgur.com/U66cM.jpg
The dust of the earth?

AreYouReady?
04-24-2012, 11:07 AM
I would say that creation science would peak my interest more than the rest.

It would be interesting to know how God created complex living organisms out of the dust of the ground.

I fully understand though, that while we are yet living on this earth, anything we learn by ourselves would merely be theory. We may have to wait until we are with God to know exactly how He does it.

TGBTG
04-24-2012, 11:23 AM
I would say that creation science would peak my interest more than the rest.

It would be interesting to know how God created complex living organisms out of the dust of the ground.

I fully understand though, that while we are yet living on this earth, anything we learn by ourselves would merely be theory. We may have to wait until we are with God to know exactly how He does it.

How about this?

Heb 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

It would seem to me that God spoke the world into existence...

bbyrd009
04-24-2012, 12:03 PM
...It would seem to me that God spoke the world into existence...

But the element of time is just not viewed the same by God as by us. 14 billion years? No prob.
It. Will. Happen.

AreYouReady?
04-24-2012, 01:57 PM
How about this?

Heb 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

It would seem to me that God spoke the world into existence...

You are absolutely correct TGB. Most of us would accept that easily.

Science seems to have embarked on making a science project on this though, and they seem to be curious as to how God actually made a living human from the elements contained in the dirt that He spoke into existence..like magnesium, copper, iron etc.

It would be interesting to see what they have come up with, although we may never know the tiny details that God put into this when he spoke the worlds into existence until we see God...and if He chose to tell us. However, I am not going to sulk if He doesn't tell us because I would be perfectly content just being with Him. :)

Only God can think something, speak it and it becomes so. That is an awesome God wouldn't you say?

scotty
04-24-2012, 02:08 PM
How about this?

Heb 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

It would seem to me that God spoke the world into existence...

I agree. and the second bolded part of your scripture appears to say we can see how creation was made.

Hoovie
04-24-2012, 09:02 PM
What I have settled...

The earth and all things are an intelligent design - not chance.

berkeley
04-24-2012, 10:16 PM
...things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.


Like, Atoms?

Sam
04-24-2012, 10:36 PM
Like, Atoms?

like atoms and adams

berkeley
04-24-2012, 10:46 PM
like atoms and adams Adam from Atoms. But, really, it was a real question.

bbyrd009
04-25-2012, 09:08 AM
The progression from Big Bang, everything started as hydrogen (1 nucleus, 1 electron <in orbit>) speaks eloquently of this, imo. I think it's why atheistic scientists hate the BB so much.

RandyWayne
04-25-2012, 09:36 AM
The progression from Big Bang, everything started as hydrogen (1 nucleus, 1 electron <in orbit>) speaks eloquently of this, imo. I think it's why atheistic scientists hate the BB so much.

Yup. Everything up to Iron is made in stars and everything on the periodic table heavier than Iron is made during a stars Nova or Supernova. People laughed but Carl Sagan was right......

pelathais
04-25-2012, 09:40 PM
I get lumped in with "theistic evolution," though technically, that doesn't accurately describe my position. I believe that God Almighty created the heavens and the earth AND that those heavens and earth are approximately 13.5 billion (heavens) and 4.5 billion (earth) years old.

The evidence for biological evolution is simply overwhelming (we did this before with Codie). If you've really had the chance to study the issue, you'd be persuaded as well, shaggie. It is a fascinating topic.

http://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/s720x720/75232_3865595882501_1356644865_3607407_2045658168_ n.jpg

"My haul from this trip. The salvaged portion of a rather badly damaged mosasaur snout and a couple of Knightia (I think they're Knightia)."

pelathais
04-25-2012, 09:53 PM
The progression from Big Bang, everything started as hydrogen (1 nucleus, 1 electron <in orbit>) speaks eloquently of this, imo. I think it's why atheistic scientists hate the BB so much.

Yup. Everything up to Iron is made in stars and everything on the periodic table heavier than Iron is made during a stars Nova or Supernova. People laughed but Carl Sagan was right......

I'm not aware of any "atheistic scientists who hate the BB." Most seem, in fact all of them seem to embrace the idea. Edwin Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe and George Gamow's further development of the idea into what was derisively called "The Big Bang" at the time (1920s) wasn't met with much enthusiasm at first. Over time, the accumulating evidence did persude almost everyone - except, most prominently, Sir Fred Hoyle whose idea of stellar evolution RandyWayne just referred to.

Sir Fred rejected the idea, not because he was "atheistic" - but because he was "religious." He was a devout follower of Hinduism and their method of chronology (The Ages of Rama) which required trillions and trillions of years. Sir Fred and his close associate Chandra Wickramasinghe held to what is called the "Steady State" theory.

A lot of "Young Earth Creationists" cite these men in their attempts to disprove the "Big Bang." But the "BB" did give us the important evidence that there was a beginning to our universe. While this would go against Hindu philosophy, it is in accord with the Bible's essential message.

pelathais
04-25-2012, 10:09 PM
What I have settled...

The earth and all things are an intelligent design - not chance.

I see chance as having a huge role - in fact, the largest "force" in determining the way things are today; however, those "random events" all took place (and still take place) within an even larger scheme of "design."

It's like a casino. All of the games have a completely random and unpredictable outcome - but at the end of the day, the House still makes a deposit. All of the random events are designed to produce an overall predicable outcome - "the House always wins."

RandyWayne
04-25-2012, 10:24 PM
I get lumped in with "theistic evolution," though technically, that doesn't accurately describe my position. I believe that God Almighty created the heavens and the earth AND that those heavens and earth are approximately 13.5 billion (heavens) and 4.5 billion (earth) years old.

The evidence for biological evolution is simply overwhelming (we did this before with Codie). If you've really had the chance to study the issue, you'd be persuaded as well, shaggie. It is a fascinating topic.
"My haul from this trip. The salvaged portion of a rather badly damaged mosasaur snout and a couple of Knightia (I think they're Knightia)."

Missed you on these topics!

shag
04-25-2012, 10:34 PM
What's your view concerning the age of plant, man, and animal life on a 4.5 billion year old earth, Pel?

bbyrd009
04-25-2012, 10:43 PM
...While this would go against Hindu philosophy, it is in accord with the Bible's essential message.

There is evidence that it doesn't go against ancient Hindu Philosophy

"Nay, not merely had the ancient Hindus exalted ideas of the natural perfections of God, but there is evidence that they were well aware of the gracious character of God..."
The Two Babylons Hislop, italics his.

pelathais
04-26-2012, 12:04 AM
What's your view concerning the age of plant, man, and animal life on a 4.5 billion year old earth, Pel?

The oldest rocks on earth also have the oldest fossils of living organisms within them - bacteria. For most of the earth's history bacteria and other single celled organisms were the only life - though simple multicellular creatures developed quite early as well.

Photosynthesis developed in the seas (as is evidenced by the huge banded iron deposits found throughout the world). When oxygen began to reach current levels, sea creatures were ready to move out onto the land - but there was nothing to eat on the land yet. Plants slowly adapted to terrestrial conditions around 450 million years ago. Plant eating creatures soon followed - first arthropods (bugs) and then amphibians. Every organism on the land today is basically some sort of "sack" carrying sea water around. Your blood serum is essentially sea water. Your interstitial fluids and tears are sea water.

Anatomically modern human beings appeared about 200,000 years ago - though culturally, they did not exhibit the inclinations toward "higher thought" (art, music, written symbols, etc) until between 164,000 and 120,000 years ago. This seems to have been necessitated by the need for keeping track of the tides while foraging far out on the mud flats and sands on the South African seashore.

The differing creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, shouldn't really be looked at as giving LITERAL accounts of the way things were made or came to pass (imho). The fact that both accounts contradict one another seems to indicate this - that is, if we're going to hold onto our view of the Bible being inspired. If we force literalism upon these accounts then we we're pretty much discounting the inspiration of Scripture.

pelathais
04-26-2012, 12:12 AM
There is evidence that it doesn't go against ancient Hindu Philosophy

"Nay, not merely had the ancient Hindus exalted ideas of the natural perfections of God, but there is evidence that they were well aware of the gracious character of God..."
The Two Babylons Hislop, italics his.

What is the evidence that you're referring to?

I've heard some offer the idea of an "oscillating universe" (Big Bang-Leads-to-Big Crunch-which-leads-to-another-Big Bang, and so on) as a way of reconciling modern cosmology with the Vedic scriptures, but Hoyle and Wickramasinghe both rejected the idea. For them, it was the "Steady State" all the way. Before he died, Sir Fred did offer an incomplete cosmology where the universe was ever expanding and was infinitely large - though this came up short when Olber's Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox) is applied.

TGBTG
04-26-2012, 06:57 AM
Like, Atoms?

Atoms would not count because the context in which "faith" is being used in that scripture is referring to things that can't be observed at all (not just things that can't be seen with the eye)


Heb 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

The author of Hebrews is literally saying God spoke the world into existence out of nothing (E.g Let there be light...)

And this scripture also bears it out:

Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

seekerman
04-26-2012, 07:11 AM
The oldest rocks on earth also have the oldest fossils of living organisms within them - bacteria. For most of the earth's history bacteria and other single celled organisms were the only life - though simple multicellular creatures developed quite early as well.

Photosynthesis developed in the seas (as is evidenced by the huge banded iron deposits found throughout the world). When oxygen began to reach current levels, sea creatures were ready to move out onto the land - but there was nothing to eat on the land yet. Plants slowly adapted to terrestrial conditions around 450 million years ago. Plant eating creatures soon followed - first arthropods (bugs) and then amphibians. Every organism on the land today is basically some sort of "sack" carrying sea water around. Your blood serum is essentially sea water. Your interstitial fluids and tears are sea water.

Concerning the plants which slowly adapted to terrestrial conditions, what were the predecessors of those plants in your opinion?

bbyrd009
04-26-2012, 09:11 AM
...The differing creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, shouldn't really be looked at as giving LITERAL accounts of the way things were made or came to pass (imho). The fact that both accounts contradict one another seems to indicate this - that is, if we're going to hold onto our view of the Bible being inspired. If we force literalism upon these accounts then we we're pretty much discounting the inspiration of Scripture.

I've had that explained as re-creation, after the first earth age?
"...the earth became void," "...re-populate the earth," etc.
What do you think?

bbyrd009
04-26-2012, 09:18 AM
What is the evidence that you're referring to?

I've heard some offer the idea of an "oscillating universe" (Big Bang-Leads-to-Big Crunch-which-leads-to-another-Big Bang, and so on) as a way of reconciling modern cosmology with the Vedic scriptures, but Hoyle and Wickramasinghe both rejected the idea. For them, it was the "Steady State" all the way. Before he died, Sir Fred did offer an incomplete cosmology where the universe was ever expanding and was infinitely large - though this came up short when Olber's Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox) is applied.

Well, I've just started that book, went to 4 editions, at least; dense but very interesting. Hislop documents how the Hebrew Rahm became Brahm, as well as the pagan roots, I guess, of the trinity, and notes the descent of Hinduism to the point where there are now no more temples of Brahm, and shows where Brahmins mis-translate the Vedas...pg 14-18, 4th edition.

As to the second, I believe just recently that steady-state--said to be so unlikely that it was never seriously considered, if the energy is off by like 1 part in a quadrillion it changes the model to one of contraction or expansion--has been verified?

pelathais
04-26-2012, 11:34 AM
Concerning the plants which slowly adapted to terrestrial conditions, what were the predecessors of those plants in your opinion?

There were a variety of plant lineages that moved from the sea onto the land. Lichen, for example is a symbiont of algae and fungi - so the predecessors of lichen were at least two-fold.

Plants like seaweed and kelp which live in the inter-tidal zone were adapted to both underwater and terrestrial environments and were thus ready to make the transition. Their predecessors were algae. Algae lives as a single cell organism while swimming freely in the sea, however when it becomes attached to something like a reef (or the bottom of your fishing boat!) the single cells release a hormone that attracts other algae cells and they form a colony.

Stromatolites are mats of algae that form in inter-tidal areas and are found in some of the oldest rocks in Australia. They don't form very readily today because grazing animals like fish and turtles eat the mats as they form. Modern stromatolites are found only in hyper-saline environments where animals don't graze. In the very distant past, there were no animals to graze on them so they grew everywhere.

Wikipedia has a good general article on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_plants

pelathais
04-26-2012, 11:41 AM
... interestingly (at least to me!) when plants colonized the land they found an atmosphere that was incredibly rich in CO2. Atmospheric CO2 levels dropped incredibly fast at this time and have never really recovered. This loss of an important greenhouse gas eventually led to the Ice Ages which devastated life on the planet.

Because colder air is drier - it doesn't carry moisture like warmer air - deserts expanded along with the ice sheets. I've got an entry in my blog that goes into more detail: http://xcomplex.com/.

Basically, life is "killing" our planet because carbon-base life buries the carbon needed for warmth and life in the rocks where it can't be recycled. I have to ask - Is one of the purposes of man to return at least some of this carbon to the biosphere? Check out the graph on my blog. The loss of CO2 was dramatic and even man with his full industry pumping out CO2 won't ever recover it all.

bbyrd009
04-26-2012, 11:53 AM
... interestingly (at least to me!) when plants colonized the land they found an atmosphere that was incredibly rich in CO2. Atmospheric CO2 levels dropped incredibly fast at this time and have never really recovered. This loss of an important greenhouse gas eventually led to the Ice Ages which devastated life on the planet.

Because colder air is drier - it doesn't carry moisture like warmer air - deserts expanded along with the ice sheets. I've got an entry in my blog that goes into more detail: http://xcomplex.com/.

Basically, life is "killing" our planet because carbon-base life buries the carbon needed for warmth and life in the rocks where it can't be recycled. I have to ask - Is one of the purposes of man to return at least some of this carbon to the biosphere? Check out the graph on my blog. The loss of CO2 was dramatic and even man with his full industry pumping out CO2 won't ever recover it all.

Wow, that's extreme, but I've just finished a discussion about how a 3 degree or so avg. global warming would actually benefit mankind? Lots of land opens up, I guess, to ag, etc.

pelathais
04-26-2012, 11:55 AM
I've had that explained as re-creation, after the first earth age?
"...the earth became void," "...re-populate the earth," etc.
What do you think?

Dunno. Augustine and other ancient Christian writers held the idea that the creation accounts of Genesis were intended as ex nihilo - out of nothing; however, "The Fathers" were notoriously in disagreement on many points as well.

I think Augustine did have some insight. His take was that the creation produced "wrappers" (some older translations use this word) which contained the "seeds" of the future forms of life that he observed in his day (and that we still observe today). When placed beside evolutionary biology, Augustine actually come out as being quite prescient in his understanding of the development of life.

At the dawn of modern science many people offered the idea that "special creation" was something that happened over and over. What we see from natural history, however, is that even after the most massive extinction events, life from the past survived (even if just barely like after the Permian Extinction) and provided the "seeds" for the life that "replenished" the earth.

The ancients don't appear to have had an understanding nor even any information available to them concerning these past extinctions and the vast, vast time periods in between. The inspired accounts can only be said to hint at this, though many would argue that they don't even do that.

pelathais
04-26-2012, 12:01 PM
Wow, that's extreme, but I've just finished a discussion about how a 3 degree or so avg. global warming would actually benefit mankind? Lots of land opens up, I guess, to ag, etc.

Warmer air will be wetter air. We will of course lose some sea coast - but what would we prefer? New York under 20 feet of water or New York under a mile thick ice sheet and the rest of North America a desert covered with sand dunes as it was 50,000 years ago.

And, there are dead, bleached out coral reefs all along the "spine" of central Florida. Those reefs used to be thriving and filled with life. Was it a "bad thing" or a "good thing" when they died? Greenland was covered with forests and had huge herds of animals including the ancestors of the polar bears which roamed freely throughout what can best be call a sub-continent... AND! Greenland was at the same latitudes as today when these conditions existed.

Was it a "bad thing" when Greenland froze over and all life there perished while the polar bears were forced to roam the cruel ice packs for food?

pelathais
04-26-2012, 12:03 PM
Well, I've just started that book, went to 4 editions, at least; dense but very interesting. Hislop documents how the Hebrew Rahm became Brahm, as well as the pagan roots, I guess, of the trinity, and notes the descent of Hinduism to the point where there are now no more temples of Brahm, and shows where Brahmins mis-translate the Vedas...pg 14-18, 4th edition.

As to the second, I believe just recently that steady-state--said to be so unlikely that it was never seriously considered, if the energy is off by like 1 part in a quadrillion it changes the model to one of contraction or expansion--has been verified?

Hisslop is interesting, though many Indian scholars today dispute his assertions concerning the Hindu language. When Hisslop was writing (1850s) our own understanding in the West of the Hindi language was just developing.

bbyrd009
04-26-2012, 01:03 PM
Actually he is chiefly connecting various religions descent from Oneness to Babylon here, that was all kind of an aside. This must have been written at the end of his life, first edition 1913.

seekerman
04-26-2012, 03:30 PM
There were a variety of plant lineages that moved from the sea onto the land. Lichen, for example is a symbiont of algae and fungi - so the predecessors of lichen were at least two-fold.

Plants like seaweed and kelp which live in the inter-tidal zone were adapted to both underwater and terrestrial environments and were thus ready to make the transition. Their predecessors were algae. Algae lives as a single cell organism while swimming freely in the sea, however when it becomes attached to something like a reef (or the bottom of your fishing boat!) the single cells release a hormone that attracts other algae cells and they form a colony.

Stromatolites are mats of algae that form in inter-tidal areas and are found in some of the oldest rocks in Australia. They don't form very readily today because grazing animals like fish and turtles eat the mats as they form. Modern stromatolites are found only in hyper-saline environments where animals don't graze. In the very distant past, there were no animals to graze on them so they grew everywhere.

Wikipedia has a good general article on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_plants
Ok, thanks, very interesting. I'm assuming then that you believe that bacteria is the predecessor to all life on earth, both plant and animal?

pelathais
04-26-2012, 08:35 PM
Ok, thanks, very interesting. I'm assuming then that you believe that bacteria is the predecessor to all life on earth, both plant and animal?

It's a bit more complicated than that, but yes. Generally speaking, genetic evidence as well as the fossil record points to the fact that all life on earth is related and developed from single celled organisms over billions of years.

"The first man was from the earth, a man of dust..." 1 Corinthians 15:47 (ESV)

pelathais
04-26-2012, 08:39 PM
Actually he is chiefly connecting various religions descent from Oneness to Babylon here, that was all kind of an aside. This must have been written at the end of his life, first edition 1913.

I may have misunderstood. I thought you were speaking of Alexander Hislop and his book, "Two Babylons." He died in 1865.

bbyrd009
04-26-2012, 08:49 PM
hmm, well that's the guy, but 1st pub in 1916?
With a note by the Editor,
"Had the lamentable author been spared to superintend
the issue of the 4th edition of his work..."
implying i thot something diff.
surely the same guy.

bbyrd009
04-26-2012, 08:51 PM
Regardless of what info has superceded him,
one can't form a creation belief until after
they have read this book.

bbyrd009
04-27-2012, 11:09 AM
Well, you could form a creation belief,
but it might be lacking that all religions
started with essentially the same one,
sacrificial child and mother included,
and have just degraded in diff ways.

bbyrd009
04-27-2012, 11:12 AM
It's a bit more complicated than that, but yes. Generally speaking, genetic evidence as well as the fossil record points to the fact that all life on earth is related and developed from single celled organisms over billions of years.

"The first man was from the earth, a man of dust..." 1 Corinthians 15:47 (ESV)
http://i.imgur.com/jesgD.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/U66cM.jpg
The Dust of the Earth

forgivenson
04-27-2012, 03:19 PM
I believe that God is the Originator and Creator.
I think this is taught in Genesis.
I think that's all we need to know.
I don't know about the how, when, etc.

A Huge Amen to that! How could I ever claim to 'know' all God's workings and all His ways? I do 'know' a few limited things....I know He is beautiful, magnificent, and is Always bigger and greater and more spectacular than I can ever perceive.

Scott Hutchinson
04-28-2012, 02:03 PM
I believe the Genesis account of creation,but I don't how long the length of the days were in Genesis. I don't feel they have to be 24 hrs. days.

Sam
04-28-2012, 09:16 PM
I believe the Genesis account of creation,but I don't how long the length of the days were in Genesis. I don't feel they have to be 24 hrs. days.

The Hebrew word used for "day" in the Genesis account of creation is "yom." I cannot read, write, or speak the style Hebrew which was used back then. It is my understand that the word "yom" (Strong's #3117) is found about 1480 times in the Old Testament and can be translated by about 50 different words.

In Genesis 1:5, there are two different meanings for "day." It is used for the daylight portion of a day and it is also used for the combined light and dark portions of a day.

In Genesis 2:4 the word "day" seems to refer to the whole 7 day program of creation.

In Genesis 4:3 "yom" is translated process of time

In Genesis 26:8 it uses "yom" as "a long time"

In 2 Samuel 21:1 it speaks of a famine in David's day or during his reign

2 Corinthians 6:2 speaks of an accepted time and a day of salvation. This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8 where "yom" is spoken of as a "day" of salvetion.

And, we read of the term "the day of the Lord" in the Old Testament which refers to a time of judgment or vengeance but not a literal 24 hour period.

In my opinion, the days of creation of Genesis could be periods of time in which God accomplishes certain things.

I was taught in Bible School (Apostolic Bible Institute) that the days of creation are periods of 7000 years each and that we are currently living in the sixth day because God is still at work on us bringing us into His image and likeness, and that we can't be in the seventh day yet because God has not finished His work. Bishop G.T. Haywood taught this and my pastor F.E. Curts (Dist. Supt. of Ohio District) taught this also. He had a chart on the "Days of Creation" (looked a lot like the chart in the Larkin book) and he also had a chart on the 7th day.

I personally do not believe the "Days of Creation" are 7 periods of 7000 years each. According to the teaching of those three afore-mentioned men of God, we would now be in the millennium which would have been the last 1000 years of day 6. I do, however, believe the term "day" when used in the creation plan/blueprint could be a period of unspecified length and I can also see where we may be currently living in the 6th day.

Now, I am not arguing here. I'm just giving an opinion and I believe it can fit within the Bible's record. Y'all may have opinions that may differ from mine and that's fine.

Cindy
04-28-2012, 09:23 PM
My creation belief is: In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. I also believe He created Science.

houston
04-28-2012, 10:23 PM
I also believe He created Science.
No you di'n't!

bbyrd009
04-29-2012, 11:52 AM
No you di'n't!

Lol; hey God admits to creating evil...

pelathais
05-03-2012, 03:45 PM
Well, you could form a creation belief,
but it might be lacking that all religions
started with essentially the same one,
sacrificial child and mother included,
and have just degraded in diff ways.

Not "all religions"... and even then, many that do include this theme have syncretized the idea into their belief system - a system that originally lacked the "mother-child" theme. Hislop's primary theme was to anathematize the Roman Catholic Church, in particular, HIS views of what he thought the RCC was teaching. Like all of those other religions, however, the RCC's teaching are difficult to sum up in as pithy a manner as Hislop needed. ... just my take.

Cindy
05-03-2012, 03:49 PM
No you di'n't!

:girlfriend

bbyrd009
05-03-2012, 07:18 PM
Not "all religions"... and even then, many that do include this theme have syncretized the idea into their belief system - a system that originally lacked the "mother-child" theme. Hislop's primary theme was to anathematize the Roman Catholic Church, in particular, HIS views of what he thought the RCC was teaching. Like all of those other religions, however, the RCC's teaching are difficult to sum up in as pithy a manner as Hislop needed. ... just my take.

Hmm, pretty easy to dis RCC doctrine, tho; but that was a biased book, if revealing to a plebe, like me, of some ancient roots; that was what struck me, what I was ignorant of. Ya, about the point of his book there, bias.

bbyrd009
05-03-2012, 07:18 PM
:girlfriend

lol