Daar word op die oomblik in die kerk meer gepraat oor self-ontplooiing as oor self-opoffering.-Anon.......As ‘n kerk haar woorde begin devalueer, dan word die kerk ‘n ramp vir die volk. - K Schilder

2/12/2010

Young Earth Creation Rejected - Why?

Skuus vir die Engels, maar ek hoop om 'n paar Engelse vriende se antwoorde ook te kry.

I am sometimes amazed by the different reactions I get from people when I share some of the Scientific and Theological arguments against the theories of long ages, Big Bang and Darwinism.

Atheists
Atheists (that wilfully reject the idea of a God) are the easy one. It is obvious why they don't even dare to entertain these arguments. It challenges the very foundation of their world view and belief system. If they do dare to actually watch some of the videos or read some of the books and articles on the topics around Young Earth Creation, they will do so with the same attitude and watchfulness that I read material of Richard Dawkins, Dan Brown, etc.

Through some very harsh words on some forums, I realized how emotional an aspect this is for Atheists. One of their moral highgrounds and confirmation for their beliefs is infact Science. Thus the moment I dare challange them on that part, they do not hold back any bit at the name calling and redicule.

Christians
This is my actual topic. Why are so many Christians so hesitant to accept the messages from Young Earth Creationists? Initially it did not make any sense to me. I was first introduced to this topic by a relative that gave me Dr. Hennie Mouton's book "Evolusie, die onwetenskaplike leuen" (Evolution, the unscientific lie). This was way back in 2000. I immediately accepted these messages with open arms. I did not realize however just how much this will change may world view and the view of God and His Creation. So many aspects thereof, so called overpopulation, sickness, evil, generational effects of sin, the wonder of life, racism and many many other aspects of my beliefs.

I do find many Christians that do accept this message with open arms, like I did. Many see it as a welcome confirmation of their faith and just wants to learn more. Eager to get answers to questions like, "What about the Dinosaurs?", "What about galaxies millions of light years away?", etc.

I also found some more Conspiracy Theory Christians, quoting Kent Hovind and many other creation messages, but not really making it real. Such an example was a Geologist that was very vocal about Kent Hovind's sayings, but when he spoke about his work, he still referred to million years old layers of rock, etc. Until one day when he faced the practical effect of Young Earth Creation on his work. He grew awfully silent.

The Christians that intrigues me, are the ones saying things like "It is not important", "For God 1 day is like 1000 years...", "God could have created using Evolution", etc. And even more interesting is how they start reacting when you start sharing more and more Theological and Scientific arguments.

The other day I was actually blown away by someone saying my focusing on "these matter" are actually causing unbelief. I was quite shocked and had to start thinking about may methods and ways of communicating this message. I had to take a deep and honest look at how I was behaving myself.

I don't know if I have been honest enough, but here are some of the reasons I suspect Christians may reject the message of Young Earth Creation.

Why do Christians reject Young Earth Creation?
  • Style / Method
I suspect my style or method of bringing over this message was not the best initially. I would like to believe it changed for the better over the years, but I do recognize that it still needs improving. I can only try to figure out how Jesus would have conveyed this message.

I realize a few years back, my Know-it-all attitude (Beterweterigheid) did not help at all. I still strive to improve that aspect, but my passion for this message also makes it hard to do it as some other people I look up to, like Dr. Johan Kruger and other CMI Speakers.

  • Fear of fallibility
Lately I started wondering about this aspect. I wonder if some Christians fear that the Scientific arguments against Evolution and long ages, are not good enough. Do they fear that once they start accepting the arguments for Special Creation, thousands of years ago, that they'll be more vulnerable to Atheists and the like. Do they fear that perhaps some Atheist will be able to counter their scientific arguments and as a result that will bring themselves great doubt, disbelief and turmoil? I have had some Atheist Wolves tear into my arguments and statements at some forums. I've endured name calling and ridicule that surprised me, but also made me realize how emotional an aspect this is for Atheists. To such an extend that I am starting to realize that it might not be very wise to debate on some forums, because I might just cause other Christians to fear being ridiculed themselves.

I hope I'll get some honest answers with regards to this possibility, because that will require some serious introspection.
  • More comfortable
At some stage I believed that the main reason Atheists rejects the message of Young Earth Creation, is that they just wanted to be able to live immoral and not having to care about rules, laws and God. Recently however, I discovered that many first generation Atheists that I know, are actually quite compassionate and live moral lives, overall.

It came as a shock to realize that hardly any militant Atheist that I know are actually clients of Teazers and the like. I started suspecting that Christians not at all striving after the life of Jesus Christ may be more guilty of moral sins than what I was wiling to admit.

Perhaps some Christians still sort of belief there is a God and that Jesus saved them, but they hardly, if ever go to church and even if they do, it is out of pure tradition.

I now wonder what the message of Young Earth Creation does for them. Do they start to feel a whole lot more guilty or convicted once they start realizing the possible effect of accepting a God that created the Universe (enormous beyond comprehension and wonderful down to the smallest piece of living organism)?

Conclusion
What do you think? Why is it that some Christians are very hesitant to accept the message of Young Earth Creation? If you're one of those, I beg you to do some serious introspection and give me an honest as possible answer as to why you would rather believe God created the Earth and the Universe over long periods of time and through Evolution, than in 6000 years through super natural (Special) Creation.

49 comments:

Danie Loots said...

Another possible reason I just thought of, may be because the individual is unsure about his spiritual leader or mentor's beliefs. I can imagine that if my Pastor or Dominee is not willing to entertaint any ideas around Young Earth Creation, it might be difficult for me to start entertaining discussions in this area.

Een baie goeie Christenvriend het eenkeer vir my gevra: "Het jy al met jou Predikant hieroor gesels?".

Gerhard said...

Another reason might be relevance. People might ask "What relevance does this topic have in my life?" or "What difference does it make to my relationship with God". As to the latter, I think most people recognise that God is the creator of everything - how and when he did it is a minor issue. He still remains allmighty and glorious.

Gerhard said...

Just as a follow-up on my previous post. I personally rejects it because most Young Earth Creationists argue amongst themselves on the exact period of the creation of earth. Some say it is 5,700 years ago whilst others recon earth is about 10 000 years old. Somethimes is just seems like to prove that earth is 10 000 years old is just as difficult to prove it is 50 million years old. Nobody was present to confirm when and how God made the earth.

Let me quote WIKI on the definition of religion : "A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

As a christian I have a set of beliefs as well.

The definition of belief is : "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."

This is exactly where faith comes in. I have to believe in God and that he exists first of all before I can believe that he made heaven and earth.

Definition/description of faith:
Heb 11:1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I believe in God and that he made the earth. The mere fact that I live today and that I can experience nature around me is evidence of all things I haven't seen, and that is enough for me.

Danie Loots said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hennie Mouton said...

Die hoofredes waarom ek dink Christene nie jong-aarde-skeppingsleer wil aanvaar nie, is:
1. Hulle glo die wetenskap het miljarde jare bewys, en hulle wil nie as dom/oningelig/onkundig geklassifiseer word nie.
2. Die bekendste teoloë verkondig dat miljarde jare en evolusie nie strydig met die Bybel is nie, en die meeste predikante ignoreer die saak. 'n Simboliese vertolking van Genesis lyk na die maklikste uitweg. Vir seker is baie predikante ook maar bang om as onkundig geklassifiseer te word.
3. Die wreedhede in die Bybel, wat baie moeilik sonder 'n letterlike verstaan van die begin van sonde en gevolglike ellende begryp kan word, maak dat baie mense, ook Christene, probleme het om die Bybel regtig as God se Woord te sien.

Danie Loots said...

Another reason, I realized today, may be that some very commited Christians, that may even know the Bible very well, might feel threatened by this barrage of knowledge. Where they might feel they have grown so much in their relationship, this might make them feel much less adequate. They may feel convicted (persoonlik veroordeel / aangeval) because the person sharing (see my first point with regards to the Style Beterweterigheid, ens.).

Once again I realize that a person in an audience will fell much less placed on the spot, than a one-on-one conversation, in person or on a forum.

For such persons, I may mention, that although Young Earth Creation does touch on some specific Theological aspects, and the Creation vs. Evolution message is actually very fundemental to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it is a very small component of Creation Science. Creation Science focusses a lot on Science, that is the whole point. That is why organizations like CMI (Creation Ministries International, www.creation.com), are cross denominational. Weather a Christian is Protestant, Catholic, Pentacostal, Baptist, etc. does not matter. We have the same Bible and Creation Science does not try to cover any of those, and shouldn't. Its not their focus.

Which is also why some of the works of Creation Science is also supported by Judaism and Islam. In fact almost all ancient religions share aspects of Genesis, even the Chinese (down to the level of detail of 8 people being saved by the flood).

I honestly believe that all Christians that has seen enough of the Scientific Arguments for Young Earth Creation, will be encouraged (bemoedig), instead of threatended.

ps. Ek dink ek moet een of ander tyd tog hierdie artikel dalk in Afrikaans ook doen. Ek sukkel met die Engels!

Henrietta said...

I think Hennie's no.1 reason ("Hulle glo die wetenskap het miljarde jare bewys, en hulle wil nie as dom/oningelig/onkundig geklassifiseer word nie") , that they believe there is ample truth to prove the theory and they do not want to be seen as dumb/ill-informed or ignorant, is the one that carries most weight. Nobody likes being labelled as "dumb!"

For a long time now, there has been a steady process of disinformation and brainwashing where Christians who are not evolutionists have been ridiculed and made to be seen as fools.

Jou Engels is baie goed, Danie - doe so voort! Meeste Afrikaanses kan Engels goed verstaan , maar die omgekeerde is nie altyd so nie.

Liza said...

Die rede hoekom ek nie jong aarde kreasionisme kan voorstaan nie is omdat dit vir my persoonlik nie versoenbaar met die Bybel is nie.

Blykbaar bereken die jong aarde aanhangers die ouderdom van die aarde volgens die Ou Testamentiese stamregister deur tydperke bymekaar te tel tot by Adam en Eva wat tot gevolg het dat die skeppingsdae dan tot letterlike 24-dag periodes gereduseer word terwyl ander gedeeltes in die Bybel buite rekening gelaat word soos bv Psalm 90:4 en 2 Petrus 3:8, waar uitdruklik gepraat word van ‘n duisend jaar wat vir God soos een dag is en omgekeerd.
(Die OT mense het 'n duisend jaar as 'n simboliese getal vir oneindig baie/volmaakte verstaan.)

Ek glo dat om God by ons tydsraamwerk te betrek verkeerd is. Ons moet Hom nie aan ons dagbegrip meet nie, maar eerder aan Sy tydloosheid.

Dus beskou ek die Bybel as ‘n geloofsboek eerder as ‘n bewysboek. Hoe dit ookal sy dis nou nie vir my van die aller grootste belang in hoe 'n kort of lang tydperk God die aarde geskep het nie. Dit kan nie 'n jota of tittel afbreek doen aan my geloof in Jesus Christus as my Verlosser nie.

Danie Loots said...

Miskien moes ek die artikel anders getitel het, of my vrae anders gevra het. My oorspronlike idee was nie om kritiek op die Jong Aardeskeppingsleer self te soek nie, maar eerder by mense wat wel in Jong Aarde Skeppingsleer glo, hoor hoekom hulle dink die mense vir wie hulle hiervan vertel dit verwerp.

Die ding is dat ek in my hart glo, indien iemand net 'n glimpse kan kry van die enorme hoeveelheid wetenskaplike argumente en bewyse wat die Jong Aarde Skeppingsleer ondersteun, net kan sien hoeveel vrae die Jong Aarde Skeppingsleerders beantwoord, sal so 'n persoon wel besef dat die verhaal van Genesis letterlik waar is.

Maar ek het ook besef dat hierdie eintlik 'n uiters sensitiewe onderwerp is. Dat mense baie baie maklik seergemaak voel a.g.v. hierdie onderwerp.

Die antwoord dat dit nie saak maak nie, dat ons geloof nie op wetenskap gegrond is nie, ens. duik omtrent altyd op by mense wat nie die Jong Aarde Skeppingsleer aanvaar nie. Die stelling dat dit nie belangrik is nie en niks te doen het met die Boodskap van die Evangelie nie, duik ook baie baie op.

En ek verstaan dit. Indien iemand glo die wetenskaplike bewyse VIR 'n Jong Aarde is wankelrig en dun gesaai, maak dit heeltemal sin.

Weereens, is ek baie versigtig om ander mense te se hoekom die Jong Aarde boodskap belangrik is, want mense voel baie maklik aangeval. (Soos ek al baie gevoel het, en ek het al die mees volwasse Christene gesien geaffronteer word deur besprekinge hier om). Daarom sal ek liefs mense verwys na creation.com om daar te gaan kyk hoekom dit belangrik is. Hoe 'n integrale deel dit eintlik is van die Evangelie.

Oor die konsep dat 1 dag vir God soos 1000 jaar kan wees en 1000 jaar soos 1 dag die volgende. Ek het om Henrietta se artikel oor God en die Big Bang meer gese oor hoe ek verstaan (d.m.v. die Relatiwiteits Teorie van Einstein) dat God heeltemal buite tyd staan, dat Hy tyd geskep het saam met die Heelal.

My vraag oor die 1 dag soos 1000 jaar kwessie, is die volgende. Indien tyd vir God die Aarde wel oor duisende (of miljarde) jare geskape het, en Hy wil vir ons 'n boek gee om hierdie proses te vertel, hoe sou Hy dit gedoen het? Sou Hy goed gese het soos "..en dit was aand en dit was oggend gewees, dit was die eerste dag... en dit was aand en dit was oggend, dit was die tweede dag..." ens. Maak nie saak hoeveel keer ek Genesis 1 lees nie, ek sukkel retig om 'n leidraad te kry wat God daar kon gelos het om aan te dui dat hy nie eintlik 6 dae bedoel het nie.

'n Ander interessante kwessie wat hierby betrek word is dat daar geen debat ooit gevoer word oor wat "dag" (Hebreeus = "Yom", ek dink) beteken in enige ander deel van die Bybel nie. Nie met die 10 gebooie nie, nie met Jesus se dood nie. Daar is geen debat oor enige ander moontlike betekenis van "dag" in enige ander deel van die Bybel as oor Genesis 1 nie, nie wat ek van weet nie.

So ek wonder maar nie hoekom daar dus 'n debat oor Genesis 1 se betekenis van "dag" is. Is dit oor enige iets wat staan in die Bybel self? Of is dit omdat ons oortuig is dat daar (soos Hennie Mouton ook noem) skynbaar gewelidg baie Wetenskaplike bewyse is vir miljarde jare?

Ek sal die eerste wees om te erken dat ek daardie selfde versies aangehaal het, dat ek ook gese het dat God geskep het deur Evolusie, Big Bang, ens. Tot ek die massas bewyse TEEN miljarde jare gesien het.

Dus wonder ek maar net of dieselfde met ander mense die geval is. Dat ons dink die Wetenskap het verseker bewys dat die Aarde en Heelal miljarde jare oud is, en dus was Genesis 1 seker nie bedoel om letterlik opgeneem te word nie.

Yf said...

Good day, friends.

This is certainly an emotionally laden topic and emotions have a way of distorting reason and even getting in its way.

Danie, I think you missed one reason why some Christians reject YEC. The line of argument goes like this:

The Bible makes statements about the Creator, while science makes statements about creation itself. The Bible is therefore not a science handbook. Science is dependent on observation and empirically supported deductions. Faith on the other hand is based on presuppositions and beliefs. The two do not mix very well. Scientific theories should be debated on scientific grounds and faith should be debaterd on Biblical grounds.

there is a presupposition that rejection of YEC can be equated with acceptance and support for evolution. That in the least, is incorrect if not deliberate misrepresentation. If someone were to imply such a thing to me it would be the end of the conversation. Rejecton of one idea does not automatically imply support for the oposite idea. Evolution, as can YEC can (and I believe should) be questioned and debated on scientific grounds.

I for one, cannot see how the Bible can be viewed as a scientific handbook. And sa someone has earlier pointed out - so what if God created over 13.7 billion years, it detracts nothing from His character or attributes in any way.

Finally, the above argument is also my position. Look at the scientific support for YEC, OEC, Flood geology BB, evolution etc and make your own choices and decisions as to which you would like to accept and why. Respect the right of the other person to have his or her own views and how they wish to interpret the Bible.

I personally feel myself more at home with OEC and ID than anything else..

In peace

Danie Loots said...

Yf, what you're saying is so true. It is such a fine line. I found many times that the harder I try to show Christians the Scientific arguments for a Young Earth, the more they feel I'm questioning their Christianity.

And I have unfortunately heard people say things like, if you believe in Evolution you are not a Christian, or even worse, you'll go to hell.

I have personally met a person that is the most mature Christian I have met ever. On par with out pastor even. This person does reject Frog-to-Prins Evolution completely and believes we now live 5770 years since Adam. He also believes Adam did not have any forefathers, not human or non-human of any kind. He does still question the time period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

This facts does not make this person anything less Christian that any YEC. I have the utmost respect still for this person.

On the Science Handbook. Yes, I do agree the Bible is not a Science Handbook, in facts Science books needs to be updated regularly, needs to be changed as our experiments yield conflicting evidence. The Bible on the other hand is Absolute. It is the 100% true authoritive Word of God Almighty.

When I personally speak about vast amounts of Scientific Evidence / Arguments for a Young Earth and Universe, I really mean vast amounts. This web-page lists 101 reasons why the Earth is Young, that is Scientific reasons (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth). If you go through these points, you might realize the Scientific evidence for a Young Earth covers many diciplines in Science. Geology, Astronomy, Genetics, Biolology and many more.

This is why, I do believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

The fact that Science supports my faith, is fantastic for me.

Yf said...

Hallo Danie.
Good point about the science handbooks that have to be updated regularly. I never thought of it that way. And as you say, the Bible is absolutely true and therefore has no need to be updated (in the Protestant perspective, anyway) If you think you find a problem in the Bible, or a contradiction etc it is usually an interpretation problem and not a Scriptural one.

When science supports faith, as some archeological, astronomical, biological, filosofical and historical does, we can call it apologetics because apologetics is the removal of intellectual stumbling blocks to the faith.

In peace

Liza said...

Hi Danie, nee daar’s niks verkeerd met jou pos nie. Doet so voort. Dis interessant en lok lekker gesprekvoering uit....

Ek het ‘n interessante stuk op my rekenaar oor die veelvuldige gebruik van die woord Yom in die Hebreeuse taal wat ek graag wil deel.

Ek het ook nooit geweet dat Hebreeus maar slegs uit ongeveer 8 700 woorde bestaan nie. Dis arm in vergelyking met Engels wat met ‘n woordeskat van by die 500 000 woorde spog.
Dit is dan ook te verstane dat daar ‘n duplisering van woorde kan wees met verskillende betekenisse. Die woord dag oftewel Yom is een so ‘n woord wat meer as een betekenis kan hê afhangende van die verband waarin dit gebruik word.

'Bear with me' hier volg aflewering 1: :))

Yom in the Creation Account

Even within the creation account, Yom is used to represent four different time periods.

Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate a 12-hour period
Genesis 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." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate 24-hour days
Genesis 2:4 "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Here, Moses uses Yom to indicate the entire creative week.
The fourth usage of Yom in the creation account is in the summary for each of the six creation days, "and there was morning and evening the first day". Yom is used to represent a finite, long period of time, usually either millions or billions of years. To show support for this, consider the uses of Yom by Moses.

Liza said...

Moses Other Uses of Yom
Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, and of Psalm 90, used Yom in many different ways.
Genesis 4:3 "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months.
Genesis 43:9 "...then let me bear the blame for ever." Here, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
Genesis 44:32 "...then I shall bear the blame to my father for ever." Again, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
Deuteronomy 4:40, "...that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth the, for ever." Here Yom represents a physical lifetime
Deuteronomy 10:10, "Now I stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time,..." Here, Yom is a "time" equal to forty days.
Deuteronomy 18:5 "...to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for ever." Again, Yom is translated as eternity
Deuteronomy 19:9 "...to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in His ways..." Here, Yom represents a lifetime. As long as we live we are to walk in his ways
As you can see, Moses used the word Yom to represent 12-hours, 24 hours, the creative week, forty days, several months, a lifetime, and eternity.

Liza said...

Evening/Morning Construction

In Genesis 1 Moses says "and there was evening and morning the xx day". Does the use of evening and morning indicate a sunrise and sunset for each creative day? First, let's look at what evening and morning are not. They are not actual evening and mornings, as this requires a sunrise and sunset. According to young earth theory, the Sun was not created until Day Four, thus there could be no sunrise or sunset for the first three days of creation. However, God uses the terms evening and morning for those first three days. Therefore, they cannot be actual evenings and mornings.
We are left with only one option. The words for Evening and Morning can only represent the beginning and ending of the creative period, and not actual sunrise and sunsets. Scripture itself sets this pattern for us. Morning and evening are used figuratively in Psalm 30:5, Psalm 49:14,15, Psalm 90:6. Thus, the evening and morning of creation can mean the start and end of the creative process that is attributed to that creation period.
Young earth advocates counter that traditionally, church fathers have always held that sunrise and sunsets do not constitute a day, and they accepted the sun creation on Day Four with no hint of the first three days being anything other than 24-hour days. For instance, Sarfati in Refuting Compromise mentions Luther and Calvin (page 84-86). However, Luther and Calvin did not have the means of modern science at their disposal. At the time, geocentricity was still accepted!

Sjoe!

Danie Loots said...

Liza,

Daardie onderwerp oor Aand en Oggend roer nogal 'n paar dinge aan.

1. Firstly, from carefully looking at Genesis 1, specifically at the order of things created, one will soon realize that merely multiplying the days by numbers of years will not make Genesis 1 compatable with Big Bang and Evolution. You'll notice Earth was there on Day 1, the rest of the Universe on Day 4. Plus the plants, that need Light / Sun, was created on Day 3. Lastly Birds was created before Reptiles and Mammals. There are possibly a few others that I cannot remember off my head. Thus I get the idea one either believe Genesis 1 literally or one has to not take much else from Genesis 1 except that God created everything.

2. The first three days.
I've heard this in some serious debates between people that knows a whole lot more about ancient Hebrew than I do. But this was a major point in this debate. One side says "Day" and "Night" was only defined on the Fourth day when God created the Sun. Thus they argue that anything could have happened in the period before day 4. Ironically, if you study the effect of Gravitation on Time, according to Einstein, it is indeed sort of true. Day 1-3 there was not Universe, only from Day 4 onwards. But that's just something I thougth of now.

Anyhow, the other side argues that God clearly defined "Day" and "Night" in Genesis 1 (Afr:"God het die lig toe 'dag' genoem, en die donker het Hy 'nag' genoem. Dit het aand geword en dit het môre geword. Dit was die eerste dag." They also argue that God might have provided the Light in another way. If you think about how many times in the Bible God is compared to with Light, or at least His effect on us is like Light.

Maybe this is something to ponder.

Danie Loots said...

Ken Ham in a podcast once said "Yom" can be used in three different ways, similar to how we use "day" in English (of Dag in Afrikaans).
1. Day could be 24 hours
2. Day could be the light part of a day, i.e. on average 12 hours (the closer you are to the equator, at least)
3. Day could mean some period of time in the past.

Apparently throughout the Bible, whenever the author means the 24 hour day (sunset to sunset in Hebrew tradition), they either connect it to a number OR they mention "evening" and "morning". In Genesis 1, both these occur. The number as well as the "evening" and "morning" sequence. Yet, nowhere in the Bible is it disputed that his usage means literal 24 hours, except Genesis 1. This is quite interesting.

The Second use, I guess I don't need to explain. Usually it is quite clear when "day" refers to the light part of a day, i.e. the 12 hours of light we have every day.

The Third use is the one that indicates some period of unknown length or general length. This would be like, "In the day of P.W. Botha ...". This is clearly neither literal 24 hours nor the 12 hour sunshine part of a day.

Now, I guess few people can argue, that if you give Genesis 1 to someone that knows nothing about scientific claims, nothing about evolution, Big Bang, etc. and ask him/her to read it and explain. They will surely say that it means literal 6 x 24 hour days (plus 1 day oourse).

The question thus remains, do we interpret Genesis 1 according to the plain reading of it, or do we try to match our beliefs with what we perceive to be proven Science? (I guess by the way I stated the question you can easily read my personal bias).

Lastly, if I can produce enough evidence that billions of years ages are most impropable and thousands of years ages (plus a Flood) is far more probable, and you are then convinced that the Earth is actually thousands of years old, would the above arguments be relevant at all?

I guess the question than remains, are there enough evidence to show that the Earth and Universe is indeed thousands of years old?

Hennie Mouton said...

Uit die konteks kan maklik gesien word of dag of dae (enkelvoud of meervoud) met yom bedoel word. In die skeppingsweek met sy aand en môre telkens kan yom net enkelvoud wees, nie meervoud nie. In die dag van so en so, en 40 dae, is gevalle waar yom duidelik dae beteken, nie 'n enkele dag nie. Die voorbeelde wat met "vir altyd" vertaal is, het "al die" voor yom gehad. Sekerlik beteken "al die dae" iets anders as "dag".
Soos wat ons vandag met dag 12 ure of 24 ure bedoel, is dit sekerlik geldig vir die Bybel ook.
Let ook daarop dat Eks. 20:11 bevestig dat die skeppingsweek se dae gewone dae was.
Een dag soos 1000 jaar en 1000 jaar soos een dag se bedoeling is vir seker nie om alle tydsverwysings in die Bybel tot niet te maak nie. Die bedoeling is duidelik om te verklaar dat God bokant tyd staan en tyd beheer. Daardie gedeelte verwys in elk geval na die wederkoms, nie na die skeppingsweek nie.
God het op die eerste dag lig geskep, maar eers op die 4de dag die son.
Mens kan spekuleer wat die aanvanklike lig was, maar in beginsel is dit geensins moeilik om te bedink hoe lig aan die een kant van die aarde, en 'n roterende aarde, die eerste 3 dae ook gewone dae kon gemaak het nie.
Die geslagsregisters, met die ouderdomme daarin, plaas die skeppingsweek ongeveer 4000 v.C.
Selfs al sou name uitgelaat gewees het, maak dit nie saak nie, want XX se geboorte word gegee toe YY so en so oud was.
Dit is nie wys om gedeeltes waar woorde figuurlik gebruik word, se betekenis te probeer toepas op gedeeltes waar daar geen aanduiding is dat dit figuurlik bedoel word nie -- dit geld vir "dag" en vir "aand en môre".
Luther en Calvyn was verkeerd oor geosentrisiteit -- dit maak hulle nie noodwendig verkeerd oor die ses-dae-skepping nie.
As mens die aarde miljarde jare oud wil maak, en dus glo dat die fossiele in die geologiese kolom miljoene jare oud is, en glo dat Adam en Eva eers lank na die diere wat gefossileer het geleef het, beteken dit dat daar dood voor Adam en Eva se sondeval was. Dit is teenstrydig met die Bybel se boodskap van "geen dood voor die sondeval nie".
Volgens Hebreeuskenners bestaan daar 'n ander woord wat tydperk beteken wat gebruik kon gewees het, sou die bedoeling betreffende die skeppingsweek iets anders as gewone dae moes gewees het.

Herman Müller said...

Ek stem nogal saam met Gerhard. Ek wonder of dit enigsins 'n verskil in my geloof gaan maak. Wat maak dit saak. God is groot. Hy het alles gemaak. Sy metode of die meganisme wat hy gebruik het is, vir my, nie regtig van belang nie. As hierdie enkele punt jou geloof (of jy glo of nie) gaan beinvloed, dan is daar maar groot issues met jou geloof. En ek vermoed dat jy eerder aan jou persoonlike verhouding met God sal moet werk. Jy moet eerder strewe om soos kindertjies te glo. Sonder bewyse.

Herman Müller said...

Nog 'n verdere gedagte om by my vorige antwoord te voeg.

Jesus Christus self het nie wetenskaplike oortuiging gebruik om mense tot bekering te laat kom nie, maar het self eerder gelykenisse wat normes, waardes, beginsels, ens. oordra vertel. Dit is belangriker vir mense om te weet hoe om mekaar goed te behandel as wat dit is om te verstaan HOE dinge gebeur het. Die samevatting van die wet in Mattheus 22:34-40 wys tog duidelik vir ons dat die belangrikste is om eerstens in God te glo, en tweedens om jou medemense lief te he.

Ek haal aan:

Matt. 24:34-40
Toe die Fariseërs hoor dat Jesus die Sadduseërs die mond gesnoer het, het hulle bymekaargekom, en een van hulle, 'n wetgeleerde, het Hom met 'n vraag probeer vastrek.
"Meneer," vra hy, "wat is die grootste gebod in die wet?"
Jesus antwoord hom: "'Jy moet die Here jou God liefhê met jou hele hart en met jou hele siel'
Dit is die grootste en die eerste gebod.
En die tweede, wat hiermee gelyk staan, is: 'Jy moet jou naaste liefhê soos jouself.'
In hierdie twee gebooie is die hele wet en die profete saamgevat."

Hennie Mouton said...

Die belangrikheid vir die Christelike geloof om Genesis direk te verstaan en te glo, is onder andere die volgende:
· Die oorsprong van sonde word in Genesis beskryf. Daarsonder sou die nodigheid vir ’n Verlosser nie bestaan het nie. Genesis vorm dus die fondasie vir die evangelieboodskap. Ek kom net bietjie verder aan weer terug na hierdie punt.
· Die basis vir die huwelik tussen een man en een vrou word deur God self gelê in Genesis.
· God as die almagtige en goeie Skepper word in Genesis geopenbaar. Indien die werklikhede van die sondeval nie aanvaar word nie, sal dit baie moeilik wees om ’n liefdevolle, goeie God met die rampe en ellendes van die huidige wêreld te versoen. Talle mense wat probleme met die begrip van ’n liefdevolle God maar ’n wrede wêreld ondervind, aanvaar slegs ’n simboliese vertolking van Genesis.
· Die ontstaan van verskillende volke en tale, maar net een menslike ras, word in Genesis beskryf. Genesis maak dit dus duidelik dat rassisme nie ’n geestelike of ’n biologiese basis het nie.
· Die fisiese voorkoms van die wêreld is in breë trekke verstaanbaar indien die Genesisvloed as werklik en wêreldwyd aanvaar word, soos die Bybel dit beskryf. Die wonders van die natuur kan as ’n baie sterk heenwysing na God die wonderbaarlike Skepper dien, maar slegs as Genesis as werklikheid aanvaar word.
· Jesus het self na Genesis as werklike gebeure verwys en die glo daarvan as noodsaaklik beskou. In Johannes 5:46 en 47 sê Hy:

As julle Moses geglo het, sou julle My geglo het, want hy het van My geskryf. Maar noudat julle nie glo wat hy geskryf het nie, hoe sal julle My glo?

Hennie Mouton said...

Moses word direk in die Bybel genoem as die skrywer van Eksodus tot Deuteronomium. Josh McDowell skryf dat die eerste vyf boeke van die Bybel die “Boek van die Wet”, of die “Wet van Moses”, of die “Wet”, genoem is volgens Joodse tradisie. Dit is dus redelik om af te lei dat Jesus Genesis sou ingesluit het as Hy na Moses se skrywes verwys het. Jesus het in ieder geval ook direk na die skeppingsgebeure in Genesis verwys (Mark. 10:6). Die eerste belofte van ’n komende Verlosser, met ander woorde, daar het Moses reeds van Jesus geskryf, word vroeg in Genesis gegee. Let ook op Jesus se woorde in Joh. 3:12:

Ek het julle van die aardse dinge vertel en julle glo dit nie, hoe sal julle glo as Ek vir julle van die hemelse vertel?

Jesus word in Johannes beskryf as die Woord van God wat van altyd af daar was. Bogenoemde woorde van Hom kan dus ook na sy woorde in die Bybel verwys, soos deur Moses en die ander skrywers van die Ou-Testamentiese Bybel weergegee. Dit is dus na my mening redelik om te aanvaar dat Jesus onder andere na die werklikhede van Genesis (die aardse dinge) verwys, wat tenminste geglo moet word alvorens die geestelike (hemelse) geglo kan word.

[‘Did Moses really write Genesis?’, Creation 20(4), bl. 43-46, 1998]
[The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, bl.400, 1999]

Daar is twee pertinente evangelisasiepreke in die Bybel opgeteken. Die eerste is deur Petrus wat net ná die uitstorting van die Heilige Gees die evangelie van Jesus aan die Joodse godsdienstiges in Jerusalem gebring het. Hulle was uit verskeie lande rondom Israel tot in Asië en Afrika afkomstig. Petrus se gehoor het dus geweet dat hy na God die Skepper verwys wanneer hy na God verwys het. Die tweede preek is deur Paulus wat by die Areopagus in Griekeland met die Grieke praat. Hy begin sy gesprek spesifiek met verwysing na die onbekende god in hulle tempel. Hy stel daardie god voor as die een wat alles geskep het, en hy stel die God van die Bybel aan hulle voor as daardie Alleenskeppergod. Daarna lewer hy getuienis van Jesus, sy kruisiging en opstanding en die betekenis daarvan. Petrus het nie nodig gehad om na Genesis en die skepping te verwys nie – sy gehoor het dit geken en geweet wat sonde was en teen Wie gesondig is. Paulus se gehoor het daardie basiese agtergrondskennis nie gehad nie. Daarom moes hy by die Skepper en die skepping begin. In baie kerke vandag lyk die gehoor meer soos die Grieke as die Jode. Hulle dink Genesis is net simbolies of glo dit glad nie en dink die mens kan maar self besluit wat reg en wat verkeerd is. Met so ’n sienswyse help dit nie om Jesus as die Verlosser te predik nie, want die gehoor verstaan nie waarvan hulle verlos moet word nie. Met ander woorde, Jesus as Verlosser sonder dat die mens besef dat hy voor God geheel en al skuldig is, is sinneloos. Die werklike boodskap van Genesis is dus essensieel vir die ware Christelike geloof.

Hennie Mouton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hennie Mouton said...

Ek probeer nie met my laaste twee skrywes te sê dat 'n letterlike glo van Genesis 'n reddende voorwaarde is nie -- geloof in Jesus Christus as enigste Verlosser is. Maar ek weet dat baie die Bybel met verlossingsboodskap en al verwerp, omdat hulle glo die wetenskap het die Bybel verkeerd bewys betreffende die oorspronge. En Christene behoort sulke ongelowiges te kan antwoord.

Yf said...

Vriende,
Kom ons los die verpersoonliking van gespreksgenote se geloofsoortuigings.

Wat ons hier doen, is om Genesis 1 te probeer interpreteer. Dit bring verskille mee. Elke interpretasie het sy sterk en swak punte, want dit bly maar net interpretasies.

Eenheid in kernsake
Verdraagsaamheid in randsake
Liefde in alle sake.

Elk besluit mos maar waarmee hy of sy gemaklik voel. Soos Hennie sê ons moet bewus wees van die verskillende uitgangspunte sodat ons elkeen wat ons daarna vra, kan antwoord. (1 Pet.3:15) en die kriteria vir die ewige lewe is om christus te bely - niks anders nie.

In volle vrede

Danie Loots said...

Yf,

Dit is 'n duur les wat ek die afgelope tyd geleer het, dat hierdie 'n sensitiewe onderwerp is.

Om een of ander rede is party mense heeltemal oop en ontvang die Skeppingsleer boodskap sonder besonderse teenstand. Dan is daar mense wat versigtiger is, vir watter redes ookal. Wat onder andere vra of dit werklik belangrik is en of die relevant is.

Die ouens wat Skeppingsleer redelik goed ken, dink die letterlike interpretasie van Genesis 1 is baie baie belangrik. Al die redes wat Hennie genoem het, plus nog 'n klompie ander.

Die ouens wat egter versigtig is met Skeppingsleer, het ek gevind is egter baie sensitief oor die saak.

Dit is een van die goed wat ek gister en vandag probeer uitfigure. Ek hoor wat jy, Liza, Gerhard en Herman se. Ek (en ek is seker Hennie nog meer) het soortgelyke argumente al baie keer gehoor. Hy nog meer as ek, ken ook die teenantwoorde daarteen. Ken 'n hele lys van redes hoekom ons voel Genesis 1 is so krities om letterlik op te neem as deel van die volledige Boodskap van die Evangelie van Jesus se Verlossing.

Maar wat ek bitterlik hard mee stoei, is hoe kry mens hierdie vrae geantwoord, hierdie teenargumente gelys / genoem, sonder om mense seer te maak. Ek persoonlik het bitter hard geleer en 'n paar verhoudings getoets (hopelik nie permanent beskadig nie) in 'n poging om dit te doen. Hoewel ek die sagste moontlike maniere probeer het.

Ek is dus op hierdie stadium, vir eers van plan om maksimum 'n handtjievol aspekte te noem en nie verder te probeer nie. Want ek het nog nie die regte manier gekry om die boodskap oor te dra nie.

Dus kan ek jou verseker, ek persoonlik (en ek is seker Hennie ook), veroordeel glad nie mense wat nie die Jong Aarde Skeppingsleer aanvaar en die letterlike interpretasie van Genesis 1 aanvaar nie. Ek persoonlik weet daar is Christene baie meer volwasse as ek, wat dit selfs nie aanvaar nie.

Maar ek is ook redelik sterk oortuig dat indien iemand net 'n kykie (glimpse) kan kry van presies hoe baie wetenskaplike bewyse en argumente daar is vir die letterlike verstaan van Genesis 1-11, raak al hierdie ander argumente weg in die niet.

Maar dit is 'n ideaal wat ek maar net sal nastreef, en dit is dat by verre die meerderheid Christene (veral Pastore en Predikante) dieper gaan delf en die wonderlike wereld van Jong Aardeskeppingsleer ontdek.

Uit my hart uit het ek net een versoek. Indien iemand wat in Jesus Christus glo EN wel nog in miljarde jare geskiedenis glo, praat oor hierdie spesiefieke saak, wees asb. versigtig oor die gehoor. Daar is Christene daarbuite wat wankel op die fyn lyn tussen Evolusie deur God en Evolusie sonder God. Dit sal vir my persoonlik 'n harde feit wees om te besef dat wat ek so maklik gepraat het, dalk iemand anders se redding gekos het.

Ek praat uit ervaring. Ek het lang gelede op daardie afgrond geloer, die een tussen Evolusie deur God en Evolusie sonder God. Ek weet ook dat die aanslae van die Ateistiese Wolwe woes is daarbuite. En agter hulle le strepe Christene wat nie so goed toegerus is nie. Dus vra ek wees maar net baie versigtig.

Liza said...

Wel ten minste stem beide groepe saam dat die Bybel die onfeilbare Woord van God is en dat die skeppingsverhaal soos in Genesis weergegee - in ses dae of oor ses tydperke ongeag -‘n historiese narratief is en nie ‘n allegorie, mite, legende of poëtiese uitdrukking nie. Dus kan beide standpunte gesien word as komende van gelowiges wat die waarheid nastreef en die boodskap van God met sy Skepping probeer verstaan

Danie Loots said...

Eenheid in kernsake
Verdraagsaamheid in randsake
Liefde in alle sake.

Ek kon dit nie beter gestel het nie.

ps. Ek kry die idee dit is makliker om oor Klein en Groot doop te debateer of oor die Gawes van die Gees, as oor Genesis 1 :-)

Yf said...

Danie, soos ek dit verstaan is die debat nie eintlik klein of groot doop nie maar eerder of dit 'n belofte vanaf die Here aan jou is en of dit eerder 'n belofte van jou aan die Here is na jou bekering. Daar was al so 'n bespreking op KA ook en Gideon het 'n goeie uiteensetting gegee van doop as teken van die Here se verbond met ons, waarmee ek volmondig saamstem. Ek het ookal gesien daar word gedebatteer oor die verskil tussen die Wet van die Here en die wet van Moses, maar ek is bevrees ek sien dit nie eintlik raak nie.

Vrede daar.

Danie Loots said...

Yf,

Ek sal verkies om liefs op 'n ander stadium onder 'n ander header oor Doop, Gawes van die Gees en Die Wet te debateer.

O.a. omdat dit volgens my nie heeltemal by hierdie onderwerp pas nie, maar hoofsaaklik omdat dit heeltemal buite die Jong Aardeskeppingsleerders se domain pas. CMI (creation.com) is juis cross denominational en probeer glad nie uitspreek op hierdie onderwerpe nie, hoofsaaklik om nie die potensieele gehoor te beperk deur ander kwessies aan te raak nie.

Ek weet nie of daardie onderwerpe al aangespreek is op hierdie Blog nie, maar dit kan nogal interessant raak.

Liza said...

Hi Danie,

Bedoel jy met 'Evolusie deur God' Teïstiese evolusie? Ek vra omdat dit 'n term is wat deesdae al hoe meer in kerklike kringe opduik.

Danie Loots said...

Nee, jene, Liza, ek weet nie of ek al daai definiesies ken nie. Ja, ek het al van sg. Teistiese Evolusie gehoor, en ek dink dat dit min of meer dieselfde beteken as wat ek bedoel, maar ek is nie seker nie.

Wat ek met "Evolusie deur God" bedoel is wat ek voorheen geglo het. Dat God geskape het d.m.v. Evolusie. Dat God dus die proses van 1ste lewende organisme wat later vis geword het, wat later amfibiee geword het, wat later reptiel geword het, wat later soogdier geword het, wat later primaat geword het, wat later mens geword het, self ontwerp en/of bestuur het.

Ek dink dit behoort jou vraag te antwoord.

Wat Evolusie self betref, kan definisies mens nogal gou vasvang. Die Skeppingsleer ouens praat baie van Padda-na-Prins Evolusie, of Partikel-na-Professor, of "Fish-to-Fisherman", ens. Evolusie. Dit is die teorie dat een organisme met genoeg lukrake mutasies eventueel 'n meer komplekse organisme kan word, eventueel tot verskillende soorte en spesies.

Die Jong Aardeskeppingsleer se dat God 'n hele klompie Soorte 'n paar duisend jaar gelede geskep het. Hierdie soorte sal bv. die Katsoort, Hondsoort, Aapsoort, ens. wees. Dit stem min of meer oor een met die "Genus" klasifikasie. Hulle se wel dat daar verandering plaasgevind het, en 'n wye verskeidenheid het uitgespruit uit die aanvanklike soorte. So bv. het Jakkals, Boerboel, Wolf, Foxterrier, Vos, ens. waarskynlik 'n gemene voorouer, Oupa Hond. Maar Wolf en Leeu kom waarskynlik uit verskillende oorspronklike soorte. Leeu, huiskat, luiperd, ens. kom weer waarskynlik almal van een paar Katsoort af.

Mense wat glo dat (Padda-na-Prins) Evolusie die beste verklaar wat ons vandag sien, sien bv. Natuurlike Seleksie as 'n bewys vir hierdie Evolusie.

Jong Aardeskeppingsleer sien weer Natuurlike Seleksie as 'n bewys van verlies aan kompleksiteit en genetiese inligting.

Party ouens praat van Macro Evolution en Micro Evolution. Eersgenoemde is dan die s.g. Padda-na-Prins Evolusie en laasgenoemde is die verandering binne 'n soort, bv. Wolf, Hond, ens.

Danie Loots said...

Questions
My World View, God View and mindset has been transformed so much over the last then years, that I have to wonder about things. I have to ask some questions.

So here are the questions / thoughts with regards to not accepting the belief that God created everything a mere 6000 years ago exactly as described in Genesis 1.

I am not necessarily asking for answers. These are mere internal struggles, internal thoughts. Stuff I just wonder about. Please do not feel obliged to answer.

1. If God created everything over millions / billions of years and Adam had some non-human predecessors, how would God have his people write Genesis 1?
2. If God created everything about 6000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours, how much different should Genesis 1 been written (translated?) to not need debates like these?
3. If there was a Global Catastrophic Flood with lots of water coming from "the fountains of the deep". What effect whould this flood have on layers of fossils of pre-historic animals?
4. If the Earth is only about 6000 years old, had lots of vegetation, lots of Animals that lived for long periods of time, just like humans did AND then some 2000 years later, a Global Catastrophic Flood destroyed everything (except a few priviliged ones) in layers of mud and rock. How whould the world look like today? Which proofs would we have today that this was indeed how it all happened?
5. If God created everything millions/billions of years ago and he did it via gradual processes, what is the message of Genesis 1? If it is "God created everything", why are there 31 verses describing in great detail how it was NOT done?
6. If Genesis 1 is not to be taken litterally, which other parts of the Bible was then supposed to be literal as well?
a. Did Noah really live 950 years?
b. Was there really a Global Catastrophic Flood?
c. Did Balaam's Donkey (Bileam se donkie) really speak?
d. Did Joshua really have enough faith to make the day 2 hours longer?
e. Did God really part the Dead Sea? (and the river Jordan?)
f. Did the "crocodile" in Job 40 / Job 41 really have smoke coming out his nostrils?
g. Did the "hippo" (Behemoth) really have a tail like a cedar?
h. Was Jonah really swallowed and spit out alive by a giant fish / whale?
i. Was Jesus really born without Mary having intercourse with a man?
j. Did Jesus really raise Lazarus from the dead, after three days?
k. Was Jesus really dead and was He really raised supernaturally from the dead?

I'm just wondering where to draw the line.

And then I don't even have a clue what to do with all the Scientific problems I'll have. Like how do I get the Carbon-14 out of the diamonds? How do we get more salt in the Oceans? How do we increase the distance between the Moon and Earth? How do I get Saturn's rings to not deteriorate so fast? How do I get all those heat our of Pluto (and many other small planets and moons in our Solar System).

I guess the Scientific problems are the least of my questions. There might be some clever scientist able to explain all those.

The more important ones are the ones I asked earlier around the Bible. Perhaps there is a clever Theologian that can explain it all.

ps. Ek wonder maar net. Wil regtig niemand beskuldig of beledig nie. Ek sit maar net met 'n probleem van 'n dekade se gedagtes en insigte wat ek oor wonder. Wonder hoe ander mense daaroor dink. Wonder OF ander mense daaroor dink? Wonder maar net. (Wat se die ou mense: "Van wonder gaan die son onder"?

Yf said...

1. If God created everything over millions / billions of years and Adam had some non-human predecessors, how would God have his people write Genesis 1?
Answer: The Pentateuch was written by Moses
Moses was not a contemporary of Adam, living approx. 2,500 years after him
Therefore, Genesis could not have been written by anybody In Adam's time
2. If God created everything about 6000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours, how much different should Genesis 1 been written (translated?) to not need debates like these?
Answer: It has been shown that the word "day" can be interpreted in more than one way. There is no irrifutable proof that it must only be interpreted as a 24 hour perioid. It has been shown that ancient Hebrew was a language with a very limited vocabulary. I also submit that it was a language developed and spoken by an agrerian (farming) people with little need for scientific terms. Limited vocabulary leads to limited expression. Compare for example, some of the basic languages of today such as that of the San or Inuit. How would you explain technological marvels to them in their language? Type of language used is no conclusive proof of scientific fact. Given these constraints, Genesis 1 - 11 could have been written just the way it is now in order to make it accessible to illiterate and ignorant (of scientific matters) pastorals like the Israelites.

One must be careful not to impose modern lierary criticism principles on ancient manuscripts when these modern priciples were not even dreamt of.

3. If there was a Global Catastrophic Flood with lots of water coming from "the fountains of the deep". What effect whould this flood have on layers of fossils of pre-historic animals?
Answer: The "waters of the deep" could mean the sea or fountains or aquivirs. Even if you reason that these waters washed over the land, it is not the same as saying that it washed through the soil of the earth. The fossils were deposited before the flood and covered with rock and soil. Therefore water washing over the land would not have affected them at all. Scripture only says that the land was covered with water, not that it turned everything into mud.

Yf said...

4. If the Earth is only about 6000 years old, had lots of vegetation, lots of Animals that lived for long periods of time, just like humans did AND then some 2000 years later, a Global Catastrophic Flood destroyed everything (except a few priviliged ones) in layers of mud and rock. How whould the world look like today? Which proofs would we have today that this was indeed how it all happened?
Answer: You would consier, look for, and find evidence for / of the following:
The combined volume of the ocean basins is bigger than the combined volume of the land massas. The volume of water is more than the volume of water. For a global flood to have occurred you would have to look for a world covered in water to this day because where would all the extra water go - the ocean basins are full as it is? You could of course reason that massive subduction of land massas took place to enable the water to flow over everything. But then you would have to proove that the total mass of land suddenly became more that the total mass of water plus ocean tectonic plates in order for the landmasses to sink below the water and tectonic plates, and by the way, also show evidence that this process was reversed in a matter of a year.

With a global flood you could expect water erosion to be uniform as the waters receeded, so you would find evidence of evenly spread or occurring erosion with no mountains higher that others.

Plate tectonics are usually distinguished by massive volcanism. A srictly literal reading of Gen. 6 - 9 will have to show where this is mentioned.

Considering that all land-based plant life became extinct as it was under water for some consierable period of time, you will find evidende that it established itself because the Bible does not mention that Noah took plants into the ark with him - only animals and the Bible also certainly does not say that God re-established it. It only states that a pigeon found a twig. And where did this come from if no plants survived the flood?

The fact that there are fossils is undisputed. Based on this evidence and on estimates of the number of remains buried in the Karoo fossil formation in Africa, this would correspond to an abnormally high density of vertebrates worldwide, close to 2100 per acre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology (i.e. 4046.873 sqm) You will of course find evidence that this is possible and in the prcess have the solution for world wide hunger.
5. If God created everything millions/billions of years ago and he did it via gradual processes, what is the message of Genesis 1? If it is "God created everything", why are there 31 verses describing in great detail how it was NOT done?
Pardon? I don’t fully understand this question. Do you say that a six day long (of whatever timespan) is not a process. If not a process it would all have happened in one day (of whatever duration) How do you mean "31 verses describing in great detail how it was NOT done?"
6. If Genesis 1 is not to be taken litterally, which other parts of the Bible was then supposed to be literal as well?
Answer: The "as well" at the end of the sentence makes this a bit of a contradiction.However, regarding Gen. 1 it is only the Hebrew word for "day" that is disputed. As has been pointed out by Liza the rest is accepted as a report of an historical event. Regarding the rest of the Bible, there are many different genres in the Bible, each with its own interpretation requirements.

In the Old Testament:
- Wisdom literature
- Poetry
- Prophecy
- Law.
- History
- songs
- Geneeology and
- Diverse facts of geography, culture etc.

New Testament
- Gospels;
- Letters
- Apocalyptic literature
- Wisdom literature;
- Speeches
- Songs
- Parables.
- History
- Genaeology
- Diverse facts of geography, culture etc.
(Janse van Rensburg, F. & Kruger, F. 2008. Leer die Bybel self verklaar. CUM. Vereeniging, p. 124)

Yf said...

a. Did Noah really live 950 years?
Answer: Who knows? It depends on which method of counting you use - solar or lunar year of a mixture of the two.
b. Was there really a Global Catastrophic Flood?
Answer: This depends on whom you ask and the evidence they present.
c. Did Balaam's Donkey (Bileam se donkie) really speak?
Answer: Why should this be doubted? This was a miracle and see http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/miracle.html for a good article on miracles.

d. Did Joshua really have enough faith to make the day 2 hours longer?
Answer: No, he didn't It was'nt his faith that made the day longer - it was a miracle by God.
e. Did God really part the Dead Sea? (and the river Jordan?)
Answer: No, certainly not the Dead Sea. But the Red Sea and Jordan, yes.
f. Did the "crocodile" in Job 40 / Job 41 really have smoke coming out his nostrils?
g. Did the "hippo" (Behemoth) really have a tail like a cedar?
h. Was Jonah really swallowed and spit out alive by a giant fish / whale?
i. Was Jesus really born without Mary having intercourse with a man?
j. Did Jesus really raise Lazarus from the dead, after three days?
k. Was Jesus really dead and was He really raised supernaturally from the dead?

I'm just wondering where to draw the line.

Response
Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Proverbs 23:26 My son, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways.
" I'm just wondering where to draw the line." Me too

And then I don't even have a clue what to do with all the Scientific problems I'll have. Like how do I get the Carbon-14 out of the diamonds? How do we get more salt in the Oceans? How do we increase the distance between the Moon and Earth? How do I get Saturn's rings to not deteriorate so fast? How do I get all those heat our of Pluto (and many other small planets and moons in our Solar System).

Response: Can you explain this a little more fully, please?

Danie Loots said...

Yf,

Just on the first two questions, plus 1.

One
I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, thus it is truth. For that reason I would like to believe whoever wrote Genesis 1 (I believe Moses was the editor, but perhaps not the original author) would still have written the truth.

If we agree on this, then if the million years account of Creation is true, how would God have written Genesis 1? But, I realize that if you do believe Creation took millions of years, then the answer would be exactly like it is now.

Two
So on to the second question. I am not saying which way is in fact the true way that God created. I'm asking, lets imagine for a moment that God did Create everything 6000 years ago. Lets just imagine that for the sake of entertainment. If God then really did Create Everything 6000 years ago, what would we expect to find in Genesis 1? What else would God have wanted the editor / author to have written in Genesis 1 to ensure that we have no doubt at all about when He did it?

I'm not debating what does in fact appear in Genesis 1. I'm just wondering, if (no matter how likely or unlikely) God really did Create everything in 6 days of 24 hours, about 6000 years ago, how would Genesis 1 look like.

Perhaps to rephrase. Which words or phrases would you have wanted to appear in Genesis 1 to convince you of this possibility (6x24h, 6000 years ago)?

31 Verses of Genesis 1
What I'm saying is that if we accept that Genesis 1 should not be taken literally, what are we supposed to do with all 31 verses? Why did Genesis 1:1 not say "In the beginning God created everything". And that was it. Perhaps Genesis 1:2 something like "And after that He looked at it all and said its good and rested". If we decide Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally, what should I do with all the detail given in Genesis 1?

Like I said before, I'm just trying to understand here. Trying to make sense of other views.

Danie Loots said...

Yf,

With regards to me explaining "And then I don't even have a clue what to do with all the Scientific problems I'll have. Like how do I get the Carbon-14 out of the diamonds? How do we get more salt in the Oceans? How do we increase the distance between the Moon and Earth? How do I get Saturn's rings to not deteriorate so fast? How do I get all those heat our of Pluto (and many other small planets and moons in our Solar System).".

This is a huge task you're asking. Perhaps if I get the time I'll try to summarize each of those issues. If you would want to look at them, you could search for them at http://creation.com. Each one of those has at least one web-page / article or video behind it. I'm not even sure where I got all this information from over the last 10 years, but I know they'll be on http://creation.com.

Like I said, those are more issues with Science and not the core problems I have. The core problems are the questions I asked about what is stated in the Bible.

Yf said...

It's ok Danie, I'll go read your source tomorrow.
Take care

Danie Loots said...

Yf, with regards to Noah's Flood and the other few scientific things I mentioned, there are people far better equipped at answering those questions / issues. This QA Page is a good page to start and seek topics of interest. While reading these articles, please make a note of all the Scientific Articles refferred to. (The same is true for all the Creation books I read sofar, incl. Dr. Hennie Mouton's books).

Danie Loots said...

The Flood
With regards to the flood, I want to repeat the fact that there are many people that knows a whole lot more than I do with regards to this topic, like Dr. Tas Walker, Dr. Russel Humphreys and Dr. Hennie Mouton.

But importantly, for the Christians that might not have realized this, one interresting observation I made though the years, is that the Debate with regards to Genesis 1 is actually about a whole lot more than Genesis 1. It is at least about all of Genesis 1-11 (Adam - Noah). It is quite interesting to see how many of the great advocates of Teistic Evolution (God creating everything over millions of years, etc.) or so-called Old Earth Creationists, like Hugh Ross, will also argue that Noah's Flood is not to be take literally, or at least that the flood was "Universal" (killed all people, except the 8 on the ark) and not "Global" (did not cover the whole Earth).

Danie Loots said...

Yf, I realised my "wonderings" about Genesis 1 (Point 1, 2 and the section on the 31 verses of Genesis 1) was stated very much from my view point that the whole Bible is the Inspired Word of God. That every word in the Bible is there because God wanted it to be there.

I realise there may be some other views of the Bible amoungst saved Christians.

I'll try to list some of the views I can think off, who might still believe in the Supernatural Resserection of Jesus Christ and are thus saved Christians (plus some sub groups).

1. The whole Bible is the Inspired Word of God. Every piece of scritpture is there because God wanted it to be there. Thus the Bible is infallable.

Within view / group 1, there migh tbe some subtle differences as well.

1.a. Every piece of the Bible is historically true.
1.b. Some pieces of the Bible are not intended as true historical facts. They may be fallable interpretations of men or mere stories to illustrate important aspects of God.

2. The whole Bible might not be God's inspired Word. There may be some sections of our Bible today, that does not carry the same authority that the rest of the Bible does. These pieces may carry an important message, but one should not base too much doctrine / theology on these sections.

Then there may be a third viewpoint which I don't think will lead to a saved person, and that would be the viewpoint portrayed in "The Da Vincy Code".

My personal view point (and most Young Earth Creationists) are best described by 1.a. The questions I had raised in the last sections (1, 2 and 31 verses) are from both 1.a. and 1.b. Thus, if every section of the Bible is there because God wanted it to be there:
1. Why does Genesis 1 (or 1-11 for that matter) look like it does if God did not create everything in 6x24 hours? What is the purpose of all 31 verses of Genesis 1 then, except to say that God created everything? Why were there not only two verses in Genesis 1 then, as I sugested earlier?

2. What whould God have had to add / change to Genesis 1 so that there would be no doubt at all that He did in fact create everything in 6 x 24h? In which other contexts should he have used "day" (Yom) to illustrate that He meant litteral 24 hour days?

If one's view point is however neither 1.a. nor 1.b., then I guess it would be quite easy to fit what we believe Science has proven into what we believe to be true of the Bible. I suspect my earlier points 6.a-k then becomes a matter of personal interpretation and belief. (I do belief that 6.i and 6.k are what defines a Christian, in my definition at least, but I don't think any of the people that did contribute here doubts these two points).

Danie Loots said...

Almal, weereens, ek probeer nie mense in hokkies plaas nie en ook nie verwyt of aankla nie. Ek probeer maar net die goed in my gedagtes in hokkies gesorteer kry.

Danie Loots said...

Iemand stuur vanmore vir my hierdie artikel:General Synod says religion and science not mutually exclusive.

The Young Earth Creation organizations would argue that this is indeed the reason why Christian Churches in the West struggles to keep their people. They would mention this as Church Leaders compromizing the authority of the Bible.

Personally, I really believe if these Church Leaders were willing to actually examine the books full of Scientific articles on Young Earth Creation, they'll still agree that "...religion and science not mutually exclusive..." But they might just realize that even though the Bible and Science is quite compatible, Particle-to-Professor Evolution, Big Bang and Long Ages are not compatible with the Biblical account of our origins and also not compatible with Experimental Science.

But that is just my belief.

Henrietta said...

(In a way this posting of mine also connects to the link you gave on the General Synod's views on science and religion, Danie).

I think many evolutionists are very presumptuous to claim “science” as if their field of speciality is the only “science” there is.

I like the broad and Christian way Dooyeweerd thinks about science/sciences (If you want to do an internet search, slot in terms like the following: Herman Dooyeweerd, Dooyeweerd’s modalities/aspects) .

He distinguishes between fourteen modal aspects (nowadays we might talk of “fields of science”), namely number, space, kinematic, physical, biotic, sensitive, analytical, cultural, linguistic, social, economic, aesthetic, juridical, ethical and faith (does this not remind you of the faculties at most universities?) . All of these dimensions are present in reality and none can be reduced to another, i.e. they are irreducible. Each of the modal aspects has certain laws or norms associated with them and each of them is sovereign in its own sphere.

What I as a Christian appreciate most about Dooyeweerd’s view, is that according to him, every sphere has meaning only as a creation of God, and its sovereignty is one that is subject to the absolutely sovereign God and the bounds HE has set for it. According to Dooyeweerd, the being of everything, including science, is to be in the service of God.

Danie Loots said...

The Flood - Part II
Yf, I just wanted to try to answer some of your questions related to the Flood. This is anyhow how I understand the flood. A reminder that there are actual Geologists and other Creation scientists that knows this much better.

I will not try to confince, but rather explain how I understand these matters and why I believe it is quite a feasible model for The Flood.

But I do feel like switching back to Afrikaans now.


Ek gaan 'n moontlike verklaring probeer skets. Kom ons aanvaar vir eers dat dit dalk nie so gebeur het nie, maar ons oorweeg die moontlikheid dat dit so kon gebeur het.

Kom ons veronderstel dat voor die Vloed was daar net een groot stuk landmassa. Om die waarheid te se, daar is selfs 'n moontlikheid dat daar gaan Oseane was nie. Miskien see, mere en riviere, maar nie die enorme skaal en massas water bo die grond wat ons vandag sien nie. Kom ons veronderstel daar was dalk berge, dalk soos Tafelberg, ens. wat berge genoem word, maar nie sulke enorme goed soos Mount Everest is nie. 'n Verdere belangrike aspek is dat daar baie water "onder die Aarde", m.a.w. onder die grond was. Daar is vandag nog baie water, maar daar is aanduidings dat daar baie meer water voorheen onder die grond was.

Dus, kom ons neem 'n paar dinge aan, vir eers:
1. By verre die grootste deel van die Aarde was bedek met land, nie water soos vandag nie
2. Daar was nie sulke enorme verskille in hoogtes soos vandag nie, miskien kleiner "berge" soos Tafelberg, maar nie Mount Everest nie.

Dan nog een verdere aanname:
3. Omstandighede was so dat daar baie plantegroei was en dat plante floreer het.

Die van verklarings van hoekom daar so baie plante was en hoekom hulle so floreer het, mag ook verklarings bring vir hoekom mens en dier so baie lank gelewe het. (Ook hoekom reptiele so groot geword het.)

As mens jou toelaat om bg. situasie voor te stel, plaas dit nogal 'n ander uitkyk op oorbevolking, ens.

Danie Loots said...

Nou, Die Vloed self. Daar is waarskynlik verskillende modelle van Noag se vloed. Hier volg my verstaan van een van hierdie modelle.

Net nadat God die Ark toegemaak het, het dit begin reen vir 40 dae. Hoewel hierdie reen sekerlik aansienlike skade aangebring het, was dit waarskynlik nie die mees vernietigende aspek nie.

Genesis 7:11 en 8:2, praat van die "fonteine van die groot waters" ("Fountains of the deep"). Kom ons veronderstel die volgende het gebeur, om watter rede ookal.

Soos ons vandag groot plate Aarde het wat in die Aarde se mantel in beweeg, maar teen 'n baie stadige spoed, het dit ook tydens die vloed gebeur (waarskynlik daar begin gebeur). Die belangrike verskil is dat dit teen enorme snelhede gebeur het. Daar bestaan modelle wat selfs wys hoe hierdie Tektoniese plate teen meters per sekonde in die Aarde se mantel in opgeslurp is. Dit moes absoluut verskriklik gewees het. Aardbewings en vlukaniese aktiwiteit wat die Aarde sederdien nog nooit weer gesien het nie. Saam met hierdie vulkaniese aktiwiteit het enorme hoeveelheid waters uit die Aarde uitgestroom.

Hierdie verskriklike bewegins van groot stukke land en hoogtes en dieptes veroorsaak wat voorheen nooit op die Aarde was nie. Verder het die vloed ook die grond, klip en ander materiaal gesorteer in lae, soos dikwels gesien word na kliener vloede (Soos by Mount St. Helens).

Laastens is baie plante, diere en mense begrawe deur groot hoeveelhede warm modder, vulkaniese as en ander materiaal.

As gevolg van enorme druk en hitte is Olie, Steenkool en Diamante gevorm. (Soos bevestig deur die aanwesigheid van Koolstof-14 in Olie, Steenkool EN Diamante).

Hierdie lae van verskillende materiale was aanvanklik nog sag en kon maklik buig sonder om te verbrokkel. Na die vloed het daar waarskynlik nog baie beweging gewees van stukke land.

Hierdie lae gesorteerde materiaal het later hard geword, rotslae geword en sommige biologiese materiaal is gefosilleer.

Daarom sien ons vandag miljoene dooie organismes wat vasgevang is tussen rotslae ooral oor die Aarde, selfs bo-op Mount Everest.

Verder sien ons plekke soos die Mariana Trog (Mariana Trench) wat 'n enorme gat in die Oseaan is asook berge soos Mount Everest. Hulle is waarskynlik gevorm tydens die vloed se katastrofiese geologiese gebeure. Ons sien vandag ook hoe sommige van hierdie aksies steeds gebeur, net baie stadiger as 4000 jaar gelede.

So waar is al die water wat "sewe meter" bokant die hoogste berge gevloei het?
1. Was Mount Everest so hoog soos hy vandag is tydens die vloed? Of het dit eers na die vloed so hoog gedruk.
2. As jy vir Noag daardie vraag vra, en dit is waar dat daar geen oseane was nie, sal hy seker vir jou wys na vandag se oseane wat twee derdes van die Aarde beslaan. Daar le ook enorme hoeveelhede water in plekke soos die Mariana Trog.

Daar is baie goeie verklarings en verder verduidelikings van die Vloed op http://creation.com.

As ek dus vandag kyk na lae gebuigde rots en enorme rafyne (canyons), dink ek terug aan dit wat arme Oupa Noag moes aanskou het.

Yf said...

Hallo Danie,
Na my mening kan ons nie wetenskap beoefen, of oor teorieë en prosesse gesles op grond van veronderstellings nie. Die Bybel, wat jy as verwysingsbron aanhaal, en die gesag waarvan ek heeltemal aanvaar, noem self niks van die veronderstelde prosesse waarvan jy praat nie. Soos jyself heeltemal tereg al vroeër gevra het - hoe sou die Bybel herskryf moes gewees het om van hierdie prosesse te praat? Maar ek kan nog iets byvoeg. In watter eeu se wetenskaplike taal sou dit geskryf moes gewees het? 'n Nomadiese volkie sou tog niks van vandag se wetenskaplike teorieë verstaan het nie, so vir wie sou dit geskryf moes gewees het?

Henrietta said...

Prof John Byl has a very interesting blog, where he discusses things like Genesis 1 and evolution. Here is a link :

http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2010/03/making-sense-of-enns.html