Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

iouae

Well-known member
Paul gives us a limited idea of what "heavens" means when he says he was caught up to the third heaven:
[2Co 12:2 KJV] I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
[2Co 12:4 KJV] How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.


Genesis 1 gives us the idea that there are multiple heavens, and stars are in "heaven" as well as birds. Birds might also be considered to fly on the "surface" or "face" of heaven. And some translations say "heavens" explicitly.
[Gen 1:6 KJV] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
[Gen 1:8 KJV] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
[Gen 1:14 KJV] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
[Gen 1:16 KJV] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
[Gen 1:20 KJV] And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


It's reasonable to conclude that if there are only 3 heavens, and the third is where God's paradise is, then the 1st heaven is the sky (the atmosphere, as you mentioned), and the second heaven is not defined, but is somewhere between the 1st and 3rd. If the sky does NOT have stars in it, then the firmament, where the stars are, is a great candidate for the 2nd heaven.

I suppose God could be excluding the second heaven from His "heavens" in Ex 20:11, but then, if He really meant a plural "heavens" that means He made the place where His paradise is currently located, as well as the atmosphere in seven days, but NOT the stars. So now you have some kind of cataclysm that destroyed both the earth and the sky and the third heaven, but not the second heaven. If the layers of the heavens are sequential, then it seems odd to have the second layer left intact, but the third and first destroyed. A more plausible scenario, if one needs to omit one of the heavens, is that the third heaven was not destroyed.

But the Ex 20 passage, with its reference to the six days of creation, is clearly referring back to Gen 1, and just as clearly including multiple heavens. So any cataclysm must include the heaven where stars are.

Let me ask you this: Are crocodiles part of what God made in the 6 days of Ex 20? What about coelacanth? Or sharks and rays? Wollemi Pine? Insects? Flowering plants?

Did ANYTHING survive from before Genesis 1:2?

Derf, the word "heaven/s" in the Hebrew is the word "shamayim" which is like the word for "God" which is "elohim". A Hebrew word ending in "-im" normally means plural, but may be singular like "sheep" in English.

Thus Genesis 1:1 could equally validly read "In the beginning God/s created the heaven/s and the earth". Take your pick.

Going to Ex 20:11, from the context of Exo 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Look at what is mentioned with "shamayim" or heaven/s and it is earth, sea, heaven - all three limited to earth's lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere - or the three places where life exists on earth. And all of Genesis 1 is about God creating life in these three zones in the six days. Thus the context of Ex 20:11 shows that it is limited to earth what happened on the six days of creation week, including Day 4.

On Day 4 God is setting the sun, moon and stars as markers to delineate Holy Days, from the vantage of earth. God is not creating them, because a day would not exist without the sun to define it from Day 1.

Yes there are three heaven, the first being our atmosphere, the second been the starry cosmos, the third being where God lives in the supernatural realm. Genesis 1 does not mention the second and third heavens at all, not even in Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 is a summary of what is to happen in the rest of Genesis 1. God tells us what He is going to do, then He tells us while He is doing it, then God rejoices and tells us what He has done in saying it is "very good".

I do believe all the organisms you mentioned existed and survived from before Genesis 1. These are ancient creatures. God did create new angiosperms, particularly the domestic crops like wheat and corn and maize and new domestic animals specifically for mankind to utilise, while all the bigger mammals (megafauna) died out before Genesis 1 or they would have posed problems by preying on man. I think the darkness covering earth wiped out most land animals, so God had to recreate all the life we see today. But sea creatures like those you mentioned can and have survived many mass extinctions because they live in water.

I will tell you why Gen 1:1 is NOT referring to the Big Bang 13.7 Billion years ago. The heaven and the earth were not created at the same time. Earth only came into being 5 billion years ago or 9 billion years after the Big Bang.

Thus, though I sometimes punt the "Gap Theory" that there is a gap between Gen 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, this is not strictly my belief. I believe Genesis limits itself strictly to the recreation, or regeneration of earth 6000 years ago, and says NOTHING about prior happenings on earth which we see in the geologic column.

I want to say I appreciate a discussion without either party calling the other a "heretic" or a fool, as happens all too often on TOL.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
...13.7 Billion years ago....
Here's what I think's going to happen. We can already see 'over 13 billions years in the past' through careful manipulation of the Hubble telescope. I think we will, who knows exactly when, but we will be able to see light from the mythical birth of the universe, and the images we will see then will be of heaven, and of Christ sitting on His throne, at the right hand of the Almighty. And we'll all at that point do a little quick math and realize that there hasn't been enough time for Him to get to heaven if He traveled at the speed of light, so He must have traveled much, much faster than the speed of light to be already sitting on His throne by the time the image of Him reached the earth. This will confirm everything.

It's a pet theory, but it's one that grips my imagination.

fwiw
 

iouae

Well-known member
Here's what I think's going to happen. We can already see 'over 13 billions years in the past' through careful manipulation of the Hubble telescope. I think we will, who knows exactly when, but we will be able to see light from the mythical birth of the universe, and the images we will see then will be of heaven, and of Christ sitting on His throne, at the right hand of the Almighty. And we'll all at that point do a little quick math and realize that there hasn't been enough time for Him to get to heaven if He traveled at the speed of light, so He must have traveled much, much faster than the speed of light to be already sitting on His throne by the time the image of Him reached the earth. This will confirm everything.

It's a pet theory, but it's one that grips my imagination.

fwiw

It would be fascinating if they ever develop technology to see further back than 13 billion years.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Derf, the word "heaven/s" in the Hebrew is the word "shamayim" which is like the word for "God" which is "elohim". A Hebrew word ending in "-im" normally means plural, but may be singular like "sheep" in English.

Thus Genesis 1:1 could equally validly read "In the beginning God/s created the heaven/s and the earth". Take your pick.
I understand what you are saying, but that means we need to look at the text for the definitions, as best as possible. And fortunately for us, Gen 1 defines "heavens". It defines it as "expanse" or "firmament", depending on your translation, but it goes further to say that He put the sun, moon, and stars in it.

Going to Ex 20:11, from the context of Exo 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Look at what is mentioned with "shamayim" or heaven/s and it is earth, sea, heaven - all three limited to earth's lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere - or the three places where life exists on earth. And all of Genesis 1 is about God creating life in these three zones in the six days. Thus the context of Ex 20:11 shows that it is limited to earth what happened on the six days of creation week, including Day 4.

On Day 4 God is setting the sun, moon and stars as markers to delineate Holy Days, from the vantage of earth. God is not creating them, because a day would not exist without the sun to define it from Day 1.
You mentioned before that a day would not exist without the sun, but that is demonstrably false. God defines what a "day" means, and He does it without reference to the sun--in Gen 1:5. It is the evening and the morning, dark and light progression. The sun is later put in charge of the light/morning, but it wasn't necessary to define a day, and it isn't sufficient to define a day, since the sun is only associated with the light, not the dark, which came first in the progression. This is a fact, even if you assume the sun is still there though not apparent. If we take the text to mean just what is apparent (I'm not opposed to the idea, but I think it makes us lose a lot of the actual knowledge of creation God is trying to give us in the text), then the "sun" is not apparent, so the "sun" is not necessary for the definition of "day".

Yes there are three heaven, the first being our atmosphere, the second been the starry cosmos, the third being where God lives in the supernatural realm. Genesis 1 does not mention the second and third heavens at all, not even in Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 is a summary of what is to happen in the rest of Genesis 1. God tells us what He is going to do, then He tells us while He is doing it, then God rejoices and tells us what He has done in saying it is "very good".
I think it's funny you say this again. When God talks about the sun, moon, and stars, He mentions things that are in the second heaven, so in this respect, He mentions the second heaven. Plus, by His definition of "firmament", being the thing the sun, moon, and stars are placed in, as "heaven", He refers back to Gen 1:1 to explain what He is including in "heaven/s"--where the sun, moon, and stars are. And in one more way, as YOU pointed out, He explains by including all of the three biomes--land, sea, and "expanse/firmament". He didn't put a limit on which part of the "expanse/firmament" He was talking about, so there's not reason for us to do so--unless we feel constrained by our presuppositions to do so. But that means we are only willing to accept God's Word when it doesn't conflict with our own. I think that's a precarious position to take.

I do believe all the organisms you mentioned existed and survived from before Genesis 1. These are ancient creatures. God did create new angiosperms, particularly the domestic crops like wheat and corn and maize and new domestic animals specifically for mankind to utilise, while all the bigger mammals (megafauna) died out before Genesis 1 or they would have posed problems by preying on man. I think the darkness covering earth wiped out most land animals, so God had to recreate all the life we see today. But sea creatures like those you mentioned can and have survived many mass extinctions because they live in water.
This is an important admission on your part, and I'm glad you have stated it so clearly. if there are creatures that God DIDN'T make in the six days of Ex 20:11, then God is not telling us truth in Ex 20:11. Here's the verse again, with emphasis added: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
So while you might be able to separate one part of the heavens from another (I think you do so erroneously), you have now also said Ex 20:11 doesn't apply to the biomes you agree it is talking about. That's a contradiction in your basic assumptions. And you should note that you have done the same thing with all three biomes--earth, sea, and heaven--saying the verse doesn't apply fully to any of them.

Maybe I'll reiterate so you understand what I'm saying. If some sea or land creatures were made BEFORE the six days, then when Ex 20:11 says "In six days God made everything that is in the sea or on the land", it is NOT telling the truth. You've made the bible to lie to support your position.

I will tell you why Gen 1:1 is NOT referring to the Big Bang 13.7 Billion years ago. The heaven and the earth were not created at the same time. Earth only came into being 5 billion years ago or 9 billion years after the Big Bang.
Again, you are using your presupposition to prove your presupposition--which is circular and invalid logically.

Thus, though I sometimes punt the "Gap Theory" that there is a gap between Gen 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, this is not strictly my belief. I believe Genesis limits itself strictly to the recreation, or regeneration of earth 6000 years ago, and says NOTHING about prior happenings on earth which we see in the geologic column.

I want to say I appreciate a discussion without either party calling the other a "heretic" or a fool, as happens all too often on TOL.
I think some people run out of words too quickly, and are left merely with labeling to try to make their point. But the only point they are making in that case is that they don'e have any other argument left. That doesn't mean they are wrong, by the way--they might be correct in calling you a heretic or a fool, but they haven't been able to prove their case. I try not to go down that path, as I don't see it as helpful to the discussion.

You might notice, though, that I have expressed to you that I think you are saying the bible is not true, and given you reasons why I say that. It is the same charge as calling you a heretic, I just give you reasons for it. Just thought you ought to know. I don't mean offense by it, but it's what I believe is the import of what you are teaching.

Your teaching is especially harmful in this way: Ex 20:11 is part of the God's ten commandments, and He uses the universality of His creation to make a point about one of the commandments. If He lies to us in reference to one commandment, then can we really trust Him that any of the commandments should apply to us (or to the Hebrews that were receiving the commandments)? Remember these are words He wrote on stone by His own finger.
 

iouae

Well-known member
I understand what you are saying, but that means we need to look at the text for the definitions, as best as possible. And fortunately for us, Gen 1 defines "heavens". It defines it as "expanse" or "firmament", depending on your translation, but it goes further to say that He put the sun, moon, and stars in it.

You mentioned before that a day would not exist without the sun, but that is demonstrably false. God defines what a "day" means, and He does it without reference to the sun--in Gen 1:5. It is the evening and the morning, dark and light progression. The sun is later put in charge of the light/morning, but it wasn't necessary to define a day, and it isn't sufficient to define a day, since the sun is only associated with the light, not the dark, which came first in the progression. This is a fact, even if you assume the sun is still there though not apparent. If we take the text to mean just what is apparent (I'm not opposed to the idea, but I think it makes us lose a lot of the actual knowledge of creation God is trying to give us in the text), then the "sun" is not apparent, so the "sun" is not necessary for the definition of "day".

I think it's funny you say this again. When God talks about the sun, moon, and stars, He mentions things that are in the second heaven, so in this respect, He mentions the second heaven. Plus, by His definition of "firmament", being the thing the sun, moon, and stars are placed in, as "heaven", He refers back to Gen 1:1 to explain what He is including in "heaven/s"--where the sun, moon, and stars are. And in one more way, as YOU pointed out, He explains by including all of the three biomes--land, sea, and "expanse/firmament". He didn't put a limit on which part of the "expanse/firmament" He was talking about, so there's not reason for us to do so--unless we feel constrained by our presuppositions to do so. But that means we are only willing to accept God's Word when it doesn't conflict with our own. I think that's a precarious position to take.

This is an important admission on your part, and I'm glad you have stated it so clearly. if there are creatures that God DIDN'T make in the six days of Ex 20:11, then God is not telling us truth in Ex 20:11. Here's the verse again, with emphasis added: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
So while you might be able to separate one part of the heavens from another (I think you do so erroneously), you have now also said Ex 20:11 doesn't apply to the biomes you agree it is talking about. That's a contradiction in your basic assumptions. And you should note that you have done the same thing with all three biomes--earth, sea, and heaven--saying the verse doesn't apply fully to any of them.

Maybe I'll reiterate so you understand what I'm saying. If some sea or land creatures were made BEFORE the six days, then when Ex 20:11 says "In six days God made everything that is in the sea or on the land", it is NOT telling the truth. You've made the bible to lie to support your position.

Again, you are using your presupposition to prove your presupposition--which is circular and invalid logically.

I think some people run out of words too quickly, and are left merely with labeling to try to make their point. But the only point they are making in that case is that they don'e have any other argument left. That doesn't mean they are wrong, by the way--they might be correct in calling you a heretic or a fool, but they haven't been able to prove their case. I try not to go down that path, as I don't see it as helpful to the discussion.

You might notice, though, that I have expressed to you that I think you are saying the bible is not true, and given you reasons why I say that. It is the same charge as calling you a heretic, I just give you reasons for it. Just thought you ought to know. I don't mean offense by it, but it's what I believe is the import of what you are teaching.

Your teaching is especially harmful in this way: Ex 20:11 is part of the God's ten commandments, and He uses the universality of His creation to make a point about one of the commandments. If He lies to us in reference to one commandment, then can we really trust Him that any of the commandments should apply to us (or to the Hebrews that were receiving the commandments)? Remember these are words He wrote on stone by His own finger.

I am going to deal with your main issue, which is that "all means all" with no exceptions when applied to Ex 2:11.

In the Bible, like most writing, "all" seldom means "all".

I did a concordance search of "all" and here are the first three mention in the Bible.

Gen 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be food.
Gen 2:1
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Lets see if "all" means all in all three verses above.

Does man have dominion over every single thing in creation? Does he dominate sharks and tigers, and elephants and every critter living in the deep ocean trenches? Most critters there, man has never seen, not to mentioned dominates. So I feel animals will kill us given half a chance, as will germs and bacteria. God did make bacteria, and until Flemming, these had dominion over mankind.

In Genesis 1:29, "every" herb bearing seed is given for food. Can you eat every Angiosperm? Are not some poisonous? So "every" does not mean every, except loosely, as "all" does not mean "all" except loosely.

Gen 2:1 says all the host of heaven were finished. Yet we see new stars forming throughout the galaxy, and we see new organisms forming in the form of mutations every day. There are many new variety of cichlid fish forming as we speak.

And these are just the first three "all"'s in the Bible. I could find exceptions to the all rule in most others. This is just the way language works.

As for considering those who disagree with me fools or heretics - I just believe we are all on a learning curve, some of us low down, and some higher up. Would one call a child a fool or heretic? I see no point in insulting those we chose to debate with. The church world is full of false doctrine. Almost every thread on TOL contains false viewpoints. Calling folks "heretics" sounds like if we had the authority of the Spanish Inquisition, we would burn "heretics" at the stake. Thank God those days are past - for now.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
This is interesting. Now you think the fountains would be cold?

This is why conversations with you are a waste of time.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Walt brown predicted that temperature in his book. Maybe you want to check that.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
...God is not in the deceiving business. Also, He is not in the explaining everything business.

Science ... is not in the deceiving business, neither is it in the explaining everything business.

The problem is that you think "science" means your ideas of the geologic column and the big bang, which require billions of years.

Science is a discipline of rejecting ideas. You're sold out to yours.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
God making the heaven(s) and earth is LIMITED TO EARTH'S HEAVEN (SKY), EARTH, AND SEAS.
The Bible trumps your made-up ideas.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
John 1:1-‬3 NKJV

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

iouae

Well-known member
The Bible trumps your made-up ideas.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
John 1:1-‬3 NKJV

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

John 1 does not address when things were made. Also, there are many beginnings, including in the beginning BEFORE anything was made, wisdom was with God.
Pro 8:22
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I understand what you are saying, but that means we need to look at the text for the definitions, as best as possible. And fortunately for us, Gen 1 defines "heavens". It defines it as "expanse" or "firmament", depending on your translation, but it goes further to say that He put the sun, moon, and stars in it.

Take a piece of paper, and draw and label the things that are created through Genesis 1.

I think you'll find the firmaments are in places you didn't consider.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

iouae

Well-known member
:rotfl:

Genesis 1 does that. There is no Biblical reason to adopt your made-up ideas.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Genesis 1 speaks only to the lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere and the organisms confined to these. Even Day 4 speaks to what is seen from earth for signs and seasons. It does not address the cosmos creation or Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. Only the latest iteration of organisms or Holocene with domestic plants and animals is addressed. See my post to Derf above.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Genesis 1 speaks only to the lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere.

Like I said: There is nothing in the Bible to compel us to adopt your made-up ideas.

Certainly not an attempted argument from silence.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

iouae

Well-known member
Like I said: There is nothing in the Bible to compel us to adopt your made-up ideas.

Certainly not an attempted argument from silence.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

If there is a Day 1 and the sun is only created (erroneous belief) on Day 4, then it is not an argument from silence. The Bible is telling you to deal with the fact that there was a sun from day 1, just as there was an earth before Day 1, before God uttered a word. Earth was without form and void before God said "Let...".
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If there is a Day 1 and the sun is only created (erroneous belief) on Day 4, then it is not an argument from silence.
You're right!

However, telling us that Genesis doesn't mention space things is not compelling reason to adopt your made-up ideas. That is an argument from silence. And a bad one at that, as you wave your hands to dismiss the fact that Genesis 1 mentions space things.

The Bible is telling you to deal with the fact that there was a sun from day 1.

Or it's telling you that there was a light source other than the sun for the first three days.

There's no reason to reject what the Bible plainly says and adopt your made-up ideas.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There was an earth before Day 1, before God uttered a word. Earth was without form and void before God said "Let...".

Why can this not describe earlier and later states on Day 1?

You're inventing ideas that are simply not necessary to allow space for your Darwinism.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

iouae

Well-known member
I want to ask all you YEC why God did not create the cosmos, the earth, the sun, the moon and stars on Day 1. Does that not sound logical? This would automatically create light. Without the cosmos, the 2nd heaven, space, the sun and moon, what does earth hang in?

Question 2, If God created the earth "without form and void" meaning totally messed up - why did God not just create it right from the start? Why does He create earth in darkness, covered in water, chaotic and confused (the meaning of "tohu" and "bohu")?

I see a totally logical reason why earth is tohu and bohu from the start, covered in water and in darkness, and why the first thing God needed to create was light. But I want you YEC to explain the logic of starting with a messed up earth, which God makes habitable in 6 days.
 
Top