Comments on Bring the Books: Epistemological Argument For an Old Universe

Adam, Thank you for your brotherly interactions ...

2009-12-05T09:46:07.233-06:00

Adam,

Thank you for your brotherly interactions

I hope you have a blessed Christmas!

Thanks again

John, I regret accusing you of using an "old...

2009-12-01T21:47:46.227-06:00

John,

I regret accusing you of using an "old debating tactic." I wish I hadn't said it; it was an inappropriate thing to say and quite unfair.

I appreciated your further interaction and wish you all the best. Maybe we'll see you at a later time around BTB. Instead of taking the last word, I'll let you have it and just thank you for the kind things you've had to say.

OK, Adam, thanks for your time and your thought in...

2009-12-01T20:48:50.966-06:00

OK, Adam, thanks for your time and your thought into our discussion. I really do think now it is time for me to sign off. I'll give you the last word, since it's your blog, after all, and you've graciously allowed James and I the opportunity to cross-examine your position.

The time-dilation theory I mentioned above seems to me to be a reasonable way to accommodate the unchanging speed of light with a young earth. In this scenario, the speed of light remains the same, while time itself becomes the variable, as expressed in Einstein's theory of relativity. Your impression that the time-dilation theory is just another twist on changing the speed of light is mistaken, IMO.

So your young-earth professors say there is plenty of room for an old-earth reading of Genesis? I would agree with a qualification, and maybe it's the same one they would employ. I would agree if we meant that your view of earth history need not be a barrier to church membership or leadership, and that it is not, in itself, a test of true Christian faith. But that does not mean that a consistent YEC proponent would say, "I think the YEC view is correct, but the old-earth view might just as well be right."

Regarding your comments on Exodus 20:9-11, I think it's plain to any unbiased reader that the original hearers would have understood the words to mean that God had a 24-7 week like we do. I understand your response, but I find it unconvincing.

Yes, the orthodox Jewish calendar counts off from Adam and Eve. But surely I don't have to explain the idea that since "Let there be light" and "Let us make man" occurred within six days of each other, the two events can be reckoned as happening virtually simultaneously. I believe James has elaborated on this point as well. The appeal to the Jewish calendar is not so easily dismissed.

Old debating tactic? I honestly was not aware that I was employing such. I meant the words not as a tactic, but to point out that the meaning of Exodus 20:9-11 is plain on its face.

You wrote, "Even before the age of scientific enlightenment, there was no uniform view of what the days of Genesis consisted of. Whether it was Origen or Augustine, many of the early church fathers pondered numerous possible readings of Genesis." The view of the Church through most of its history has been far more uniform than you are allowing. I refer you again to the Duncan work I cited above.

You wrote, "It is at this point where we have no choice but to turn our eyes to the Heavens, witnessing stars and supernovae which existed billions of years ago and ask ourselves whether this is all an illusion or not." 30 years ago, you would have had a point. But today, I don't know of any prominent YEC leader who takes that view, for the very reason you mentioned.

Again, if any readers would like more info from the YEC POV, I would recommend answersingenesis.org

Adam, your interaction has been stimulating, and you have conducted yourself as a Christian gentleman. I appreciate the forum you have provided for this important discussion.

As a final word, one reason I am attracted to the YEC view (aside from the fact that I believe the Bible teaches it) is that it allows the original creation to be truly idyllic. No death, no tears, no suffering, just as it will be again someday. When we see physical death today, it is a reminder to us of the effect of sin. Sin entered the world, and death through sin. When my children see a dead animal, or one of their pets dies, I can comfort them by telling them that this is not the way God originally intended the world to be. Death in all its forms is an intruder to our world, and is here as a result of sin. Adam, in your view, physical death and suffering existed long before the Fall, and have no connection to sin.

Adam, thank you again, and may God bless you and your family this Christmas season.

I meant to say Adam and Eve were created on "...

2009-12-01T20:25:51.387-06:00

I meant to say Adam and Eve were created on "day" six, not five.

James, you gave me seven links altogether to read....

2009-12-01T20:23:26.018-06:00

James, you gave me seven links altogether to read. My apologies, but I didn't read them all [though I did read about Humphreys' time dilation theory, and though it's interesting, I'm just not qualified to evaluate it].

As far as your refutation of my gnosticism charge goes: fair enough. I guess I needed to hear you say that science is not the enemy, here.

I need to be clear on one thing, because your comment on evolution leads me to think you believe I am an evolutionist. Let me be crystal clear: I believe that human beings are special creations, and that they were created immediately by God, not through any evolutionary process. For that matter, I believe the same about animals. I am not an evolutionist, in any sense. Just to prevent any misunderstandings.

"[W]hen The Scriptures said that we work six days and rest one because that is the way God did it when during the creation week, did the Psalmist have any reason to think that God really didn’t do it in 6/24? That God’s word really wasn’t true?" This last sentence which you use to summarize, is hardly a fair representation of the OEC position. In no way would I EVER say that in any sense God's word "really wasn't true." Given the framework view, every word of Genesis is true. You just disagree with it.

"When an ancient Israeli taught his child a plain reading of Genesis One was he teaching his child falsehood?" A tremendously presumptuous question, to say the least. Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, that ancient Israelites did not read Genesis in poetic terms? Do you have any ancient evidence that Jews would have been opposed to a more complex understanding of Genesis than a naked reading of the text yields?

I also do not accept that my belief that Adam and Eve were created on the sixth "day" stands in opposition to their being spoken of as being there "in the beginning." Maybe I'm crazy, but regardless what the meaning of "day" is, I still believe Adam and Eve were created on the fifth "day," regardless what that means to either of us. My view still sees Adam and Eve as being in the beginning. I'm sorry if that doesn't make sense to you, but I hope you can see how this would be the case.

You've been very polite with me, James, and I appreciate you sticking to the issues and not using ad hominem attacks like some might be tempted to. Although I must say, the readers here at BTB are real gentlemen and professionals, and I really don't expect crazies on here anymore.

Thanks again, James.

You didn’t answer this question: “When the Psalmis...

2009-12-01T17:58:32.363-06:00

You didn’t answer this question: “When the Psalmist wrote in Ps 119:160, “The entirety of Your word is truth” did he, or another ancient Israelite, have any reason to think that when he read the Pentateuch that it wasn’t face value truth? That when the Scriptures said, “So the evening and the morning were the first day.”, that it wasn’t a 24 hour day? Or, when The Scriptures said that we work six days and rest one because that is the way God did it when during the creation week, did the Psalmist have any reason to think that God really didn’t do it in 6/24? That God’s word really wasn’t true?” Psalm 78:5 says to teach “the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wonderful works that He has done.” When an ancient Israeli taught his child a plain reading of Genesis One was he teaching his child falsehood? “So that they would not forget God.” (v7)

Using Scripture to interpret Scripture, Jesus clearly puts Adam and Eve “in the beginning, when the foundation of the earth was laid.”

General revelation doesn’t trump special revelation. You are denying the plain reading of Scripture, saying that it doesn’t mean what the face value of what it says, in more than one spot in Scripture, because of debated science.

Adam, thanks for the time here and thank you for the work that you all do here at Bring the Books, but it is time for me to leave this conversation

Thanks again

Adam, To deal with the light issue first. The Sc...

2009-12-01T17:57:05.306-06:00

Adam,

To deal with the light issue first. The Scriptures aren’t just dealing with this just in a metaphorical manner. I’ll remove the Holy Spirit from the equation and just use the fact that Jesus was there as Creator. Rev 21:23 says "The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light." If Jesus will light heaven forever without a created light source. He was clearly there before the sun, or any star was created, it is perfectly acceptable that He was the light. God doesn’t need a created light source to be light. Moses’ face shone because of God’s brightness. In the theophanies God is described as brightness and when Jesus appeared to Paul flashing light covered Paul. These aren’t metaphorical statements. And, being that God had just created the heavens and the earth, ex nihilo, I don’t have a problem saying the light could have emanated from Jesus himself, just like it will be in heaven where the lamb will be the light. Ps 104:2 says that Jesus is covered with light and 104:5 that He laid the foundations of the earth. Is there going to be a created light source in heaven?

I offered you a refutation of Ross on the speed of light debate. You just dismissed it by stating that you did “not agree with everything he says, and am not attempting to offer any apologetics for his views.” But, this is your specific point, the constancy of the speed of light, that is what they were debating. You can’t dismiss it that easily. Humphreys is offering argument that your premise here is wrong.

I never said that the bible condradicts the facts of nature nor have I said that creation was an “evil lie.” I just don’t accept the presupposition of Empiricism which is what mainstream science is built upon. A couple of posts upstream I mentioned this that it was flawed. Empiricism is built upon the premise (or presupposition) that ‘all knowledge is based upon observation.’ You even recognized this when you wrote in your answer to John, “Natural science does not tell us that resurrections can't happen, by the way. It can only tell us that it has not SEEN a resurrection.” Empirical science doesn’t even recognize that their premise is a presupposition, but as a fact. The problem with this is, if the ultimate standard is that ‘all knowledge must be observed’ or ‘seen’ as you put it, it never has been observed that, ‘all knowledge is based upon observation.’ It is a self refuting presupposition and is fatally flawed.

You dismiss it, but there is plenty of work out there saying that you are wrong and there also are thousands of articles documenting the problems with evolution. You acknowledge that there are YEC scientists and I’m almost 198% sure that you would say that I thought that YEC scientific work was being done better than OEC scientific work. And, for the record, I do think that. That makes your Gnostic charge false and less than fair.

Regarding the texts you quoted, Yes, Moses spoke o...

2009-11-30T22:59:41.786-06:00

Regarding the texts you quoted, Yes, Moses spoke of a six-day work week and contrasted that with the week in which God worked. He was appealing to the text of Genesis, but it is no argument against what those days consisted of in more detail. For example, if those days consisted of different phases of creation or those days are poetic expressions of the work of God, this does not change the fact that God meaningfully chose to express his act of creation as six days. This is certainly significant, still, whether the days were literal 24 hour days or not.

As far as your appeal to the Jewish calendar, it again proves little except that they have been counting since Adam's creation. It's only a shame they didn't start counting from the first moment of creation, then we might really get somewhere!

You use an old debating tactic when you say the following: "Surely you would agree that any of Moses' original hearers would have assumed that God's week was just like our week." Even before the age of scientific enlightenment, there was no uniform view of what the days of Genesis consisted of. Whether it was Origen or Augustine, many of the early church fathers pondered numerous possible readings of Genesis. If these pre-modern commentators had their own doubts, then I see no reason why Moses' own listeners might not have wondered what the nature of these "days" Moses spoke of really consisted of in more detail. Perhaps they, themselves, understood that God had "lisped" to them in His written word, telling them what they needed to know, but not every exhaustive detail.

Unfortunately, this is mere speculation, since neither of us have commentaries by Moses' immediate listening audience. All we can do is study his words and study the words of those who have studied his words, ad infinitum. Ultimately, we must as ourselves the same question Moses' audience must have asked: "I wonder what grand events took place during these 'days' which we are not able to derive from the text..."

It is at this point where we have no choice but to turn our eyes to the Heavens, witnessing stars and supernovae which existed billions of years ago and ask ourselves whether this is all an illusion or not.

John, I am not trying to argue against a supernat...

2009-11-30T22:43:42.209-06:00

John,

I am not trying to argue against a supernaturalistic worldview. We live in a universe where miracles have happened. This is not a point of contention. Furthermore, what I am saying is not in contradiction to a universe where miracles occur. Scientific knowledge consists primarily in observation. If a miracle occurs, science may have a challenge explaining said miracle in terms of a philosophical precommitment to naturalism, but in and of itself, scientific knowledge is not nullified by the reality of miracles. Many scientists, such as Isaac Newton observed the universe and recognized the laws by which it operated, but he did not believe that holding to a mechanistic fatalism was necessary in order to honor true scientific method: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

The reason the universe has room for both miracles AND science is because miracles are not the normal way in which the universe operates. When they occurred in the Bible, they served specific revelatory purposes, and they always happened for specific reasons. For this reason, we may rest easy in the knowledge that the universe we live in operates under consistent laws which God has very rarely (relative to the massive amount of times when miracles weren't happening) violated.

Hence, the scientist may measure the time it takes a beam of light to pass from point A to point B and is epistemologically justified in concluding that the speed of light and is 299,792,458 metres per second.

What you are telling me, John, is that God has in some way bypassed the speed of light at the moment of creation. This may be in keeping with the more traditional reading of Genesis, but it creates epistemological problems in observing the natural revelation (as I've already pointed out in the main article).

What I am proposing is a reading of Genesis which does not create far-reaching epistemological dilemmas and which also still makes sense of the text.

When it comes to the text, I know that there is no unanimity amongst solid evangelical scholars on what sort reading we are to give to the text of Genesis. I have spoken with solid Old Testament professors who say that there is plenty of room for an Old Earth reading of Genesis, even though they themselves held to a young earth view.

What you should acknowledge, John, in my opinion, is that there is room, textually speaking, for disagreement on this point. Yours is the harder point to prove, anyway. You have to prove that the YEC view is the only view which is possible given the text, while all I have to argue is the possibility of another way. I think that the framework view is a cogent and conceivably effective way of making sense of both natural and special revelation while doing no harm to either.

I know that there are YEC scientists who would be distressed that I, by default, reject the possibility of YEC science, and I hope they will forgive my assuming them out of the discussion, but my own arguments regarding starlight preclude me from taking very seriously a "scientist" who believes in a universe where optical illusions exist (again, this is not an issue of the appearance of age, it is an issue of seeing what has never existed).

Adam, thanks for the response. Well, if you don&#...

2009-11-30T20:55:00.347-06:00

Adam, thanks for the response. Well, if you don't think the Resurrection fits the bill for an example of a miraculous event over-ruling what our senses tell us about the world, then there are many other miracles to choose from. Science tells us you can't feed 5000 people with just a few loaves and fishes. Science tells us a man cannot walk on water, in the way Jesus did. Science tells us you can't turn water into wine in an instant. (By the way, that's a good example of the 'appearance of age.') Etc. and etc. The Creation was a miraculous event in the past, and we learn about it primarily from the Bible. You are correct that natural revelation and Scripture need not be enemies. But where our interpretation of data conflicts with what Scripture teaches, our loyalty must lie with the word of God.

And I stand by my example of the Resurrection as a worthy analogy for our discussion. When a dead body has been in a tomb from Friday night to Sunday morning, it's truly dead, and not just according to naturalistic materialism, but to science itself. Science is the study of how the natural world works -- how the laws of nature play out in our world. And according to the laws of nature, a dead body stays dead. That's what made the Resurrection a miracle. God sometimes suspends or supersedes these laws when He works a miracle, as he did in the Creation as well as the Resurrection.

There are many examples of YECs who have earned advanced degrees in the natural sciences, who would take issue with your characterization of YECs' attitude toward nature.

Enough philosophy -- let's talk some straight Scripture. In Exodus 20: 9-11, Moses, speaking for God, makes a direct parallel between our six-day work week and God's six-day creation week. Surely you would agree that any of Moses' original hearers would have assumed that God's week was just like our week, from this passage. We work six days and rest one, because that's the pattern God set for us, when He did His work in creation. If you had told them, "Oh, that's just poetry, you know," or "Those days were really millions of years long," you would have gotten incredulous stares.

Consider the orthodox Jews of today. To them, it's the year 5770. What happened in year 1? Adam and Eve were created. They simply read the books of Moses in their most straightforward manner, and they come out as YECs. True, their understanding of Messianic prophecy is wrong, but this may well be a case of God using the foolish things of this world to shame the wise.

It's nice to see you again, John. I knew you ...

2009-11-29T22:29:13.623-06:00

It's nice to see you again, John. I knew you couldn't stay away!

The gnostic view, which I am working with is that "there is no life, truth, or substance in matter." My question to you, John, is what you believe about creation. I personally believe that God's creation is good, but that it labors under the curse of God. The creation "groans" as it were. This means that for mankind, life is a struggle and a challenge. It does NOT mean that life is illusory, that we cannot trust what we see with our own eyes. It means that Scripture and Creation are not enemies. They are two pages from the same book.

You are right, though, in your conclusion. It really does come down to the question of whether there is room in the text for a harmony to exist between observation of the creation and the teachings of Scripture. Unfortunately, what I hear from the young earth camp is that there is no harmony. There is only heirarchy, and Scripture trumps natural revelation. There are some who are YECs who truly believe that the science is on their side, and I respect that in a way. But the danger of gnosticism looms at your doorway if you simply won't accept natural revelation's input because it's the creation and not special revelation. Like I said, one does not trump the other; they are in harmony. They are not two enemies set against one another, they are allies telling us the truth about the
Creator who made them both, albeit in substantially different ways.

Natural science does not tell us that resurrections can't happen, by the way. It can only tell us that it has not SEEN a resurrection. Many draw the philosophical implication that they do not therefore happen, but this is only a fair inference if one can justify inference. Since the materialist cannot justify induction (ala Hume's criticism of induction) then science can tell us nothing about the future or what will happen with bodies which lie in the ground.

Naturalistic Materialism tells us that resurrections cannot happen, but not science. Such people use science to their advantage, but the assumption that resurrections cannot happen is based on an a priori commitment about the nature of the universe, an assumption that cannot be substantiated.

OK, I can't stand it anymore! I have to get b...

2009-11-29T21:36:41.952-06:00

OK, I can't stand it anymore! I have to get back into this. Yes, I know I said I would exit this debate, but some things just need to be answered.

"Creation is good." Creation WAS perfect and good, before the entrance of sin. After sin, the creation was cursed, and is now "groaning in travail." Romans 8:22

Creation can tell us true things, but if our observation of nature tells us one thing, and Scripture another, then Scripture trumps our observation. Best example: We observe that when someone dies, they stay dead. But Scripture tells us that resurrections have happened, and will happen again. Which do we believe, our observations, or Scripture?

YEC's are Gnostic? -- This is the pot calling the kettle black. YECs read Genesis 1 as a plain narrative, and do not attempt to reckon it as poetry (framework hyphothesis) or as long ages. Neither view got barely a mention in all of church history (yes, there are exceptions, but that's what they are -- exceptions) until Charles Lyell et. al. began claiming the Earth was much older than the Biblical record would allow. So we misunderstood Genesis until two hundred years ago, when scientists informed us of the right way to view Earth history. What was the Reformation about? It was about many things, but at the top of the list was the idea that Scripture was to be trusted above man-made authority. And that's exactly what scientific consensus is. It's a man-made authority that is often right, but sometimes wrong. So we misunderstood Genesis until this 'secret knowledge' came to light, thanks to scientists who told us that the Church had been wrong for nearly two thousand years.

Moses himself (quoting the Lord) saw the six days as literal history, on a 24-hour scale, in Exodus 20:9-11. And the church by and large followed his lead, until the time of Lyell.

So we have come full circle again to the question: Does Scripture restrict us to the six-consecutive-24-hour-day view, or not? If it does, then the Church has been correct through most of her history, and the framework and long-age views are not correct.

Actually, James, I was implying that your view has...

2009-11-28T17:53:35.648-06:00

Actually, James, I was implying that your view has gnostic tendencies in denying that creation conveys truth. Though of course I am not accusing you of any sort of fully-gnostic belief system. But the creation is good, and it is not deceptive, and it can tell us true things.

Many thanks, James.

Eagerly awaiting your thoughts.

Adam, I only have a moment but I'll stay in a...

2009-11-28T13:12:15.662-06:00

Adam,

I only have a moment but I'll stay in and answer you, hopefully by early next week.

I'm not implying that you are gnostic in any way. Hopefully you'll understand me better after my response.

Thanks for way you have handled this. This can be an emotional issue but you have been a gracious host.

James, I did have a nice Thanksgiving; I apprecia...

2009-11-27T19:24:08.733-06:00

James,

I did have a nice Thanksgiving; I appreciate the well-wishes and hope you had the same.

This idea that the Bible is the only acceptable source of knowledge about the world seems problematic to me. While there is no doubt that it is the inerrant, perfect, final authority, you seem to exclude the possibility of knowledge from God's natural created revelation, which also speaks truth (albeit in a different function).

I would never turn to creation to find out about Jesus, but if I want to know how old the creation is, it doesn't seem all that controversial to study it and try to find out.

The Bible has the final word on matters, but it is also true that the Bible will not contradict the facts of nature. If we know something about the physical world which is basic and not terribly complex (such as how long it takes for starlight to reach earth), then it stands to reason that there must be some harmony between the special and the natural revelation. They are not at odds; they are all revelations of the truth-telling God of the universe. We are not gnostics. We do not believe that God is truth and the creation is an evil lie. I know you are not saying that, but it is the implication of what you are saying, if you exclude natural revelation as a possible source of knowledge.

By the way, why take all of these Biblical passages describing God being metaphorically covered with light (Jesus is the light of the world, is He not? And yet we still need the sun and moon) and read them as literal when it comes to the Genesis narrative? Pursuing this a bit further, do you really believe that literal light somehow emanated from the Holy Spirit at creation? Do we have anything in the text of Genesis which even remotely intimates that the light of creation, prior to the creation of the sun, came from the Holy Spirit Himself?

I hope you don't bow out quite yet, James. I'm interested to hear your thoughts. If I'm off-base and need to be straightened out, I want that to happen. I want to believe the truth about God and His universe, but I need to know if these matters are a draw or not by having conversations like this one.

Another Light-bearer, Jesus, was there also Heb 1...

2009-11-27T17:20:41.887-06:00

Another Light-bearer, Jesus, was there also

Heb 1:2-3 "has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person,

Just reading the comments on light existing before...

2009-11-27T15:36:26.876-06:00

Just reading the comments on light existing before the sun, moon and stars.

There was a light bearer present, the Holy Spirit.

Gen 1:2 "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

Ps 104:2 (speaking of God here) "Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment" 104:5 "You who laid the foundations of the earth, so that it should not be moved forever"

Rev 21:23 "The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light."

Adam, I hope you had a blessed Thanksgiving and w...

2009-11-27T09:43:19.726-06:00

Adam,

I hope you had a blessed Thanksgiving and were able to spend some quality time with your family!

Anyway, I haven’t broadened what the Scriptures say about ‘the beginning’. The Scriptures have narrowed that down to what that event was. When Jesus was speaking in Mk 10 he didn’t say ‘one of the other or different beginnings’, (or 15.4 billion years ago the universe was created, then 10.9 billion years later the earth was created and then 4,499,994,000 years later man was created) he said ‘the beginning.’ There is only one ‘the beginning’ scripturally. ‘The beginning’ is a time marker, the first time marker. That is the creation week.

Let’s look at these Scriptures.

In ‘the beginning’ God created the heavens and the earth.

In ‘the beginning’ God laid the foundation of the earth.

Jn 1:1-2 comments on Jesus’ eternality, Jesus is without beginning or end and was with God in ‘the beginning’. Jesus is before 'the beginning'. Colossians and Hebrews tell us that Jesus is the Creator.

2 Th 2 tells us that Jesus already knew that you and I were His at ‘the beginning.’

And Jesus said that Adam and Eve were there at ‘the beginning’, not a ‘different or another beginning’.

You’re right, because Adam and Eve were there at the beginning doesn’t define it as 6/24. But, it does put a scriptural bullet right through the heart of evolution. But, Jesus affirms the Genesis account as literal, which does affirm 6/24.

When the Psalmist wrote in Ps 119:160, “The entirety of Your word is truth” did he, or another ancient Israelite, have any reason to think that when he read the Pentateuch that it wasn’t face value truth? That when the Scriptures said, “So the evening and the morning were the first day.”, that it wasn’t a 24 hour day? Or, when The Scriptures said that we work six days and rest one because that is the way God worked and rested during the creation week, did the Psalmist have any reason to think that God really didn’t do it in 6/24? That God’s word really wasn’t true?

Ps 111:2 says: “The works of the LORD are great, Studied by all who have pleasure in them.”

&

Ps 119:27 says: “Make me understand the way of Your precepts; So shall I meditate on Your wonderful works.” 119:27 teaches that when we study God’s creation we reason from the Scriptures out since the Scriptures are truth as he proclaimed in 119:160.

Adam, I fear that you are interpreting Scripture by science and not by Scripture. You are denying a face value reading of Scripture because it doesn’t fit into your scientific beginnings construct. Modern science is based upon Empiricism which is self refuting and whose presupposition is fatally flawed.

There are those out there who study God’s creation according to the method in Ps 119:27.

This is much shorter than the post I lost. My memory is usually only good for about 15 minutes anyway :)

Thanks again Adam

I am very close to bowing out

Faris, If the entire argument you just gave me is...

2009-11-24T19:19:19.545-06:00

Faris,

If the entire argument you just gave me is true, then it works for my position, as well. The creation of man, for me, is also "the beginning," is it not?

James, Whenever I press post, I always highlight ...

2009-11-24T19:18:01.119-06:00

James,

Whenever I press post, I always highlight my words and choose "copy" just in case something horrible like this happens.

Is this a common problem I previewed my post and ...

2009-11-24T18:36:37.650-06:00

Is this a common problem

I previewed my post and it was fine

I posted it and got an error message and it was gone

2nd time in this thread

ugh!

Adam, I just lost a post ithat took me 45 minutes...

2009-11-24T18:34:28.577-06:00

Adam,

I just lost a post ithat took me 45 minutes to write

I'll try again in the next few days

keep checking if this gets put off of the 1st page

Adam, To say that God made man in the beginning o...

2009-11-24T16:02:30.080-06:00

Adam,

To say that God made man in the beginning on day six, is a far cry from "in the beginning after light traveled 18 billion light years, God created man."

If I had a grand opening of a restaurant that continued through day six, no one would say, "WHat gives... its day six and you are still having a grand opening...your restaurant is older than my grandma"

However, if I had a grand opening sign on my restaurant after sixty years of business, then my place of buisness would be older than some grandmas.

There is only one restaurant that is stretching/boradening the definition of "Grand opening."

No?

Thoughts?

Faris

James, it seems to me that you have broadened the ...

2009-11-23T09:19:04.551-06:00

James, it seems to me that you have broadened the idea of what is "the beginning," just as I have done. This may just be an irresolvable point of disagreement, because I think this point could go either way, depending on all the other factors involved. But of course if that's true, then Jesus' saying they were male and female from the beginning is not a definitive statement of belief in a literal 6-day creation week.

Adam, From a plain reading of these verses 't...

2009-11-22T16:15:08.663-06:00

Adam,

From a plain reading of these verses 'the beginning' is obviously the creation (week). Pink puts it, in his commentary on John, as "the beginning of time." Jesus says that Adam and Eve were there during that time period.

Thanks again