Creation: A Matter of Days

hmg0018Andy Doerksen posted a response to my last article which ties so nicely into what I was planning to write anyway that I’m going to use it as my jumping-off point for this post. In response to me pointing out that the ancients knew only the part of the universe that they could see with the naked eye, he responds:

Yes! – and that’s precisely why Genesis 1, and the later summary statement in Ex. 20:11, are to be taken at face value as referring to the entirety of the cosmos being created within 6 literal days. It’s true that there’s no differentiation (to the naked eye) between the atmosphere and outer space; everything is included in the Bible’s creationary statements.

Which, in turn, is why positing a “14 billion”-year-old universe is antibiblical. The billions-of-years claim is diametrically opposed to the biblical assertion of 6 days.

On the contrary, I would argue that to read the Bible in such a way that it contradicts the clear record of nature is itself antibiblical, undermining the witness of creation that Romans chapter 1 hinges on. Second, while God had the Bible written by human “scribes,” humans who had their own lingual and conceptual limitations that he had to work with, he made the universe directly, with no intermediary. Therefore, to pit one creation of God against another is itself antibiblical.

I will return to what we know (not just suspect, but actually know) about the universe from the record of nature in another post, and why it’s such a problem for young-earth creationism. For now, let me just point out the obvious: The origin and history of the universe, as now revealed by modern scientific instruments, provides an incredibly potent and positive set of arguments for the God of the Bible. When a fundamentalist insists that the only way to read the Bible is to believe that the universe is only about six thousand years old, he throws away all of that powerful evidence. Now, if in fact young-earth creationism was expressly taught by the Bible, we would have a serious problem. But in truth, it is not. The Bible itself contains numerous hints that the days of creation were not, in fact, 24-hour days.

What is a Day?

So let’s start strictly with the Biblical argument: Does the Bible really teach that the six days of creation were normal 24-hour days? Actually, no. We can establish this from the Bible itself, without appealing to any outside source.

King-James-BibleFirst, Genesis 2:4 concludes the creation narrative by saying, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” Even just reading the English translation and without reference to the Hebrew, we are told from the very beginning that the word “day” does not necessarily mean a 24 hour period, but can refer to a longer, but finite, period of time. Later, both Moses and Peter warn us that God’s sense of time is far different from ours: “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2Pt. 3:8, alluding to Psa. 90:4). That being the case, why would we insist that “days” counted before the creation of man must be exactly 24-hours in length?

The argument is even stronger when one considers the original language of the Bible. The Hebrew word for “day” is yom, and per the Theological Workbook of the Old Testament, “It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darknesss), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague ‘time,’ 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; 1 Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.).” (p. 370) Even in English, the term has a certain flexibility. If I say, “Back in my day . . .” I’m not referring to a specific 24 hours, am I?

So are there other clues indicating that these days lasted more than 24 hours? Indeed there are.

Adam’s Really Long Day

29994-adam-and-eve-in-the-garden-of-eden-800w-tnIn Genesis 1:26-27, we learn that God created man and woman on the sixth day, after creating the beasts of the field. Yet when we turn to chapter 2, we find that there was more of a process involved: God first created Adam, then created Eden, and then brought Adam to Eden from somewhere else (v. 15). Where was that somewhere else? How long did the journey take? We’re not told, but the very fact that the Bible saw fit to mention it suggests that there was some distance involved, and that Adam wasn’t created just outside of the garden.

God then brought Adam all of the animals that he had created for the man to name (v. 19-20). How long do you think it would take to have time to observe and give suitable names to every animal that lives in the Middle-east? How long would it take to relate to each and every one of them and realize that none was quite on his level?

So God “caused a deep sleep to fall on the man” (v. 21). That’s more than a 30 minute power-nap. The same term (tardeimah) is used in 1 Samuel 26:12 and Job 4:13 and 33:15 to describe a night’s rest. God then takes a “side” of Adam to fashion it into Eve, Adam awakes, has time to relate to Eve and realize that she was indeed a perfectly suitable helpmate, and becomes one with his wife.

That’s a heck of a lot to cram into the last few hours of the day! While one can try to contrive explanations for this (“Well, Adam was super-intelligent so maybe he didn’t need more than a few seconds per animal . . .”), these amount to excuse-making by way of giving Adam supernatural powers that the Bible itself doesn’t actually attribute to him. The text itself is written to presuppose an extended period of time between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve–and therefore a sixth yom that lasts far more than 24 hours.

God’s Cosmic Sabbath is Ongoing

In addition, we have a distinct break in the pattern of the creation narrative on the seventh day. Where every other day ends with “and there was evening and there was morning, the [x] day,” the seventh day has no such closure. Why not? Hebrews 4:3-4 says that it’s because God’s cosmic Sabbath, in which he is resting from the works of creation, is still ongoing:

For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,'” although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.”

How long has God’s cosmic Sabbath lasted? For the entirety of human history, somewhere between six and a hundred thousand years. It will end only when he begins to create again, when he fashions a new heavens and a new earth after the Millennium. And if God’s “seventh day” has lasted that long, on what basis can we claim that the previous six were 24 hours each?

Six Days, or Six Periods of Time?

But what about Exodus 20:11? “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Doesn’t this prove that the days of creation must be 24 hours just like normal days?

In short, no. First, God did not only give Israel a Sabbath of days, but also a Sabbath of years (Exo. 23:10-11; Lev. 25:3-4; Deu. 15:9). The Sabbath of years, being not only a rest for the soil but a release from debts, was so important that Israel’s failure to keep it set the time of her first exile (Lev. 26:34-43; 2Ch. 36:21).

Second, the length of a commemoration does not have to equal the exact length of the event it commemorates. For example, Sukkot, the Feast of Booths, lasts for seven days, “that your generations may know that I made the people of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt” (Lev. 23:42-43). However, the length of time Israel dwelt in booths in the wilderness was forty years, not a week.

Finally, taking the above together with the flexibility of the Hebrew word yom, we could just as easily translate Exodus 20:11 as, “For in six periods of time the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh period. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath period and made it holy.” Again, Hebrews tells us that God’s rest is ongoing. The point is for the people of the Creator to have a practical way to emulate the Creator, not to fix the precise chronology of the creation to exactly 144 hours.

Of course, there’s a very obvious argument that I’ve not dealt with yet: Surely the refrain “there as evening and there was morning” means that these have to be 24-hour days, right? Actually, no, but since I’ll have to go into some reasonably advanced Hebrew, I’ll address this in its own post. In the next post, however, we will continue to establish from the text of the Bible not only that the days of creation could not be 24-hour days, but that the Bible itself teaches that the stars we see with our naked eyes were not the first stars that God created.

Shalom!

 

Advertisements

26 Replies to “Creation: A Matter of Days”

  1. >> I would argue that to read the Bible in such a way that it contradicts the clear record of nature is itself antibiblical.

    ‘The clear record of nature itself’… as arrived at through naturalistic and quite impossible assumptions, you mean.

    Again, as I said for the earlier post, attempting to determine the age of something created ex nihlo is silly.

    Like

    1. I’m going to do a whole post about this, but I’ll go ahead and put this out there now: We see stars that are demonstrably millions and even billions of light years away. It is impossible for the light to have reached us in 6000 years. Therefore, the only assumption that I’m making regarding the age of the universe is that God did not deliberately set up Creation to lie to us.

      Like

      1. “God did not deliberately set up Creation to lie to us.” Again, nonsense. When God actually *says*… when he writes it down in black and white… “I created this whole thing in six days. Let me be very clear: six days. Each day having an evening and morning, count them, one, two three, four, five, six… add one to rest… six days of creation, one day to rest, that is how long I took to create the whole thing!”>>>

        Then it is NOT a lie, it is silly to call it a lie, if man, totally ignoring what God actually said, looks at creation and says, “Assuming that some God person didn’t make this whole thing in six days, how long would does it look like to have this whole thing have been, umm, well, not created. Wrong word. Ummm, come spontaneously into being?”

        Again, take Adam,. One day after being created. Doctors examine him. How old??
        Take Christ. Great wine!! How many years ago did you gather the grapes??

        Nonsense.

        Like

      2. “We see stars that are demonstrably millions and even billions of light years away. It is impossible for the light to have reached us in 6000 years. Therefore, the only assumption that I’m making regarding the age of the universe is that God did not deliberately set up Creation to lie to us.”

        (a) There are still assumptions going into that conclusion. You’re just not seeing those assumptions. I refer you to:
        http://creation.com/distant-starlight-and-genesis-conventions-of-time-measurement
        http://creation.com/a-new-cosmology-solution-to-the-starlight-travel-time-problem

        (b) Whether or not you accept the extrabiblical argumentation presented in the above papers, that doesn’t change the linguistics of Scripture itself, which clearly reveals a relatively young cosmos.

        Like

  2. None of which has to do with the question I put forward: How do you explain the fact that we see light from stars coming from so much further than 6000 light years away? If God simply set the light in motion, it means that when we observe a supernova in another galaxy, we are seeing something that never existed at all blowing up. And we know that light isn’t slowing down. So how do you explain it?

    Now to your point: The Bible doesn’t say “six days.” It says “sheishet yamim.” A yom can be a 24-hour day, but can also be a longer period of time, as I’ve already shown. Ergo, before coming to the conclusion that young-earth creationism is the only way to take the text literally, shouldn’t we study the original languages, the numerous other references to creation, and so forth?

    Shalom!

    Like

    1. “The Bible doesn’t say ‘six days.’ It says ‘sheishet yamim.’ “

      Which means “six days.” Or in an awkwardly literal rendering: “six of days.” Prior to Ex. 20:11, the same phrase, שֵֽׁשֶׁת־ יָמִים֩ (which I’ve arranged here in left-right reading order), occurs also at Ex. 16:26; 20:9, where it is abundantly obvious that it means simply “six days” (likewise in later occurrences). For the sake of comparison, the Septuagint uses the translation εξ ημέραις – again meaning, “six days.”

      “A yom can be a 24-hour day, but can also be a longer period of time, as I’ve already shown.”

      Of course – but not at any given time depending on how the interpreter feels about it. The pattern in the OT is that whenever yom is used either (a) with a specific number, as in Genesis 1, or (b) in the plural, it refers to the normal day/night cycle.

      Like

  3. >>The Bible doesn’t say “six days.” It says “sheishet yamim.”

    And then, in case this wasn’t clear enough, He says, “And the evening and the morning were the first day’.

    >>So how do you explain it?

    I don’t have to. I would only have to ‘explain’ this if there was some possibility that there was something higher than the Scriptures to which they had to answer (like, say, naturalistic science). How do you explain the fact that, in order for wine to taste good, it needs to age sufficiently.. and yet Jesus, in one instant, created the ‘best’ wine?
    Ex Nihlo creation, by definition, needs no mechanistic explanation.

    Like

    1. “He says, “And the evening and the morning were the first day’.” Ah, but have you looked into all the different ways ‘erev and boqer, or ‘arav and baqar or any other Hebrew word with the same spelling, can be translated? Just like with yom, the Hebrew is a lot more flexible than the English. And yes, I’ll have a whole post on that soon.

      “I don’t have to.” I disagree. Paul says to test all things (1Th. 5:21). Not some of the things. Not most of the things. ALL things. He also says that the record of nature is accurate and tells us a lot about its Creator–enough that men are without excuse (Rom. 1). Therefore, if your theology contradicts the record of nature, then you have a problem that needs examination, testing, and possibly a different direction to resolve.

      You know, up until the last century, it was taken for granted by Christian theologians based on their “plain” reading of the NT that the rabbis believed in salvation by legalism, that their theology and practices were stale and lifeless, and that the belief in a Divine Messiah was obviously completely un-Jewish. Now more theologians are actually reading the writings of the rabbis themselves, and are recognizing that while the NT isn’t wrong, the presuppositions of an anti-Semitic age were giving us an incorrect reading of it.

      I’m simply proposing that we do the same thing when it comes to understanding the Creation narratives: Put aside the ungodly reflex that pits science against religion (a reflex, by the way, which is the atheist’s favorite weapon against you) and carefully re-examine the exact original words of Genesis in light of the information that we now have. I believe that Genesis is absolutely God-inspired and literally correct–IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, not necessarily in the KJV or any other translation.

      So again, positing that (1) the universe is the direct creation of God, (2) that he does not lie or set his creations up so as to be misleading, and (3) that he made it in such a way that it will ultimately point the honest seeker to him, how do you explain light from stars more than 6000 light years away?

      Shalom

      Like

      1. >> that he does not lie or set his creations up so as to be misleading

        Again, you bring up this same issue, which is nonsense. It is simply not a lie, nor in any way misleading, when He speaks definitevely.

        >>Ah, but we disagree on what the person in charge actually said.

        No, we are disagreeing as to the idea of it being a lie. Even if your view on the linguistics are true, you view on ‘a lie’ would still be false. It is in no way an accurate condemnation to say something is ‘a lie’ when, with naturalistic assumptions, you arrive at a conclusion that contradicts the text… or even one reading of the text.
        One simply cannot use naturalistic uniformitarian assumptions to even cast doubt on an ex nihlo creation. Again I would ask the question about Adam and about the wine that Christ created.

        >>“He says, “And the evening and the morning were the first day’.” Ah, but have you looked into all the different ways ‘erev and boqer, or ‘arav and baqar or any other Hebrew word with the same spelling, can be translated?

        I hope, in your post, you will deal not with various possible translations of these words you will deal with not only there translations in isolation, but in context. Is there anywhere else in Scripture, for example, where a day is literally defined as ‘an evening and a morning, one day’… and the day there is the rule of some king or the three year long sack of a city?

        Like

  4. >>Now to your point:

    BTW, that was not actually my point. My point was that something is not a lie when, however something looks with one set of assumptions, the person in charge actually tells you what happened. That was my point.

    Like

    1. “My point was that something is not a lie when, however something looks with one set of assumptions, the person in charge actually tells you what happened.”

      Ah, but we disagree on what the person in charge actually said. You’re looking only at the English translation of the first chapter. I’m looking at the Hebrew as well as many cross-referenced passages, using the commentaries of people who lived over a thousand years ago to prove that these issues are inherent in the text itself, not something that only came up in the last two centuries.

      But since you say that, what assumptions do you think we have to bring to the table when it comes to the speed of light or the distance to other stars and galaxies?

      Shalom.

      Like

  5. I don’t think that it is being alleged here that G-d didn’t create the cosmos or it all happened on its own.

    When I was younger I lived next to the library and spent hours a day reading Omni and Smithsonian. I believed there was a deity, and I believed the science. It wasn’t until I moved to the South that faith became a coloring book I had to believe in.

    Like

    1. My own theory is that deep down many fundamentalists (and I don’t take that term to be a pejorative) simply think of any attempt to revisit what the Bible says in light of new data as “compromise,” and therefore off the table for discussion. It’s a shame, because they surrender an incredibly powerful apologetic tool (the first cause and fine-tuning of the universe) in favor of a very suspect interpretation of Genesis.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. When you refer to “the science” – as if it’s a monolithic structure in which all members adamantly agree on all details – why are you ignoring that (a) questions re. origins are scientifically and philosophically debatable, rather than amenable to just one interpretation, and (b) all scientists are sinners with an anti-God bias? Now (b) hardly means that everything they theorize is wrong; my point is that Rom. 1:18 applies as much to scientists as to any other demographic.

      Like

  6. >>: Put aside the ungodly reflex that pits science against religion

    There is no such reflex. Modern science is founded on naturalistic assumptions. Thus it is false at its root. It is what the Scripture calls ‘science so called’.
    Old science, that of Pasture and Newton, was an attempt to think God’s thoughts after him. To discover the truths of his creation. As the Scriptures say, “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God’ and ‘the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom’. Modern science, which begins by denying God (ie begins with naturalistic assumptions) declares itself to be folly. One can even read such quotes as, “Even if creation were true, it wouldn’t be science’.
    Modern ‘science’ pits itself against truth and God’s revelation. This is not a problem with the reflex of the Christian.

    Like

    1. “Modern science is founded on naturalistic assumptions. Thus it is false at its root.”

      Again, please definite the assumptions (plural) that go into the speed of light or the distance to the stars. If you mean the assumption that the laws of nature are fixed and consistent, note that that “assumption” is the express teaching of Scripture (Jer. 31:35-36). In fact, one of the most incredible distinctions between the Bible and all other literature of its period is the “assumption” of one Creator and one Lawgiver, and therefore one consistent natural law.

      It is true that many scientists go beyond the methodological materialism needed to do science–the assumption that no supernatural entity is influencing the experiment–and tout philosophical materialism. However, that doesn’t change the fact that science works–the fact that we’re communicating via the internet is proof of quantum physics. Every time you use your GPS, you’re proving Special Relativity (which the GPS has to correct for). From a Biblical perspective, we recognize that while God can completely upend nature (the act of Creation, resurrecting the dead), he doesn’t do that very often. Even within the Biblical context, God’s miracles seem to work within nature far more often than they upend it, like the supernaturally timed storm that destroyed Sisera’s army (Jdg. 4-5).

      The fun part about science right now is that it is hitting a hard limit when it comes to what is scientifically testable, and therefore knowable. Our own physicists admit that they cannot look even into the very moment of the Big Bang, let alone what came before it. We have tantalizing hints of a greater reality impacting our universe, and yet we will never as physical beings be able to actually study and test that reality. (We’ll have to wait until after the resurrection.) We actually get farther away from having a scientific, materialistic theory of abiogenesis (how life came from unlife) every year due to the complexities we keep discovering in the so-called “simple” cell. Science itself has effectively disproven atheism, and yet evangelicals are too caught up on an errant reading of Genesis 1 to make use of that!

      So again, what assumptions do you think I have to make to show that light has been travelling for far more than 6000 years?

      Shalom

      Like

      1. >>Again, please definite the assumptions (plural) that go into the speed of light or the distance to the stars

        The assumptions do not go into the ‘speed of light’ nor the ‘distance to the stars’ but to the concept that God would have to be lying if the Earth were really created in six days.
        And they are, as I have said a couple of times, “naturalism’ and ‘uniformitarianism’. Translated: the physical universe is all there is and (following from that, but not at all required) that there are no interruptions to physical laws (ie miracles).
        Obviously ex nihlo fiat creation is contradictory of both of these assumptions. Modern science cannot even examine it as a possibility, because it goes against their assumptions. Thus modern science is absoloutley useless in examining God’s creation whenever the question, or possibility, of any kind of miracle is concerned.
        Against the two examples which demonstrate this very easily would be ‘scientists’ examining Adam one day after his creation, and examining the wine that Christ created a few minutes after His creation of it. In both cases, using naturalistic and uniformitarian assumptions, the word ‘years’ would enter quickly into the conversation.

        Like

  7. >>revisit what the Bible says in light of new data as “compromise,”

    no. Any attempt to try to judge what the Scriptures say in the light of ‘data’ that comes from naturalistic assumptions is simple folly.

    Like

  8. >>But since you say that, what assumptions do you think we have to bring to the table when it comes to the speed of light or the distance to other stars and galaxies?

    Naturalism and uniformitarianism: ie we need to contradict the very possibility of ex nihlo.

    Like

    1. “Naturalism and uniformism” are just broad-strokes words. Yes, I believe that God does not willy-nilly change the laws of physics on a regular basis, but that’s the express teaching of Scripture. So again, what are the very specific assumptions that I have to hold in order to believe that light has been travelling from distant stars for more than 6000 years?

      Like

  9. >>(3) that he made it in such a way that it will ultimately point the honest seeker to him, how do you explain light from stars more than 6000 light years away?

    The honest seeker for God will not attempt to look at the creation with naturalistic and uniformitarian assumptions. The Scriptures describe someone that does that as a ‘fool’. The honest seeker for God would see in the creation that he sees all around him:

    Rom 1:19  Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 
    Rom 1:20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 

    Like

  10. >>Science itself has effectively disproven atheism, and yet evangelicals are too caught up on an errant reading of Genesis 1 to make use of that!

    Methinks you haven’t been paying attention. I hear Christians discuss this all the time. However, due to the naturalistic and uniformitarian blinders that moderns have on, this evidence is ruled out of court before it can put it’s shoes on (to mix my metaphors). All the moderns do is repeat the dogma, “Wow, isn’t evolution really all that much more marvelous than we thought before?? Look at what it can do!!”

    Like

  11. Vaughn,

    There is a reason I’m picking on the matter of the speed of light and the distance to the stars. If light has a constant speed (and it does, because the speed of light is not simply an arbitrary speed for light) and we see the light coming from much farther away than 6000 light-years, then the universe must be much older than young-earth creationism claims. There’s simply no way around it, and there are zero untestable assumptions involved.

    Your underlying assumption seems to be that either a) all astronomers are biased because they don’t want to believe in God (untrue; actually, more astrophysicists believe in God than in any other scientific discipline precisely BECAUSE of the evidence); or b) belief in special creation means that we don’t have to deal with a “naturally” unfolding universe under constant laws (also untrue; the finite speed of light and extreme age and size of the universe means that we can actually see back in time, and the Bible asserts a “fixed” natural law).

    The Bible, read in its original languages and context, does not demand any particular age for the earth, let alone the universe. If there are no gaps in the genealogies (and there are, as proved simply by comparing Scripture to Scripture), then the most you could say is that Adam lived about 6000 years ago. As I said when I began this series, I don’t think the original human author had any intent to address the age of the universe or evolution. He was addressing paganism and deified nature, as well as explaining how a seven-day week allows mortals to emulate the Immortal Creator. It just so happens that the Spirit inspired him in such a way that when we had the new information, we would realize that the creation narratives were incredibly correct and insightful.

    Shalom

    Like

  12. Heb 11:3  Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

    All of the discussion of the speed of light is as silly as discussing how fast George can run when he flew in last night from California. Uniformitarian and naturalistic assumptions are simply foolish when discussing the larger issues of miraculous and creative acts of God.

    Let me ask you, tell me if you know:

    1Ki 18:36  And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word.
    1Ki 18:37  Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again.
    1Ki 18:38  Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.
    1Ki 18:39  And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.

    1) The fire of Elijah. From whence in the heavens did it originate? Using only materialistic and naturalistic assumptions, please explain it. From what heavenly body did it originate? How long did it travel? What was its original energy level?

    Joh 2:2  And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
    Joh 2:3  And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
    Joh 2:4  Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
    Joh 2:5  His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
    Joh 2:6  And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
    Joh 2:7  Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
    Joh 2:8  And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
    Joh 2:9  When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
    Joh 2:10  And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
    Joh 2:11  This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

    2) The wine of Christ, from what vineyard came it? How long did it sit and ferment before Christ served it? Using only naturalistic and materialistic assumptions give us its history.

    Joh 6:16  And when even was now come, his disciples went down unto the sea,
    Joh 6:17  And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.
    Joh 6:18  And the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew.
    Joh 6:19  So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.
    Joh 6:20  But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid.
    Joh 6:21  Then they willingly received him into the ship: and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.

    3) The water upon which Christ walked, what was its chemical composition? Using only unformitarian and naturalistic assumptions explain to us this story.

    Exo 20:9  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
    Exo 20:10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
    Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    >>Yes, I believe that God does not willy-nilly change the laws of physics on a regular basis, but that’s the express teaching of Scripture. So again, what are the very specific assumptions that I have to hold in order to believe that light has been travelling from distant stars for more than 6000 years?

    The assumption that you must hold is that a fiat ex nihlo creation would be in some way ‘willy nilly’. You would have to believe that it in some way makes sense to try to judge the words ‘in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is’ by the speed of light and other physical phenomena. We all believe in physical laws. None of us believe that God changes them ‘willy nilly’. But it is simply absurd to speak of the very creation of everything that exists as ‘willy nilly’.

    When you wish to have the linguistic discussion I am ready. Your assumptions there are just as false. However here we are dealing with the idea that it would somehow be a ‘lie’ for God to create the heavens and Earth and all that are in them in six days, tell us plainly that that is what happened, and then have it somehow be a ‘lie’ because, using naturalistic (there is no God) and uniformitarian (everything has always operated only on laws and principles we can currently see and examine) assumptions, we cannot point to that creative discontinuity.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s