Dinosaurs & the book of Genesis

Any thoughts where they might fit in?some in- sight most dino's stood up,unlike reptiles today,in some way they drag there bodies on the Earth.some say there is a gap theory?but does it hold water.

Dino's were created with all other animals during the first six days. This is clearly stated in the 10 Commandments:Exo 20:11 'For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is'The Gap Theory only holds water if you don't believe the whole Bible is inspired. If all the Bible is true, the Gap Theory doesn't fit in. I would recommend Kent Hovind's video from this site on the Garden of Eden. He goes into great detail with the Gap Theory, Day Age, different versions of Genesis, etc:https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=4541&commentView=itemCommentsAlso, his third video is dedicated to Dino's and the Bible.Enjoy your study!

what I find interesting in gen ch3 ver14.you get the idea that the serpent stood up, before God cursed the serpent on his belly to eat dust.could this be the dino's? just a thought.

take a look at this Greenquality in Job 40:15-24Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. This Behemoth is BIG, really Big, most Bible commmentaries will say it's a Hippo or an elephant but look at verse 17: He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. now forgive me if I'm wrong but i always thought cedar trees were Big trees, now think of what a hippo's or elephants tail looks like not very big hey?Also, and this i think is really interesting, where do dragon legends come from???? I mean what is a dragon but a massive reptilian creature, just some things to think on, look here too:Dinosaur Questions and Answersmatt

I think in job it is discribing a salt water crock or gator.but I make a interesting point,by saying the serpent at one time must have stood up.in the time frame, of adam and eve's down fall or sin ,thus the serpent being cursed by God to crawl on it's belly!before being cursed it must have stood up to get around.

I have read some of the thoughts or ideas about how dino's came about or have died.but i think it's funny that dino's came on the noah ark! You see the serpent is a reptile..right! dino's are reptiles...right! well could this explain what had happend to them as a whole.or does it sound to simple! i think it should be given some thought!

I have studied this subject and if you ever decide to look up the phrase living fossil, it brings up alot of interesting results. It seems that scientist go into parts of the world that are not discovered such as indonesia or places such as this. The biggest example is a fish called something like the colacith which they thought had died along time ago and they found it in the indian ocean. Science is the art of measurement, if they have not discovered it yet, they cannot say anything. giant squids have been playing in the ocean for centuries until they recently discovered them.Personally the bible is the most accurate book around. There is another story about a creature called the ocampi. they thought it was extinct it happend to show up.God knows more than scientists

Hi Greenquality, I think I can share some things on this subject that might be helpfull. I have read some of the thoughts or ideas about how dino's came about or have died.but i think it's funny that dino's came on the noah ark!At first it may seem a bit outrageous to imagine Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark but this probably has more to do with our asumptions than reason. Here's why:Firstly, if we imagine full grown dinosaurs being herded onto the typical boat style 'ark' that we often see in illustrations than yes, that would be absurd. However the Bible describes the Ark as being about 450 feet long and 75 feet wide! According to the folks at Answersingenesis it was the equivalent volume of 522 railroad livestock cars! But still, if these were full grown, adult dinosaurs, even that wouldn't be big enough right?Now I don't think Scripture says specifically but it does hint at the answer to this problem. The purpose of bringing the animals on the Ark was to preserve life and to repopulate itwith them. So what would make more sense, to take old grandfather and grandmother dinosaurs or take young ones, full of life and vigor. I think young ones don't you? It is my understanding that juvenile dinosaurs could have been much much smaller than the adult ones this owing to the fact they would continue to grow all thier lives. I am not certain that is exactly the case though.I saw a video by Dr. Gary Parker of AIG and in ithe had a little toy T-rex that fit on his shoulder. He was making the point that it was about the same size as the baby T-rex would have been! Imagine that. It makes sense as I don't think dinosaurs laid 2000 pound eggs? I heard ocnce they could be as small as a football. So there you have it. They(AIG)also think the average size of an anmial on the ark was smaller than a sheep. As far as the origin of dinosaurs, I would have to say the land based ones were created on Day 6 along with the other 'beasts'. We shouldn't expect to find the word dinosaur in most of our Bible translations as it is a 'modern' word.I hope this helps you and others who might have similar questions. I highly recommend www.answersingenesis.org for this topic. In His service,Christopher

Hello;I am unsure as to how to address this forum so will just jump in. (this is the first time "talking" on-line)Dino's certainly are an interesting topic...the explanation of "baby" dinosoars being brought on the ark seems to make some sense...and would lend itself to the consequential extinction of dino's afterwards...with only two of every type and them being young they could easily have fallen prey to a meat eater of one kind or another after debarking from the ark.the question is but a tip of a mountain of questions that come from any thought given to the "6" day creation model. growing up a son of a biologist (christian and creation believing) i was privy to many debates of creationists and evolutionists...all very interesting and it did nothing but make me wonder all the more at the "GREATNESS" of God.growing up in sunday school and "learning" well I like most evangelical christians was taught the 6 day approach to creation...with the mindset that adam and eve almost immediately betraying their "Father" by succumbing to the Devils temptation to eat the forbidden fruit. After many years of contemplating and reading many different authors on the subject I have come up with one of my own...which could in fact help with the Dino question and many others.If you read Deryk Prince's book "War in Heaven" you will gain his understanding of a so called "gap" theory. Where between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2 there was a period that contained a creations of Gods that pre-dated men...he assumes based on solid biblical interpretation that as God comes on the scene in verse 2 to bring life from the waters that was "void" after the judgment which put the earth in this state of devestation...he spends chapters on explaining...no time to go further into it but think about it....God has always been...to think He has done nothing until He created man is rather arrogant.Now as ChrisJD brought up the 6th day of creation; I ASK A QUESTION TO ANY WITH INSIGHT ON THIS SUBJECT. On the 6th day God created all the animals of the field and sky...then created Adam and on this "same day" adam was told to name the animals. Now think...Adam having just opened his eyes and looked into those of his father God would KNOW love and would not be in a hurry to blow through the animals God had made for him. So you would surmise that Adam would spend considerable "time" enjoying the humor and love God put into all the creatures...(think of the Giraffe, the skunk, the elephant..etc..etc) MY QUESTION IS: How could Adam have named all (read thousands) of animals on the sixth day...THEN- God put him to sleep took a rib and made EVE. All on the sixth day?Next we come to an issue of rebellion and fruitfullness. Gods big directive was to be fruitful and multiply...so if even 1 year passed between God having made adam and eve and them having rebelled and ate the fruit...they must have had a baby. My belief is there was a huge amount of "time" and that Adam and Eve had many children. When you look at the cain and abel of genesis the bible does not say as is custom and eve had cain the first born etc. Because he was not the first born. Also when cain was sent away he was sent to a city? how can you have a city with no other people around. Also as the bible says the fallen angels came down and "knew" the beuatiful daughters of men. This is a huge can I am trying to open...and there is much that needs to get detailed. If followed throught it does nothing but show the "bigness" and abundant Grace of God.any comments?sorry so long.

Greetings TS,Thanks for joining in here at SI! MY QUESTION IS: How could Adam have named all (read thousands) of animals on the sixth day...? I've always thought the concept of "kinds" answered this problem sufficiently. By kinds, I mean the creationist's counterpart to what the evolutionist's taxa, or clade. So instead of a 20 species of foxes, 50 types of wolves, and 200 species of dogs, (I made those numbers up) there would be one wolf-like common ancestor that would contain enough genetic dept to variate into a myriad of interbreed able species. I like the humorous reasoning ken Ham uses to support this idea of micro-evolution for young earth creationists: He suggests that a poodle can not possibly been an original created animal...by looking at a poodle one can easily imagine that such a ridiculous looking animal is a puny genetic shadow of former purebred ancestor.So, when "reverse-straining" tens of thousands of derivative species backwards into hundreds of original "kinds," the task of naming them would be relatively easier...and considering that Adam may have surpassed our current standards for human genius give credence to the idea of such a formidable intellectual feat being accomplished in a day. Just as a poodle is a shadow of a superior dog kind, it would be reasonable to conclude that we modern men are mere shadows of a superior physical, and intellectual man-kind named Adam. (Morally, we appear to be spitting images...) Contrary to Darwinian Macroevolution, creationist microevolution doesn't support the idea of a species improving on their own...and we modern men may not realize how intellectually capable our earliest ancestors really were.Again, it is great to make your acquaintance here at SI.MC

Hi TS, I'd like to address some things that you brought up in your post. You're right about this topic being filled with all sorts of questions.If you read Deryk Prince's book "War in Heaven" you will gain his understanding of a so called "gap" theory. Where between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2 there was a period that contained a creations of Gods that pre-dated men (I had an incomplete qoute from your post that might have been confusing re-did it)I don't think I can respond right now to everything but I wanted to share with you some of the reasons I am convinced the Scriptures teach a literal 6day creation with no gap. I'll try to come back and check the topic in case you'd like to share more. So here's a few things:There is a particular phrase that is repeated in the opening of Genesis 'and the evening and the morning' were the first, or second day, and so on.As I understand it, this phrase is a special Hebrew gramatical construction which (always?) conveys the idea of a 24 hour day. I think it is found elsewhere, for instance in connection with the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, though I'm not sure. So I think this strongly suggests that God is conveying to us 6 24 hour days(note also that the Jews to this day mark days from sundown to sundown). And in connection with this you have the very clear refrence to this in regards to the sabbath law(see Exodus 20:11). It would certainly be strange for Moses to make this refrence if the days in Genesis 1 were anything other than 24hours.Here's something else that I think speakes directly to the issue the gap or 6 consecutive days. It is the words of Christ in Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.This(and the following verses) it seems is a direct refrence Genesis 1 and actually connects a verse from Genesis 2 tying them both together(which indicates that they are not seperate accounts as some have proposed). So here it sems that Christ our Creator is connecting the creation of man and woman with the beginning of Creation. I think it would be somewhat misleading to do this if there was a long, undifined period of time between the beginning, and the creation of man and woman.Also, it is my understanding that there were words available to Moses to convey the idea of long ages if that is what God had intended to convey. I realise that this may bring up lots of other questions like some that you mentioned, for instance the naming of the animals, but I hope you'll agree that if the Bible teaches 6 consecutive literal days of creation, then we'll just have to rest assured that there are answers to those other questions. Though you and I may not find them all out in our time here on earth.I hope this will be helpfull.Christopher

OK I have an idea of the gap theory,and also the so called 1st earth age.with in the six days to the gap theory.It has been said (one day with the lord) is like onto a 1000yr, i think it's in 2 peter.but I would like to point out sticking to the six day (creation) about dino's that everbody keep skiping my (???) is the fact that the serpent or reptile in the garden of eden,is pictured in words to have been up right in stance or tall,(((could this be the event to explain what happend to the gaint reptiles,in the garden of eden)))), cursed down to the ground????? it sounds to simple to over look!!!!!! instead of coming up with crazy Idea's about taking this gaint reptile on the boat with noah or getting into the gap theory,to complex to explain,

ChrisJD's As I understand it, this phrase is a special Hebrew gramatical construction which (always?) conveys the idea of a 24 hour day. I think it is found elsewhere, for instance in connection with the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, though I'm not sure. So I think this strongly suggests that God is conveying to us 6 24 hour days(note also that the Jews to this day mark days from sundown to sundown)I think the references you have in mind are: Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31; Ex 27:21; Lev 24:3 and in particular the latter two...Ex. 27:21 In the tabernacle of the congregation without the vail, which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall order it from evening to morning before the Lord: it shall be a statute for ever unto their generations on the behalf of the children of Israel. Lev. 24:3 Without the vail of the testimony, in the tabernacle of the congregation, shall Aaron order it from the evening unto the morning before the Lord continually: it shall be a statute for ever in your generations. The context of these latter two verses makes it very clear that here the phrase simply means 'overnight'. (a 12 hour-ish period, depending on the time of the year) The Exodus/Leviticus phrase "from A to B" is very different to the Genesis phrase of "A and B." I don't think we can use the Exodus/Leviticus readings to interpret the Genesis quotations.And in connection with this you have the very clear refrence to this in regards to the sabbath law(see Exodus 20:11). It would certainly be strange for Moses to make this refrence if the days in Genesis 1 were anything other than 24hours.Why? In the very first uses of the word 'day' in scripture we have two quite different meanings to the word Gen. 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. In fact in algebraic termsthe first 'day' = 'a day' + 'a night'. So in the very first instance we see that 'day' can be used to describe different quantities of time.This double meaning of the word day continues into the narrative“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. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.” (Gen 1:16,18-19 KJVS)In the second chapter we have “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Gen 2:4-8 KJVS) This 'day' has several 'parts' to it identified by the word 'and'. But the events captured in 'the day' here in Gen 2 are actually recorded as have taken 'days 1-4', so it is clear that by the time we arrive at Genesis 2 we have the word 'day' used in three quite different senses. In the space of a page and a half we have a day = a 12 hour-ish period of lighta day = a 24 period, ruled over by the sun and the moona day = a 4 'day' period in which the foundations of the earth were established....and lastly when did the 'events' of... “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Gen 1:1-2 KJVS) ...take place? Is this a title to the whole section or part of the events of 'Day One'?

Here's a link to a page on the Answers in Genesis web site that deals with several different creation compromises. If you scroll down the page you will find a section titled "gap theory" with several articles on the topic.Creation Compromises / Gap TheoryIn Christ,Ron

The event ,to explain! what happend to the serpent in the garden of eden.we all know that the serpent is satan,which took form of a reptile which i think is the giantReptiles or (dino's) that was cursed above every beast of the field, and cursed upon thy belly. ((or brought down to size ))give it some thought

bro TSMY QUESTION IS: How could Adam have named all (read thousands) of animals on the sixth day...THEN- God put him to sleep took a rib and made EVE. All on the sixth day?what could have kept adam from naming every animal in one day? nothing as far as i'm concerned. if the Lord made all the animals and birds in one day and He asked Adam to name them ALL, then the Lord made it so that Adam could name them and name them he did. our bodies are hindered today in many ways because we are in a fallen state, Adam wasn't therefore he named every animal, whether each taxa had 1 or 1000 species. end of story. then God went about the task (after Adam was done with the naming) and of making eve. that's what the word says and that's good enough for me.

Hello...I have this silly little theory that questions whether or not dinosaurs was the "serpent" as mentioned in the book of Genesis. Remember, the serpent -- before he was cursed by God -- was a "beast of the field." When God cursed him, the serpent was forced to crawl upon his belly. What would a serpent be that did not crawl upon its belly? A dragon? What is a dragon? It reminds me of a dinosaur quite a bit. And what is Satan known as in the book of Revelation?"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years..." - Revelation 20:2Is it possible that dinosaurs are simply the pre-cursed Serpent (or Dragon) from Genesis? I haven't really heard anyone ever teach about this -- but it could explain how the dinosaur suddenly disappeared (instead of blaming it on a giant asteroid hitting the Yucatan in Mexico). The flood could have served to fossilize the bones of the remaining dinosaurs. Remember, fossilization is not a sign of death -- it is the sign of disaster. If a person (or any other living thing) were to walk outside and fall over dead, their bones would not fossilize. Fossilization is the result of either extreme conditions (great amounts of pressure) or chance (falling into tar, etc...). Anyway, it is something to think about. :-)

There is some very interesting stuff on the Reasons to Believe website, for folks who are prepared to keep thinking about this topic. If you have already made your mind up that people who are unconvinced about 6x24 hour days are heretics, then this site is not worth visiting. If you are not afraid to think outside of the boxes, it may challenge you.I don't endorse it, but I think the folk who run it are 'family'.

Hey Greenquality,Sorry we've all wandered off your original question, I apologise for being one of the early decenters but i would like to address your question about whether the Serpant which was in the Garden was actually a dinosaur.You bring to the fore an interesting idea that the Seprent in the garden wasn't a 'snake with legs' but actually a much larger creature.I noticed when reading over the passage in Gen 3 that the serpent is classed in the beasts of the field section of God's creation and now in with the creeping things, which I'd classify a snake with legs as.The problem with the idea is that there was more than one 'kind' of dinosaur ranging from the massive sauropods to much smaller, chicken size dinosaurs. So why would God curse the Sauropods if the serpent was say a theropod (like T.Rex) or a ceratopsian (like Triceratops) do you see?Nevertheless again the forums on SI throw up an new viewpoint on how to look at the Word of God, Thanks GreenqualityGod bless matt

Hi saved_matt...!I noticed when reading over the passage in Gen 3 that the serpent is classed in the beasts of the field section of God's creation and now in with the creeping things, which I'd classify a snake with legs as.The problem with the idea is that there was more than one 'kind' of dinosaur ranging from the massive sauropods to much smaller, chicken size dinosaurs. So why would God curse the Sauropods if the serpent was say a theropod (like T.Rex) or a ceratopsian (like Triceratops) do you see?Then again, what if the word used for "serpent" was intended to include all reptiles? I agree that it is quite possible that the serpent was actually a dinosaur. Satan is often equated with the "serpent" and an ancient "dragon" (Revelation 20:2 among other verses). Interesting thing to think about... :-)

Letsgetbusy's The Gap Theory only holds water if you don't believe the whole Bible is inspired. If all the Bible is true, the Gap Theory doesn't fit in. This is a very offensive statement. There is noone on this site who has believed or defended the inspiration of scripture more vigorously than me. I don't stake my life on the Gap theory but after a fair few years studying the scriptures, not the scientists, I am of the opinion that some kind of Gap Theory is a legitimate hypothesis, and to my understanding still provides a 'best fit'.

deltadom wrote:I have studied this subject and if you ever decide to look up the phrase living fossil, it brings up alot of interesting results. It seems that scientist go into parts of the world that are not discovered such as indonesia or places such as this. The biggest example is a fish called something like the colacith which they thought had died along time ago and they found it in the indian ocean. Science is the art of measurement, if they have not discovered it yet, they cannot say anything. giant squids have been playing in the ocean for centuries until they recently discovered them.Personally the bible is the most accurate book around. There is another story about a creature called the ocampi. they thought it was extinct it happend to show up.God knows more than scientistsThe "living fossil" fish mentioned is called coelocanth (pronounced "see-la-kanth.") You can read more about it HEREThe Okampi, unfortunately really isn't a "living fossil" as this webpage claims. It wasn't even known to exist until 1901, and it couldn't have been used as an example of how horses evolved because it has a cleft hooves and has always been recognized by zoologist as a close relative of the giraffe.Consult these webpages about the okampi:http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Artiodactyla/Okapia_johnstoni.htmlhttp://www.danger-island.com/true/mokapi/okapi.htmlThey are very beautiful animals - kind of like a giraffe mixed with a zebra! What an amazing and artistic God we serve!As far as the hope of discovering living dinosaurs goes, I know anything's possible, but I personally belive that dinos are extinct.Someone suggested that God destroyed them in the flood, but doesn't that contradict Scritpure?"And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female." Genesis 6:19-Chris

Hi philologos, thank you for your thoughts on this and the clarification on the passages from Leviticus. I don't want to steer the topic away from where it is going so I'll try to just briefly respond to some points you've brought up. Besides, I think we might both be familiar with each other's positions on this subject based upon our responses.I think a good point is made about the use of the word day in the Bible. Becuase of the different meanings a word can have the only way we can know which one to choose from is the context(like you pointed out in Leviticus). That's why I think that particular phrase is so important(evening and the morning).The point I was making about the Sabbath Law and Moses connecting the 6 creation days with it is this: If the days of creation were indefinite periods of time then what comparison could he be making with them and the literal 24 hour day of rest they were supposed to observe? I just don't see how this is applicable otherwise? Do you have any thoughts about it? I think that Exodus 20:11 also gives the answer to your question about when the events of Gen 1:1-2 took place. They would have to have been within those 6 days as the same Heaven and Earth are mentioned again. I hope I am explaining my thoughts clearly?Well, again thank you for your comments. I hope my writing style does not come off as adversarial in anyway. May God bless you and give us all understanding,Christopher

Hi again Greenquality, back to your main question..The event ,to explain! what happend to the serpent in the garden of eden.we all know that the serpent is satan,which took form of a reptile which i think is the giantReptiles or (dino's) that was cursed above every beast of the field, and cursed upon thy belly. ((or brought down to size ))give it some thoughtHmm, this question comes to mind: was the Serpent some created beast that Satan had temporarily inhabited or was it his own form? It doesn't seem likely to be his own form(see Ezekiel 28:13-14?)and if it was a form that he himself manifested, and not a creature he inhabited, then why would God have cursed that. Now, perhaps there was some form of erect serpent creature that no longer exists? I think this will be a pretty tough question to get any concrete answers to. There might be some clues in the original Hebrew language too. Also, the text doesn't say the serpent was a beast of the field, just that he was more clever than any of them, correct?Christopher

This is a study in which animals which have not been discovered but are myths. There is some realm of truth in the information.Not all the information is true but crytzoology is an interesting science because no scientist has been round to every inch of the globe. scientists no more about space than they do our oceans. Another creature is the giant squid is something that has been playing in our oceans for centuries until it was discovered playing in our oceans. Dinosaurs may still be around. It is just a matter of someone finding or discovery. The giant squid is a massive creature yet scientist have not been able to pick one up until recently. http://www.cryptozoology.com/cryptids/mokele.phphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_squidthis page is interesting but I would not take everything as truth.The squid is there is one story I was trying to find about a creature something like the pleasauras or something along those lines liturually mashed a whole net in a ship leaving ir completly wrecked it was in the Japanese News yet denied by the rest of the western world. The got the bone structure and found out that exactly represented the pleasuras or whatever it is. Scientists do not know everything and the world is still being discovered, a few new species were recently discovered in Indonesia. I personally believe we have a god who does not lie and the bible is completly accurate. Dominic

Hi chrisjd try this one for size Isaiah ch 51 ver 9,reads(Awake, awake,put on strenght,o arm of the Lord;awake,as in the (ancient days) ,in the generations (of old).Art thou not it that hath cut Ra'-hab and wounded the (dragon)?

ChrisJDTo discuss these things rather than to debate them is a real pleasure and I look forward to the way this might open up.The point I was making about the Sabbath Law and Moses connecting the 6 creation days with it is this: If the days of creation were indefinite periods of time then what comparison could he be making with them and the literal 24 hour day of rest they were supposed to observe? I just don't see how this is applicable otherwise? Do you have any thoughts about it? I think that Exodus 20:11 also gives the answer to your question about when the events of Gen 1:1-2 took place. They would have to have been within those 6 days as the same Heaven and Earth are mentioned again. I hope I am explaining my thoughts clearly? I will quote the Exodus reference here so that it is fresh in our minds: “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.” (Ex 20:11 KJVS)I can see your point here but it does not disturb my feeling that the Sabbath day is taken as a symbolic memorial to a 'creation day'. Symbolic equivalents are present elsewhere in the scripture. The day for a year equivalence is seen in Ezekiel in particular. “And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.” (Ezek 4:6 KJVS) and in Nu 14:34, Da 9:24-26, 12:11, 12. We also have the the famous statement from Peter's letter “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pet 3:8 KJVS) This latter is not in terms of equivalence but is an insight into the relevance of time in God's perception. ie it is not nearly so 'static and fixed' as for us. This verse is really quite amazing. We usually think of just one way in this comparison ie that with God our long times are really just a short time. But this verse says more. It also says that our short times are God's long times. For us time just moves at one speed but for God it moves slowly and quickly AT THE SAME TIME. I raise this not to force any point but to illustrate that 'time' in God's view is not nearly so inflexible as in ours.A 'creation day' therefore would not be 'longer' than a 24 hour day, in God's view of things.Now as to Gen 1:1,2 being part of the original first day. Can you see that it could be read as a title for the whole section? “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Gen 1:1-2 KJVS) In fact, it would be quite legitimate to regard just the first verse as a title to the whole section. The Hebrew word 'and' does not necessary mean 'in addition to' as in our current idiom. It is the idiomatic way of recounting something. It is not an accident that in Genesis 1, other than the first verse, every single verse begins with 'and'.You feel that it is part of the original 'first day' but the structure is quite different to the other days. In each of the other days every creative event is initiated by the 'word of God'.Day OneGen. 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Day TwoGen. 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Day ThreeGen. 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. Gen. 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. Day FourGen. 1:14 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: Day FiveGen. 1:20 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. Day SixGen. 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 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. We have here 8 decisive acts of God spanning 6 'creation days'. The key phrase 'and God said "Let...' is conspicuously missing from Gen 1:1,2. ie there is no record of a 'creative word' in the first two verses. Verse 3“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” (Gen 1:3 KJVS) is the starting point of an extraordinary history identified by the first 'creative word'. That opens up the whole question of what is happening in verses 1 and 2.Then we have the events of God's judgement of what He had done: Day OneGen. 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. Day ThreeGen. 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. Gen. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Day FourGen. 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. Day FiveGen. 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Day SixGen. 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth[/u] upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Gen. 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [u]it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. The unusual feature of Day One is that the only thing that God commends is 'the Light'. “And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” (Gen 1:4 KJVS) Why is there no commendation of the ''heavens and the earth'? There is much more I could say on these few verses, including a scripture reference that declares that God did not create the world as we find it in Gen 1:2 but I will pause for your response...

the gap theroy in bring up (2 peter 3:8 )we could think that the six days of creation took 6 thousand years.

Greenquality, I agree, I think that verse in Isaiah is talking about the devil also. Maybe the dragon is in reference to his angelic form?Philologos, you've brought up some important points about symbolisim and time as it relates to us and God.With regard to symbolisim, I think there are two good rules to use in determining the literal intent of the author, whether it is symbolic or literal. First, what style of writting is it, i.e. poetic, prophetic, historical narrative. And the second is context. I'm sure there are others too.Now in the passages we've been discussing, specifically with regards to Exodus 20:11 I just don't see anything that intimates that it is to be taken symbolically. It is my understanding that these passages in Genesis are part of a historical narrative, for instance that's why they include the phrase 'these are the generations of..'. So if that is true then I think that we shouldn't expect to find symbolisim being employed. At least it shouldn't be the norm, you know what I mean? And I also am not aware of anything in the context that alerts me to symbolisim, for instance some special idiom or phrase.I remember my own experience with Genesis as a new convert. I was starting the Bible from the beginning and as I was reading through Genesis 1 and 2 I became upset. As I remmeber it I just couldn't reconcile what I was reading with what I had learned(public school I guess). I was so upset I just kept saying to God in my heart "I just want to know the truth God, whatever it is". Now I relate this here because as someone who was very ignorant of the Bible, the plain reading of Genesis gave me the impression it all happened together and fast(to summarize).Would the Hebrews just out of slavery that Moses spoke to have understood it any other way when God was now requiring them to order their week(not just one day) after this? I guess what I am asking you is: give me a reason why they should have understood it otherwise.You also brought up the issue of time. That's a good point. What a concept to phathom, the eternal God interracting in time with finite man. Anyway, I thought about Russel Humphrey's white hole cosmology, have you read anything about it? As I understand it, he has proposed a way that clocks could run at different speeds in different parts of the universe(at least during creation week). You also mentioned God's judgement of the days as good. And your question was about the lack of this in refrence to the Heavens and the Earth. I think they are included in the pronouncement 'very good' in v31, at least indirectly? Also, I think verse 1 of Chapter 2 is telling us that the Heavens and the Earth are being viewed here as a whole or in totality(creation) so maybe that is why there was no specific pronouncement untill the end? I think I remember reading that 'Heaven and Earth' is another way of saying 'cosmos or universe'.Also, I think that 2 Peter 3:5 could qualify as a refernce to the creative word for Genesis 1:1, would you agree?May God continue His goodness to us,Christopher

Greeenqualitythe gap theroy in bring up (2 peter 3:8 )we could think that the six days of creation took 6 thousand years.Peter is making a point not doing the math! :-) We are not, I feel sure, to make a strict equation between one day and a thousand years.

ChrisJD's Now in the passages we've been discussing, specifically with regards to Exodus 20:11 I just don't see anything that intimates that it is to be taken symbolically. It is my understanding that these passages in Genesis are part of a historical narrative, for instance that's why they include the phrase 'these are the generations of..'. I don't see why 'the generations of...' would support one view or the other. Are you thinking of 'generations' in the sense of a family tree? The word, as in Genesis, just means beginnings.I mentioned in another post that 'symbolically' does not mean there is not a corresponding reality, it just means that we need to identify the reality. That comment had to do with the symbolism of the Revelation.. and the way in which we interpret those symbols. I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve; once you give something a name it is plain that we are not talking in symbols. My current feelings are for young human race but an old earth.It is interesting that even in the 'young earth' camp some are no longer striving for a creation on Oct 25th 2005BC.I have not read the 'white hole cosmology' books. I have read quite a bit of cosmology and always keep in mind the cosmologist who declared that he and his fellow cosmologists were 'often in error but never in doubt'. ;-) Once you get into Quantum physics and super-strings its sounds as if anything 'might be possible'.Would the Hebrews just out of slavery that Moses spoke to have understood it any other way when God was now requiring them to order their week(not just one day) after this? I guess what I am asking you is: give me a reason why they should have understood it otherwise. They wouldn't have needed to understand it otherwise. All I am saying is that a return to the topic in a later age has room to see what they did not and did not need to see.You also mentioned God's judgement of the days as good. And your question was about the lack of this in refrence to the Heavens and the Earth. I think they are included in the pronouncement 'very good' in v31, at least indirectly? Also, I think verse 1 of Chapter 2 is telling us that the Heavens and the Earth are being viewed here as a whole or in totality(creation) so maybe that is why there was no specific pronouncement untill the end? I think I remember reading that 'Heaven and Earth' is another way of saying 'cosmos or universe'. My point was the rhythms of the passage. The 'it is good' and the complement of the 'and God said let...: The first two verses just do not have this rhythm and seem to stand outside it. The 'creation days' then begin with the words "and God said". Apparently, He never said "let there be 'heavens and earth"; there is no matching 'creative word'. Interestingly too, the word for 'heavens' is in the Hebrew 'dual form' (Heb has single, dual and plural) so we could legitimately paraphrase this as 'both heavens and the earth'. I think this phrase would stand for the 'cosmos' but we need to be careful with that word because in the NT 'kosmos' means the 'world system'. The heavens would be the starry heaven and the atmospheric heavens, althoug this immediately creates problem for Gen 1:1,2 being part of Day One as the stars don't 'come online' until Day Four of the schedule.“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:” (2Pet 3:5 KJVS) This can't be the creative word for Gen 1:1,2 as at this point we already find the 'world' in the state of Day Two ie the waters and dry land are separated. ;-)

Now how about my claim that the Bible teaches that description found in Gen 1:2 is not the original creation?Click on any audio debunking the Gap Theory and it will most likely begin with the statement that this theory was created to accommodate the vast time spans demanded by Darwinian Evolution. This is just not true, but it you say anything often enough people will begin to believe it. The origin of the Gap Theory came from quite a different source.The starting point is...Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. In this passage the Hebrew word for ' without form' is 'tohu' and the Hebrew word for 'void' is 'bohu'. So this scripture begins by saying the earth in Gen 1:2 is 'tohu' and 'bohu'. That statement seems pretty clear, yes?How about this one?“But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion(tohu), and the stones of emptiness (bohu).” (Is 34:11 KJVS) This is the prediction of a divine judgement which includes these key words. The two words are found in proximity again in “I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form (tohu), and void (bohu); and the heavens, and they had no light.” (Jer 4:23 KJVS) However, if you read the context you find that Jeremiah is really describing God's judgement upon Jerusalem. So 2 out of 3 of these couplets of 'tohu' and 'bohu' are decidely references to a divine judgement. Is it possible that the Gen 1:2 is giving us a similar context?The word 'tohu' is found in Gen 1:2; Deut 32:10; 1Sam 12:21; Job 6:18; 12:24; 26:7; Psa 107:40; Is 24:10; 29:21; 34:11; 40:17,23; 41:29; 44:9; 45:18-19; 49:4; 59:4; Jer 4:23 Gesenius defines 'tohu' as 'that which is wasted, laid waste'. while 'bohu' is found is only found 3 times and always in conjunction with 'tohu' as in Gen 1:2; Is 34:11; Jer 4:23 above.An fascinating example of the 'tohu' references is “For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste (tohu), that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else.” (Is 45:18 ASV) This verse includes the statement 'created it not a waste (tohu). It is against these startling statements that 'the earth was 'tohu' and 'bohu', in Genesis, and that the earth was not created 'tohu', according to Isaiah, that the Gap Theory developed.

dorcas' have any of you heard or read the suggestion that the creation days could be explained as days of revelation to Moses, in which he understood the order of creation? I think there was a book written called 'The Creation revealed in 6 days. I think this took the line you are asking about.edit: Answers in Genesis has little time for this, see here (or for any other views than its own).

Krispy writes Chuck Smith has some really good teaching on Genesis and the dinosaurs... and it's available on this site.Chuck Smith Jr (Chuck Smith's son) , on the other hand, has written in support of those who teach an 'old earth'. He writes...Dr. Ross (Hugh Ross) graciously examines the scientific merits of a young-earth creation and its biblical foundation. He not only demonstrates the more likely age of the universe, but he also celebrates the greatness and majesty of its Creator. "A Matter of Days" is a valuable gift to the Christian community, especially to students who have felt compelled to wear an unnecessary yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear.Source: Printed book endorsement of A Matter of DaysWhy not at least consider the alternative?

Hi Ron,I'm quite interested, in your explainations of the Gap theory idea of creation, my question is are there other hebrew words that could have been used in Gen 1:2 instead of 'tohu' and 'bohu', which would have inclined the the context away from a pre-existing creation?always interested to hear informed arguments contrary to my own beliefsmatt

Ron writes:Why not at least consider the alternative?I believe it is good to have a working knowledge of both the young earth and Hugh Ross' views. Hugh Ross is a very intelligent man and has been a real encouragement to me over the years. The "Fingerprint of God" and "Creation and Time" were the first works I read of his. He offers tremendous rebuttals to the "time+chance = creation/evolutionary" process and gives mathematical probabilities of the random formation of many essential variables within the universe, many of which I never even knew existed. As for young and old earth views, I think the jury is still out on exactly what happened at creation. I lean towards 'young earth' w/primordial canopy and for various biblical and scientific reasons. I think the phenomena we see in the rock strata is a direct result of the great flood, which, was the result of the discharge of that canopy. The earths magnetic field has a half-life of 1500 years and that is a tough one to write off when suggesting the earth is billions of years old under current conditions. I don't think it impossible that the earth was 'cursed' or destroyed and then recreated and replenished.

An interesting argument in favor of an old earth can be found in relation to star light that is observed on earth. If we observe a star that is 100,000 light years away go super-nova, how does the young-earther interpret what he is seeing? I've heard most say that the light was created "in transit" but that leaves some serious problems. If the light were created in transit then the event we observe in a super-nova (the destruction of a star) never really happened, we're just seeing an image of it. To me that seems like deception and then we have to ask oursleves, if the earth will only be around for a few thousand years, why would God even have to create the star itself when all He has to do is create the image in transit. This then leads to a slippery slope of considering what else do we see around us every day that isn't real. No, this "in transit" answer will not do.I have heard one possible solution to this problem. There are some scientists who believe that the speed of light has not always been constant, Barry Setterfield is one who has written much on this. He believes that the speed of light was much faster at the beginning of creation and has been decaying ever since until it is at a point now where it has settled out. I never got beyond basic physics and calculus in school so I'm not sure how valid his arguments are but it seems plausible. Just some food for thought.In Christ,Ron

Hi Ron(InTheLight)I have heard one possible solution to this problem. There are some scientists who believe that the speed of light has not always been constant, Barry Setterfield is one who has written much on this.I have a feeling that Setterfield's work has been discounted. The UK branch of Creation Research took it off their list. I am not sure of its current status.

Ah, Robert W...I believe it is good to have a working knowledge of both the young earth and Hugh Ross' views. Ah, Robert W...This is all that I have ever tried to foster on this and related threads. We really have nothing to gain from a 'Chick-Book' style demonizing of Christian creation options... and an awful lot to lose.

Hi again Philologos, I hope you are doing well. We had a beautifull day here in Philadelphia, it was in the 50's.You wrote,I don't see why 'the generations of...' would support one view or the other. Are you thinking of 'generations' in the sense of a family tree? The word, as in Genesis, just means beginnings.I think what I'm getting at here is that this phrase 'these are the generations of' which appears several times in the book of Genesis, seems to add to the whole account a very matter of fact feel. I read an article at AIG and I think the author hinted that this phrase possibly indicates that what follows was the actual record handed down and possibly even recorded by the person it starts with(like Adam or Noah)? What comes to mind in terms of an analogy would be something like a courtroom trasncript. If we read through something like that we wouldn't expect to find any symbolic meanings, you know what I mean?I agree with you about symbols and correspondng reality. Good point. However I still think there should be something in the context which clues us into looking for the symbol in the first place, especially when the writting style employed is not one that normally uses symbolisim.You also mentioned this,My current feelings are for young human race but an old earth.How do you understand then what Christ said in Mark 10:6? Also, what do think about the concept of there being death and suffering on Earth for multiplied millions of years before Adam and his transgression? Wouldn't that have to be true with an old earth also? Now, you also said that the Hebrews that Moses was giving God's Law to would not have to have understood the 6 creation days as they really were but how so? Wouldn't it have been very plain to have simply stated the days in terms that indicated 6 long ages? Especially since they were to order their week based upon this historical reality? Now, I don't know this for sure, but I had read that the Egyptians had a long age view of the earth and if that is true then the Hebrews would not have had trouble being told something similar if that was the case.I think I understand your point now about the rythm of the passages. I would suggest to you the Heavens and the Earth would not need to have that said about them because they are the subject matter being described in whole by each day's events. I heard a wonderfull description one time of the way in which the Lord created. The process was described as an Aritist creating a work of art on two canvases:The first canvas was the Heavens, which He then fills in.The second canvas was the Earth, which He then fills in.Finally the whole work and the canvases upon which it was done is pronounced to be very good!Also, in regards to the creative word, what do you think about Psalms 33:6-10. That seems like a good fit.Grace be with you,Christopher

Hi InTheLight, you brought up this...If we observe a star that is 100,000 light years away go super-nova, how does the young-earther interpret what he is seeing?I too had problems with some of the explantions you mentioned, such as speed of light decay or creating light in transit. I really like Russel Humphrey's White Hole Cosmology. He suggests that time itself could run slower or faster in different parts of the Universe becuase of something called gravitational time dilation. Those are big words which I think mean that gravity can affect time. Supposedly there is experimental evidence for this.I don't want to attempt any detailed explanation but as I undestand it, the answer to your question would be that millions of years of activity could (be or have been?) taking place further out in outer space while only a few thousands of years here on earth. I think you can hear some audio of him explaining this at AIG. I found it fascinating.Hope that will be helpful,Christopher

my goodness this has turned into a very interesting discussion...to Ron B...i like how you are trying to describe the fact that the world originally was not created in the form as described in Gen 1:2...it really should be more obvious upon careful study...as someone else so rightly brought into the discussion "tohu" "bohu" (original language terms) God does not "create" disorder and chaos. the world spoken of in Gen 1:2 is reflective of a previously created earth that underwent a terrible judgment to cause the tohu bohu situation. God then created order out of the disorder...similar but much more comprhensive than the order which came after the Flood. in the book "War in Heaven" this is expalined very succinctly.to add yet another question that would lend itself to thinking through the creation story...would God have called the creation of the heavens and earth "good" if Satan had already fallen (sent into the earths atmosphere) from the "place" or highest heaven where God dwells...my thoughts lean to the creation of man and the fact that though they were lower than the angels yet they bore the image of God. the love God had for humans may have been the final straw to the original rebellion in Satan...he then chose to try and userp God in Heaven...ended up thrown out of heaven and finally decieved Adam and Eve. if this was true then again...Adam and Eve conceviably could have lived a long and fruitfall "time" before the Fall. where there may have been dino's, and children born not into sin but into the Garden and communion with the Father?sorry for rambling...it is so far beyond my grasp...like looking at the stars on a clear night or watching the waves crash onto the beach.it will be glorious to take a history class in Eternity...just what has gone on before God chose to create Man?

Hi ChrisDJ [quote}I don't want to attempt any detailed explanation but as I undestand it, the answer to your question would be that millions of years of activity could (be or have been?) taking place further out in outer space while only a few thousands of years here on earth. How does this play out in the creation of the stars on the 'literal' Day Four? It sounds a little as if you are postulating a 'creation within a creation' which is actually what the 'Gap Theory' folk are accused of. :-) BYW I am glad you are able to see the rhythms in Genesis 1. Rhthyms are a give away sign of Hebrew poetry. Unlike Western poetry which (used to) depends on rhyme, Hebrew poetry depends on 'rhthym' and patterns of ideas. Of course, a poetic piece of writing could be absolutely 'literal' but I feel that if this passage were in our Bibles in poetic format we might not be so insistent on 'absolute literal equivalence'. Just a thought.

TS's God does not "create" disorder and chaos. Has someone yet mentioned the sparse use of the Hebrew word 'bara' in Genesis 1? 'bara' is said to mean 'creation from nothing' (rather that a creation which is a manipulation of previous 'elements'.) although this is sometimes challenged.Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen. 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. The word 'made', on the other hand, is used in Gen. 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Gen. 1:16 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. 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Gen. 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. If we stick to the strick use of 'bara-create' we now have 3 'creation days' at most, and if Gen 1:1,2 is pre-creation, just 2 creation days. (getting confused? ;-) ) It is because I believe so passionately in the 'verbal inspiration' of scripture that I cannot fail to notice that God is 'switching key words' in this narrative and that sets my antennae twitching.;-) Are we being told that 'in the beginning God created (bara: from nothing) the heavens and the earth, and that subsequently he 'created' (bara: from nothing) animal life, and that subsequently He created (bara: from nothing) human life? and if so why are be NOT being told that He 'created' (bara: from nothing) the light, the separation of land and sea, plant life and the sun and moon and the stellar universe? Sometimes absences cannot fail to draw our attention.;-)On the matter of 'bara' and 'asah' Renn's Expository Dictionary says that "bara, is used 50 times and (always) with a sense that it refers to an exclusive divine activity. 'asah' on the other hand is a much more general word (used over 2500 times) with a primary sense of 'do, make and several other general purpose uses.)

Pardon the interuption...But you gentleman have me reminiscing about the 'good old days' of first inceptions here. When there was a great deal of this spirit of cooperation and great charity of discussion, very heart warming and honorable. Well done brothers.Sometimes absences cannot fail to draw our attentionI believe it is good to have a working knowledge of both the young earth and Hugh Ross' views.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ah, Robert W...This is all that I have ever tried to foster on this and related threads. We really have nothing to gain from a 'Chick-Book' style demonizing of Christian creation options... and an awful lot to lose.it will be glorious to take a history class in Eternity...Will it not? Have been much of the opinion that it will take that long just to get started on the questions. Sort of an aside, and a bit of wistful thinking, but could but hope there is still sleep in Heaven. Imagine waking up in the morning and that rush of realization ...always interested to hear informed arguments contrary to my own beliefsMay that spirit permeate here.

I really like Russel Humphrey's White Hole Cosmology. He suggests that time itself could run slower or faster in different parts of the Universe becuase of something called gravitational time dilation. Those are big words which I think mean that gravity can affect time. Supposedly there is experimental evidence for this.There are certainly all sorts of mathmatical formulas that can 'prove' or 'demonstrate' how many things that are impossible in our thinking are very possible if things that are seen are only a portion of what actually exists. For example, we exist in 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. What if there are actually 7 dimensions of space and 3 dimensions of time? Believe it or not, both the full expression of Calvin's and Armenious' views of predestination are simultaneously possible in that environment without contradiction. The laws of physics change and in some ways the 'rules' of logic change (as we use them in our experience) as you add dimensions. This is why I suggest everyone interested in these topics get a hold of Ross' works. We understand everything based on 'time', but we must remember that time itself is a creation of God. This means that time was not something that exists apart from God as if there were self-existent laws that He must abide by. Not so. God created all of the laws with which we base our entire experience. This is why it is impossible to comprehend God. All we can know of Him is what He has revealed of Himself within the construct of His own creation. He is seperate and other than His creation. This is the very floor of the foundation which must be established when dealing with folk scientifically about God. People try to make Him subject to His creation- when He is 'apart' from it as its creator and is in no way subject to it unless He wills it so. Who cares how long it took God to create everything if He is the creator of time itself? We need to rethink the majesty of God as He is ALL MIGHTY. An angel asked Sampson's (I believe it was) parents why they asked him his name. To paraphrase, he said, "Why do you ask me my name, when my name is beyond your comprehension?" Can you fathom that? We do not have the processing speed, harddrive, or RAM required to even comprehend that one angel's name and there are legions of them. God is so high and exalted that we don't even have the mental capacity to get out head around the basic issues of the creation itself. We have to store the data on harddrives and allow supercomputers to process information over periods of years just to try and 'simulate' phenomena (such as weather) that is commonplace in our world. When we catch a glimpse of who God is and His majesty and power we had put our hands to our mouths for fear of speaking things too wonderful for us. BTW, 'Wonderful' was the so-called 'name' in the KJV of the Angel I mentioned; it means 'beyond your comprehension'. So to me the issues of when and all that are not near as important as just knowing if a different world existed on earth before Adam. ;-) God BlessRobert

Robert!All of this ... !"Why do you ask me my name, when my name is beyond your comprehension?" Can you fathom that? Have always loved that whole moment surrounding this and leading up to that profound statement, it just leaves one staggering at it.Jdg 13:18 - Seeing it is secret? - It was because it was secret that they wished to know it. The angel does not say that it was secret, but הוא פלאי hu peli it is Wonderful; the very character that is given to Jesus Christ, Isa_9:6 : His name shall be called, פלא Wonderful; and it is supposed by some that the angel gives this as his name, and consequently that he was our blessed Lord.(Clarke)Not to take away from all this, but another rushes to the surface;Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Hi ChrisJD,Yes Russel Humphrey's white hole cosmology is a very interesting idea, it incorporates a bounded universe with a centre, and uses Einsteins theory of General relativity to show how, supposedly during creation week the heavens (space) was stretched out as it says in Isaiah 42:5, Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: this leads to the gravititational time dilation you mentioned because time, according to general relativity, travels at different relative rates depending on the the amount of gravitational force experienced by an object, hence time will travel faster for the objects further from the centre of the stretched volume.So what you may say, but you see if our galaxy is close to the centre of the universe (somthing which in itself terrifies secular scientists) then our galaxy would be 'younger' than those around us, and the further out you go the 'older' the galaxies get.This is all well and good but where is the experimental evidence, after all we're in the realm of science here, well the evidence is in, (big complex words alert) quantized red-shifts. You see when we look at the universe the galaxies appear to be grouped in succesions of 'shells' around our galaxy near the centre.So what again i here you say but this phenomenon would be utterly unobserved if we were not close to the centre of these 'galaxy shells', this is evidence that a) the universe has a centre (which goes against the Big Bang theory) and b) that we are, galactically speaking, very close to it, which leads to thinking maybe there's something special about our tiny blue dot of a planet (heavy sarcasm)I recommend this link for, quantized red shiftsOur galaxy is the centre of the universe, 'quantized' red shifts showit's a bit technical though but good pictures to explainalso look at the book Starlight and Time also by Russel Humphreys,and if your still not done read John Hartnetts, modifications of Humphreys' Cosmology model A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problemphew.. enjoymatt

Greetings again,Philologos, you asked this in regards to Humphrey's theoryHow does this play out in the creation of the stars on the 'literal' Day Four? It sounds a little as if you are postulating a 'creation within a creation' which is actually what the 'Gap Theory' folk are accused of. If you're asking me for details forget it! :-? There was something that keeps coming to mind though as I think about your question. I could be wrong about this, but I think he has different things happening in regards to creation as the "event horizon" moves out from the white hole from which everything starts. And becuase Earth is relatively near the center of this, our clocks continue to run the same while clocks along the event horizon are running at differnt speeds, depending upon the gravitational effect? Whew! That's too much for me! But it really sounds neat.But how that would work out practically speaking I don't know. I don't think it would be a matter of a creation within a creation so much as it is simultaneous creation at variable speeds(different clocks for differnt parts of the cosmos).I've heard mention of that before about ryhthym paterns in Hebrew poetry. But are you suggesting that Genesis one contains poetry?

Hi RobertW, have you ever listened to A.E. Wilder-Smith? He gave a lecture about time and dimensions that I enjoyed very much. You made this pointThere are certainly all sorts of mathmatical formulas that can 'prove' or 'demonstrate' how many things that are impossible in our thinking are very possible if things that are seen are only a portion of what actually exists.I think so too. Just for the sake of clarity though, I believe that this 'gravitational time dilation' is something that can be meausredby way of experiment. Anyway, it's pretty neat to think that gravity can actually affect time! And we don't really know what gravity is do we? Amazing.Also, you asked thisWho cares how long it took God to create everything if He is the creator of time itself?Hmm, maybe there are different answers to this question. Practically speaking, it may not matter much in terms of how we order our daily lives. However, since there is a segement of society which believes that life evolved on earth over vast ages of time, and since this view of origins permeates so much of modern thinking and life I do think it matters for us. And the long ages of time are absolutely essential to their view.I must be plain about this that I am pursuaded that the evolutionary view of life is in no small way opposed to Gospel of Christ. I realise that others here may not agree with this and I do not want to spark a debate, however I do think the issue relates to the question you posed. If there are no long ages of time in Earth's history then I doubt evolution would any longer be seriously considered. What do you think?Grace be with you in Christ,Christopher

Hey saved_matt, thanks for that summary of Humphrey's model! That was great and I recalled reading the different points you made as you brought them up, very good summary/highlights.You know, I'm so unqualified to really undestand these things but from what I do understand in layman's terms, it is a really neat idea! Christopher

I've heard mention of that before about ryhthym paterns in Hebrew poetry. But are you suggesting that Genesis one contains poetry?I am 'suggesting' that Genesis 1 has a poetic style to it and that we often interpret poetry from sense to sense rather than from word to word.A classical piece of English poetry hasI wondered lonely as a cloud That floats on high o'er vales and hills, When all at once I saw a crowd, A host, of golden daffodils ; No one would think to expound this literally, it is 'poetic'. I am 'suggesting' that there is 'room' in an interpretation of Genesis 1 for a less (more than?) than 'word for word' literal interpretation and that the use of 'poetic forms' sould alert us to the possibility. Just 'suggesting...' :-)

ChrisDJ's reference to Humphrey's theory...But it really sounds neat.It certainly does sound 'neat'... I think I may have to take mine with a little water. ;-)

Another little contribution to a 'Gap Theory'My understanding of Hebrew verbs is very limited. They seem to work on a completely different basis to English verbs.Biblical Hebrew is not a "tense" language. Modern grammarians recognize that it is an "aspectual" language. This means that the same form of a verb can be translated as either past, present, or future depending on the context and various grammatical cues. The most well known grammatical cue is the "vav-consecutive" that makes an imperfective verb to refer to the past. So this needs to be read with caution. Gen 2:7 recounts the 'in-spiring' of Adam KJV Gen. 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. This is pretty much the way most translations handle this verse. I am happy with that . Young's Literal, however, has... Youngs Lit Gen. 2:7 (YNG) And Jehovah God formeth the man — dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature. I am happy with that too. The impression is that the God 'formed' (the verb for the action of a potter) Adam (man) from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (lit: lives): and Adam (man) became a living soul.There are several questions that come to my mind on this, but I will pursue the main one. This seems to indicate that 'becoming a living soul' was the consequence (or subsequence?) of God's inbreathing, so our KJV translation's use of 'became a living soul' is OK. This exact sentence construction, translated in the KJV, as 'became' is used earlier in Genesis 1:2 where our KJV has "the earth (not the heavens) was without form and void..." It would be just as legitimate to translate this sentence the earth became without form and voidThis opens up interesting possibilities. Are we reading of something that 'happened' in "the Gap" between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2? If we have opened up a gap' between the first two verses that does not say that we can put 'Dinosaurs' into it; that is not my claim. I am pleading for caution and an admission that in this as in many other matters of scriptural interpretation WKIP (we know in part). I have often used these initials when speaking about the biblical revelation relating to 'angels'. To use my old analogy... the Bible is fundamentally the 'God's story of man'. It tells of man's creation, fall, restoration, future etc. It is NOT fundamentally 'God's story of the angels', consequently what we learn of 'angels' is almost 'incidental'. Their 'story' and 'ours' are like two intersecting circles and all we know about the 'angels' comes from that tiny portion of the intersection. To extrapolate from this tiny portion and to build a comprehensive 'doctrine of angels' is dubious methodology and we need to be cautious about any categoric statements about the origin, types, fall... of angels.I think the same may hold true of earth's earliest origins. The Bible is the story of a world prepared for Adam and his descendants. Our story may intersect with an earlier story but we must be very cautious about our conclusions on that 'earlier' world. G H Pember and his followers have not been so cautious, and there conclusions have been a problem for many. Some dogmatically people this 'earlier' earth with earlier cosmic conflicts (the fake Book of Enoch, C S Lewis et al), some people it with dinosaurs and pre-homo-sapiens. At best these can only ever be hypotheses. Are they possibilities, according to the account that we have in Genesis? Maybe. Are such views only held by people who do not 'believe in the inspiration of the scripture'? Not at all, unless you want to include Pember, Darby, Bullenger, C I Scofield, Thomas Newberry, Chrstopher Wordsworth, Graham Scroggie, Oswald Chambers, Campbell Morgan and many others in that group. My plea is that when such giants of integrity and biblical scholarship have believed in the possibility of such a 'Gap' we should certailny be cautious in 'rubbishing' the concept.

Hi Chris,However, since there is a segement of society which believes that life evolved on earth over vast ages of time, and since this view of origins permeates so much of modern thinking and life I do think it matters for us. And the long ages of time are absolutely essential to their view.My answer here will hopefully answer both this quote and the one before concerning 'time'. Certainly evolutionists believe that time is the savior. If given enough time anything is possible, right? Wrong. The first point I wish to make is that the complexity of a so-called simple cell is so great that we still do not know all the variables, inspite of the thousands and thousands of scientists using the latest electron microscopes and other imaging devices and supercomputers to process the data. The human genome has only recently been mapped out. Maping out the various functions and chemical reactions within one cell would take a huge wall and many of the processes would dead end in our charts. We simply don't know everything- so we can only map our what we have figured out. Sort of like mapping out an IC only exceedingly more complex and constantly coming across functions that we have no idea what they do. Some security chips have multiple levels of encryption, designed to 'enguage' with new firmware upgrades. To me, this is like living cells, in that, certain 'functions' enguage under certain conditions. The staggering complexity of it all is exhaserbated by the fact that as we turn the microscope backwards and look to the universe there are more than 24 parameters, which must fall within specific values within narrowly defined ranges for life to exist at any given time or place in the history of the universe. On top of that (as if that were not enough) the relationship of the Earth, Sun and Moon is delicately balanced also. Just one of those parameters being if the 'color' of our Sun were redder or bluer photosynthetic response would be insufficient and no green plants would exist. That is just 1 parameter and it is highly fine tuned. The axial tilt of the earth, distance from the Sun, etc. If the earths gravity were greater for example, the planet would likely retain too much ammonia and methane for life to exist. This is just the beginning and it is well beyond the scope of this post to even outline the issues. Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) demonstrates well that life is also irreducably complex. Meaning, when you get below a certain number of parts- functionality ceases. Like a mousetrap, you need a block, spring, lever and latch, etc. Take away one of those components and the trap cannot work- THEREFOR functional life has to spring together all at once. I am a computerized engine controls system mechanic by trade, and I have seen enough breakdowns and drivability problems to know that unless everything works and works right- you need a wrecker. So in closing I must say again that 'time' is not the savior. Look at what time has done to your and my face? Look at what time has done to our nations and our world? I have heard probabilities of life springing forth from random chance to range anywhere from 10 to the -56 to 10 to the -40,000. If we split the horns and say 10 to the minus 180 it would be greater than filling the known universe with the smallest particle known to man- the hydrogen electron and randomly marking one- starting out on a blind adventure to select that one electron. It is a mathmatical absurdity! And time is not on their side.God Bless,-Robert

On top of that (as if that were not enough) the relationship of the Earth, Sun and Moon is delicately balanced also.Has anyone out there read Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee? I received this a gift a week or so ago. It is not written by creationists of any kind but is a fascinating scientific work on 'why complex life is uncommon in the universe'. Their thesis is that it must be so uncommon as to make a case that complex life as found on earth may well be unique. I was doing OK until I got to the chapter on 'How to build animals' and my biology is not really up to it, but it is still a book which brings me to wonder and hence to praise.

I wanted to quickly join those who have appreciated the course of this thread. Very good reading gentlemen! Please keep going.a fascinating scientific work on 'why complex life is uncommon in the universe'. It's interesting that evolutionary biology has had to revise it's appreciation of just how endless the complexity of even the simplest lving things is. For goodness sakes they were trying to generate living cells out of chemicals, gases, water, and heat back in the 1950's...that's like a modern throwback to the psuedo-science of alchemy. Ever since Robert Hooke discovered cells in a sliver of corkskin, microscopy technology has been growing in great strides and with it our infantile understanding of how limitless is God's creative power. ...my biology is not really up to it,...Are you getting enough fiber and vitamins in your diet? Oh wait, that's not what you meant. :lol: MC

bro Roberti didn't know you were a mechanic :) so am i, not by profession though.i oft watch the history channel and national geographic and see all kinds of shows on nature (as creation is oft called) everything is always spoken of in terms of evolution even though there is little or no evidence scientifically to prove it but it seems to me that this is taught as fact in most cases. i'm a strict creationist, the earth was made in 6 days with all the life therein dinosaurs and all. the figuring out of gap theories and all gives me a headache :-? i guess i like simple. we take Christ's crucifixion literally don't we, maybe we ought to take genesis literally?

Hi Ironman,I currently am a manager, but I am a mechanic by profession (training). I generally consider the 6 days of creation to be literal. The larger question is, was it a total creation from nothing or was it a recreation of the 'toho' and 'bohu' condition after a past 'judgment' or something. For me, it has nothing to do with whether God could create it all from nothing, but rather if He did create it all during the creation week. My feeling is that it was all created from nothing and that the deluge destroyed it all and makes for the wreckage under our feet. My reason for bringing up the whole 'time' thing is that even IF and that is a huge 'if' the earth is millions or billions of years old; it is still impossible that primordial soup could evolve into anything resembling 'life'. The Big Bang theory disproves evolution itself because it demonstrates that there was a beginning. This means that the universe is not infinite and if it is not infinite then the issue of 'time' being the savior is totally off the table. When dealing with a figure like 10 to the -180, you would at the least need infinite time to accomplish the task. All kinds of weird theories have been devised to show a universe without a beginning, (oscillating universe and others are still somewhat in vogue). The problem is, oscillations loose strength and wind down. Just like bouncing a ball into the air. Forces act against the ball until it comes to rest. As I see it, IF the oscillating universe theory were true, the universe had already "wound down". TIME is not the savior for evolution. Too many factors work against time being of any help. Most simply put; passing time winds life down- not UP.God Bless,-Robert

bro Roberti see, i'll be adding mechanics to my list of degrees, i'm a car buff of sorts :-D I generally consider the 6 days of creation to be literal. The larger question is, was it a total creation from nothing or was it a recreation of the 'toho' and 'bohu' condition after a past 'judgment' or something. For me, it has nothing to do with whether God could create it all from nothing, but rather if He did create it all during the creation week. My feeling is that it was all created from nothing and that the deluge destroyed it all and makes for the wreckage under our feet.i think it was from scratch and that the flood wiped it all out, hence fossils and all. for something to be fossilized it's generally agreed that a sudden covering by soil or mud is required and the flood would explain that. My reason for bringing up the whole 'time' thing is that even IF and that is a huge 'if' the earth is millions or billions of years old; it is still impossible that primordial soup could evolve into anything resembling 'life'. The Big Bang theory disproves evolution itself because it demonstrates that there was a beginning. This means that the universe is not infinite and if it is not infinite then the issue of 'time' being the savior is totally off the table. When dealing with a figure like 10 to the -180, you would at the least need infinite time to accomplish the task.i agree with you here bro, i'm sitting here trying to type this response with my 18 month old daughter climbing all over and the desk. the idea that she could have evolved from some primordial soup is rather foolish to me. there doesn't seem to be much evidence for evolution so i find it weird that it's taught as fact.All kinds of weird theories have been devised to show a universe without a beginning, (oscillating universe and others are still somewhat in vogue). The problem is, oscillations loose strength and wind down. Just like bouncing a ball into the air. Forces act against the ball until it comes to rest. As I see it, IF the oscillating universe theory were true, the universe had already "wound down". TIME is not the savior for evolution. Too many factors work against time being of any help. Most simply put; passing time winds life down- not UP.now that's a weird theory...oscillating universe? it shows how far people will go to explain things as being a result of anything but God...that's the enemy's doing.

As far as the day age theory (theory that each day in Genesis account is 1000 years) goes, I don't buy into it for these reasons. 2 Peter states: "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years," so some take this to mean the Genesis account was seven thousand years. But finish the verse: "and a thousand years as one day." All this verse is saying is that time doesn't affect God. He is outside of time.Another reason I don't buy the day age theory is that if the plants were made on day 3:Gen 1:[11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.[12] And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.[13] And the evening and the morning were the third day....and then the sun was created on day four:[16] 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.[17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,[18] And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.[19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day....then all the plants would have had to have lived without the sun for a thousand years. Another reason the day age theory doesn't add up is that God commanded the Jews to work 6 days and rest 1, just as He did:Exo 20:[9] Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:[10a] But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, [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.So were the Jews supposed to work 6000 years and then rest for 1000? Of course not. The Scripture is very clear that everything was created "in six days."James Barr, an Oxford professor of Hebrew:"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:"(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience"(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story"(c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."

This is like looking into a smokey glass window,when the time frame is used in 2 peter ch3 ver8.this time frame, for man to have insight or a grasp of time or a slight understanding.(but It is written(( But,Beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing,that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.))this is for us, not to be ignorant .now read psalm 90 ver 1 to 5 and look at ver (4). Now go back to (((2Peter ch3 ver 4 thur 7)))Now read (((genesis ch2 ver4))) and look at the words (((Generations))) with the letter (s) at the end of the word meaning more than one.(((These are the ((generations))of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,in the day that the LordGod made the earth and heavens.my ??? is how long is a generation ,is it a thousand years,or days!

As far as the day age theory (theory that each day in Genesis account is 1000 years) goes, I don't buy into it for these reasons. As far as I know this is NOT the 'day age' theory at all. I have never heard of anyone who believes that the 'days' of Genesis 1 are 'one thousand year' periods.Professor Barr, of course, didn't believe in the Genesis account at all (in a scientifically factual sense). His 'support' was his own way of 'undermining' the text from his neo-orthodox standpoint. Peter's reference is not a maths formula of the kind:1 day = 1000 years1000 years = 1 day The scripture does not say the above but that 'one day is AS a thousand years and a thousand years AS one day. It is not given to provide a divine 'currency conversion rate' but is a statement of principle that 'long' and 'short' are just the same to the Eternal God.

Why can people believe that god created the world in seven days. The hebrew word is yon and there is no ambiguity in the hebrew language a day is a day is a day. Hebrew Word for day- StrongsGe 1:5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Ge 1:8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. Ge 1:13And the evening and the morning were the third day. It says there was evening and then there was morning . To have evening and to have morning you need to have a sunrise and a sunset. In all five verses it states then there was evening and then there was morning. If Jesus Christ could raised from the dead what is stopping us from believing that god created the world in seven days. Is it not unbelif in an all powerful god. Are problem is with us we tend to look in to depth into something that is so simple.

If you read ((2peter 3 thur 8)) slowly ! and Read ((psalm 90: 1 thur 5)) and read ((GENESIS ch2: ver4) you will see the word (((GenerationS))) !!! more than ONE!!!!!!!!!

IN 2 peter ver 8 it say's be not Ignorant= Lacking Education or Knowledge,or Comprehension!!! 1000 yr =1day=1000yr Look at psalm 90: ver4.

Hi Deltadom,If Jesus Christ could raised from the dead what is stopping us from believing that god created the world in seven days. Is it not unbelif in an all powerful god. Good point. Imagine that it takes more to sustain this earth and the 6+ billion people and countless animals on it- day in and day out than it did to create it all (in my estimation). The complexity of everything is exponential from the original creation as is found in Genesis 1. Reason being is that the whole of peoples lives has to be dealt with and all the finite details and quirks in keeping with God's working in their life. His 'eye' is on a lot more than a few sparrows these days. So the question is not if God 'could' have created it all because we know He could. The question for me is whether or not the earth existed prior to the account in Genesis and that instead of 'creating' the earth- He (for lack of better terms) regenerated it. Just some food for thought; I know for sure that sometimes it is more difficult to 'renew' something than it was to create it in the first place. Consider an old priceless painting and the time it takes to carefully restore it. What about restoring an old house? I can say for sure it would be easier in many cases to get a dozer and plow it all down and start over than to attempt to salvage as much as possible to restore it to original. More than that consider what it took for mankind to be regenerated? :-)God Bless,-Robert

and there is no ambiguity in the hebrew language a day is a day is a day. Hebrew Word for day- StrongsIsaiah speaks of 'a day' when salvation's wells will be opened. “And in that day thou shalt say, O Lord, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me.” (Is 12:1 KJVS) This particular 'day' has lasted for almost 2000 so far.

IN 2 peter ver 8 it say's be not Ignorant= Lacking Education or Knowledge,or Comprehension!!! 1000 yr =1day=1000yr Look at psalm 90: ver4.NO, it doesn't. It says one day is AS as thousand years, and a thousand years AS one day.This is NOT a currency conversion rate, but a way of saying 'long' and 'short' are comparitive terms. This is a simile not an equivalence.

I was trying to say that word there has no ambiguity. sorry dom

Hi Philologos and all,About this..I am 'suggesting' that Genesis 1 has a poetic style to it and that we often interpret poetry from sense to sense rather than from word to word.Hmm, I guess I don't know enough about the original language to say it doesn't have a poetic style though it sure doesn't seem like it as I read it in the KJV. I think you might have mentioned that? Even so, it seems like using the phrase "And the evening and the morning were the ____ day." would be somewhat confusing in poetic terms(out of place I mean?). Am I missing your point about this? Also, would you agree that Genesis 1 and 2 are the same accounts only the latter is more detailed? How do you understand Genesis 2:4-5 and onward in terms of a gap?I am convinced that these are the same events in both chapters becuase the Lord connects Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24. He speaks of them as being the same thing(Mark 10:6-7). And brother he calls this "the beginning of the creation God". What do you think about this?Brothers please let me diverge for a moment, for whatever the case is about this let us remember that this cursed and fallen world is filled with precious men and women made in the image of our Most Worthy and Precious God, and they are dying without Him. They are dying alone.God be with us, that we may be with Him.Yours for His sake,Christopher

Hi RobertW, how are you?You are right on about just how complex it all is and there is no chance for chance!My answer here will hopefully answer both this quote and the one before concerning 'time'. Certainly evolutionists believe that time is the savior. If given enough time anything is possible, right? Wrong. I completely agree, more time won't help them. However, even though you and I know that THEY don't :-( So that was the point I was trying to make, that perhaps if the notion of billions of years was taken away that even they might abandon the theory. The notion of billions of years in the unobservable past seems to add credulity to the theory in the minds of the public. Know what I mean?God bless you too,Christopher

What part of these ver in 2 peter don't you understand!?ver 5 (((For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old,and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. ver 8?? if you spent one day with the Lord.1ooo earh years would have passed.in that one day.

Hi Greenquality, can I share something with you that I think has helped me understand this verse?Well for starters, when I was just new in the Lord I had all sorts of wrong ideas about the Bible; don't we all? One thing in particular that I did not know was how much of the New Testament is qouted directly or indirectly from the Old Testament. Check this verse out.. Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old. -Matthew 13:52I think 2Peter 3:8 is a case of the scribe(Peter) bringing out something old. Now check out this verse from the Old Testament...For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night -Psalm 90:4Looks alot like 2Peter 3:8 right? But we can also see that this verse is actually comparing a "thousand years" to 2 different spans of time: yesterday and a watch of the night. Now we know that Scripture cannot be broken or contradicted, so I think we have to understand this in other terms. So perhaps Peter brought this out to encourage his readers that God's eternal purpose and plan would be accomplished, regardless of time.I hope this is helpfull to you,Christopher

if you spent one day with the Lord.1ooo earh years would have passed.in that one day.What about the other half of the statement? Remember that this statement has to be reversible.

Hi criss jd. not to get off on the wrong foot here, but why judge me to your self as I'm a starter newbe or a green foot!first off I already know what you have said,I will say the more I learn the less i really know.there is knowen fact that there is harmony a complete agreement with the old and new,harmony!I belive that this subject of the post was hy-jacked,in some way> but all could be explained with in the book gensis,withOUT some type of fake man made gap theory!because of my points that i make are to simple I'am shunned off as a green foot to God word,what do I know.I would rather be green foot than a know it all!

Dear Greenquality, please forgive me for giving you the impression that I did! I in no way intended to judge whether you were new in Christ or not. I realise that the way I phrased the memory of my initial experince with studying God's Word could have given you that impression. Please be assured that was not my intent. I will try to be more carefull.I wanted to share my own insight and added my personal experince to use myself as an example. I have made many blunders with the Word of God so it would be terrible of me to judge others blunders also.May God be our help brother.

this post was wrong forgive me DOm

Chriss jd Sorry for calling you a know it all.the point I trying to make is that within the 6 day's of creation there could have been thousand years between the day's,ThaT's all. or just 6 day's it's just the same to me.but the heavens and earth ,gensis ver 4 the strong evidence for this thousand year is the word generations of the heavens and the earth.

I am curious if anyone has read George Pember’s book “Earth’s Earliest Ages” (I have not), apparently written when the Author became convinced that the creation of Adam and Eve took place in the year 4004 B.C. He wrote in defense of Scripture against the fairly new science of geology which then claimed the earth was billions of years old.Bishop Usher it seems came up with this date by adding the genealogies of the Old Testament, Adam lived so many years and begat Seth, etc… But comparing the genealogies of the Book of Genesis with those in Chronicles, Matthew and Luke you find that some of the names in one place are not mentioned in the other. Is it true, the word Begat does not always mean the next person is the son of the one named? I have read that the phrase “The Son of Man” does not mean that the next person named is the son of that one, and that Hebrew had no word for our terms “Grandson” or “Grandfather”? Meaning then I suppose, sometimes only the important persons are named with many names being skipped in between.tonys

Hi Greenquality, no problem my friend. All is forgotten.Love in Christ,Christopher

I am curious if anyone has read George Pember’s book “Earth’s Earliest Ages” (I have not), apparently written when the Author became convinced that the creation of Adam and Eve took place in the year 4004 B.C. He wrote in defense of Scripture against the fairly new science of geology which then claimed the earth was billions of years old.I have a copy and have read it many years ago. I don't remember him writing in 'defense of Scripture against geology'. I think part of his reasoning was that the earth was much older than Ussher's calculations indicated.I think even the Young Earth folk are now beginning to wonder about the completeness of the genealogies. Does anyone know?

It would have been more accurate perhaps for me to state, not having read His work, that Mr. Pember was convinced of (both) the assertions of a 4004 B.C. date as well as the possibility of the earth being billions of years old? Thus his study and eventual works being published.I would like to read this book should I have the occasion.tonys

Scripture, I personally believe science proves scripture. I personally believe in what god said and that he does not lie in Isaigh there is a reference to the Lord sitting.Isa 40:22 - Show Context It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:Science in my eyes just proves thats are God is mighty. Science is always changing and we have a god who does not change. I think my study of science, I have done a level chemisty and physics and I argued with one of my friends who wanted to be a palentologist. Jesus I think proves science, even the new information that comes out. Calculations of how old the earth Recently I have calculated how old the earth is by using the Hebrew Calander and comparing it to Gregorian Calander. I was trying to work out the year of Jubilee. Science is the art of measurement remember that. Spinning EarthI am convinced that the earth is young not only from science. There is a calcualtion that is done on the earth every to add a few seconds to the rotation of the earth every year it is something like a few micro seconds this was done by a nasa scientist.He proved that the earth could not be too fast else that the earth would be spinning at a tremendous rate.Metorites hitting the moonThe amount of meotorites on the moonEvery year there is a certain amount of metorites that hit the moon and hit earth. When Nasa was going to go the moon they made big legs for the appollo lander to only discover a small amount of surface dust on the moon.They were predicting 3 feet or so of moon dust. One thing all the dinosaurs and fossils prove is that this is in fact a young earth. The flood is what provided all the fossils. I also remember a thing that I heard about geology they were looking at the rock structure to find out how old the earth is, they looked at the rock structure and found another rock structure with the rocks the other way.I think this information was on a tape, it was by someone who worked and nasa and helped discover the quark. A reputable source if you do find this please tell me it was on a tape along time ago.The reason I believe god created the earth in six day in 24 hours I have seen the miracles that god has done in my life. What we have got to watch out for is Unbelief, the cancer of christianty.I believe if Jesus has risen from the dead than nothing is impossible for him. Most of this earth is yet undiscovered. Scripture is more important than Science and I think Science proves scripture .I am not convinced that the earth is old by the science.

Hi Philologos, glad to hear from you again.I think even the Young Earth folk are now beginning to wonder about the completeness of the genealogies. Does anyone know?I know that some set a maxamim age for the Earth at 10,000 years and perhaps this has something to do with the genealogies as you mentioned. I have definitely heard that number mentioned a few times during the talks I've listened to by diferent Young Earth speakers.Peace be with you.

I know that some set a maxamim age for the Earth at 10,000 years and perhaps this has something to do with the genealogies as you mentioned. I have definitely heard that number mentioned a few times during the talks I've listened to by diferent Young Earth speakers.Generally I have understood the reasoning as to why roughly 6000 years has been believed (apart from the geneologies) is based again on the whole 1 day is as a 1000 years and 1000 years as 1 day. That in mind, the earth was created in 6 literal 'days' while it would be established in 6 X 1000 year periods (6000 years). This has eschatological implications and used to be mentioned occasionally as another reason why some folks believe we are moving closer to the 'end times'. The final 'day' would then be the final 1000 year millenial reign of Christ at His coming. This would be the 'rest' that 'remaineth therefore unto the people of God' that is mentioned in Hebrews. The Sabbath was a 'shadow' of things to come and not the very image of these things. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. (Hebrews 4) Now, some translations translate Jesus in this passage as 'Joshua' as to imply that the 'rest' referred to in this passage is the rest we have from works of righteousness or works of the Law. That would make sense to me, but then we have to come to terms with the latter portion: Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. This seems to indicate the 'rest' still remains to be manifest. It also coincides with passages that refer to working while it is day- because the night comes when no man can work. Either way the labour would have to be the continuance of believing as not to come into unbelief. But the prize is 'a rest'. It does not seem logical to be told to 'labour' if we are supposed to now be at 'rest'. Either way, the evidence seems to be pointing to a future 'rest' here. And for those who hold the 1000 year = 1 day views; it is woven into the whole of their theology- beginning in Genesis 1-3 and ending in the millinial passages of the Revelation.

Just a thought or two on RobertW's post...'labouring to enter into rest'... spoudaZO is not really a 'sweating labour' but a diligent pursuing. The word is used in Gal 2:10; Eph 4:3; 1Th 2:17; 2Tim 2:15; 4:9,21; Titus 3:12; Heb 4:11; 2Pet 1:10,15; 3:14 and only in Hebrews is it translated 'labour'.Jesus or Joshua? The Greek for Joshua is Jesus (iEsous) and this is the word used in the Septuagint. So if the writer to the Hebrews had wanted to say 'Joshua' he would have said 'Jesus' AND if he had wanted to say 'Jesus' he would have said 'Jesus'. But suppose he had both in mind.“For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” (Heb 4:8 KJVS)In fact, Jesus did not give them 'rest' either during the days of his flesh. There is an interesting choice of words here...In “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matt 11:28-30 KJVS)... the word for 'rest' here is 'anapausis' which really means a brief rest. In the UK we might call it 'a breather'. a brief respite. In the days of his flesh all he could offer was 'anapausis' a brief respite.The word for rest in Hebrews (Heb 3:11,18; 4:1,3-5,8,10-11) is 'katapausis'. 'katapausis' means a complete rest, a sitting-down rest. Joshua could not give them 'katapausis' and in a sense neither could 'Jesus' until 'his work was finished'. Hence we do not 'labour' to get into rest, but into 'his rest'. The katapausis which means the work is finished and we will not need to return to complete it.In this sense it is true that neither Joshua nor Jesus had given them 'rest' - katapausis. But now, there remains a 'katapausis' which we enter by faith.

Hey Philologos, thanks for those insights. Much appreciated here.