Don,
Adam was not “created” in chapter 1 and then “formed” in chapter 2. He had one creation alone and formed is just a subset of creation. It is the method of creation.

The point is that there were always and will always be those who will mix myth with scripture. We do not need to give myths credence. We also need to be aware that just as there were false prophets in the OT, so too there will be false teachers in the NT. Because of this, we do not just accept what anyone teaches just because he or she says they are a Christian. We must test all things by the straight edge of scripture.

For example Adam is never said to be “split”. This is a term foreign to the text.

The language of Genesis is primarily sequential when it comes to creation. This is the focus of my blog article and the angle that I wish to discuss. If someone wants to discuss the grammar and show how sequential doesn’t mean sequential, then we can discuss that. However if we are going to understand that God desired to communicate his truth with us and he uses language and grammar, then we need to accept his language and his grammar in the context it was written.

Again, I repeat one of the comments by the present Pope:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

The comments are clear that he believes all living things descended from the first organism. This is evolution. We take the comments as they are written and we do not have the liberty to make them say what we feel we want to hear.

I do not think that my blog is a place to advocate the Roman Catholic endorsement of evolution or to advocate its predecessor Augustine’s form of evolution. Let’s keep the discussion on the order of creation and whether the animals were created after Adam. The language is sequential and this should be our focused discussion.

Thanks!

Thanks Dr. Barb. Good comments!

truthseeker,
I added some paragraph breaks to your post. 🙂 I can hear the hurt in your story. I too am amazed when I hear these things:

I was told by the pastor of one such church that God must have some things for me to learn about submission. I was aghast and angry. I wondered why he didn’t assume that God had some things for my husband to learn about love or submission?

When it is assumed that the problem is always the woman, then we have encountered prejudice. What shouldn’t be in the church is too often right there in our face. And so many women experience deep hurt because of it. It is my desire that the church would be able to see true unity in our lifetime. Perhaps we need persecution to pull us together and without the prejudice. In China most of the pastors are women for one reason or another, and it doesn’t appear that there is nearly as much prejudice against them in that country. They do what they have to do to shepherd God’s church in the way that they are called.

Don,
It is not an overstatement. Several years ago I spent a lot of time with a very zealous Catholic who was anxious to convert me. She confirmed that the Catholic Church holds to evolution. At least the last two Popes have taught this. Pope John Paul 11:

“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points….Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies — which was neither planned nor sought — constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”

Also Pope Benedict XVI:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 – 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

Yup, there it is in black and white in the link that Paula provided. Augustine is the link to evolution:

The idea of evolution was not particularly dominant in patristic and scholastic theology and philosophy, both on account of the dualism which runs through them as an echo of Plato and Aristotle, and on account of the generally accepted Christian theory of creation. However, evolution is not generally denied; and with Augustine (De civitate dei, xv. 1) it is taken as the basis for a philosophy of history.

It is no wonder that the Catholic Church holds to evolution and holds up Augustine as a great church father.

Paula,
Thanks for that information. I didn’t know that the Greeks believed in an evolutionary myth. I knew they believed in myths but I didn’t realize that it was akin to evolution.

Augustine is the father of Roman Catholicism. It is no wonder that the Catholic church today believes in evolution.

Don,

That is, Gen 1-11 (pre-history) might be written “as to appearances” in some ways. This might also happen elsewhere in the Bible, but might be more prevalent in the pre-history. This is what is fuzzy for me and do not want to be dinked for it.

There is no such thing as “pre-history” since creation is the start of history. Your words here make no sense at all. Also your word usage “dinked” is inflammatory.

I see no reason to continue this discussion. When you call history “pre-history” as if it doesn’t exist and you attribute an attack mode on my behalf, it is apparent that there is no purpose to our discussion. I can not get a handle on what you believe or do not believe and it appears that you are not willing to walk in my steps to help me and the rest of us understand what you believe and why you believe as you do, then all this discussion can do is cause hard feelings.

I must say that I am disappointed and very surprised. I have always seen you as being articulate and calm and never easily ruffled. Even during the difficult times on CARM, you did not attack the comps. I don’t know what happened to that sweet, calm and unruffled Don who never took anything as an attack against him personally. But here for some reason you are taking everything personally and responding as if I have no ability to understand your high level of thinking.

On the sign of Jonah, the accounts differ. The Pharisees in Mark (apparently) have not heard about the sign of Jonah, while those in Matt have. For me the solution is that Mark truncated. But this makes treating the Bible like Euclid precarious, but I think that it should NOT be treated in that way.

I have already given you the biblical explanation of why there was no sign and yet it was a sign. You have not even tried to engage my biblical explanation. It appears to me that your mind is made up that there are missing things in the scripture that we must add to, to make it make sense.

I think it would be better to set this one aside for now because you are obviously getting upset and my patience is being tested by continually being accused of “dinking” you. The fact is that I still do not understand what you believe and apparently you do not understand either because you appear to be somewhat “fuzzy” on the details. We will leave it at that.

If anyone else has two cents to put into this discussion, please go ahead. The fact of creation regarding what Adam saw that kept him free from deception is a very important point that we can use when we discuss Genesis with complementarians.

Don,

The questions that I asked that were not answered were:
1. The 5 pericopes at the start of Genesis.

Pericopes cannot be discussed until we know what is reality and what is not. I do not understand you at all so we have to go to the basics o any discussion.

On your #2 I have already said that this post will not be discussing the length of days ond OE or YE is beyond the scope of this discussion so please drop it.

Don,

And believers can differ on what is phenomenlogically “real” and what is really “real” in the Bible.

So were the animals that were created after Adam just in his head? He only thought he saw God create them? Perhaps Eve was also in his head? Perhaps she wasn’t really real but a figment of his imagination?

Don,

Things are fuzzy as I cannot integrate (or at least have no integrated) all my beliefs in this area.

I am asking you what it is in the account in Genesis 2 concerning the formation of the animals by God that would be fuzzy to you? What about the inspired words and the inspired grammar is fuzzy?

Don,

The sign was given to the evil generation yet they rejected the sign. The Pharisees understood the sign but they did not believe it. Matthew gives the account to show us that the Pharisees understood the sign that was given to them:

Matthew 27:62 Now on the next day, the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate,
Matthew 27:63 and said, “Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I am to rise again.’
Matthew 27:64 “Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.”

So the sign was indeed given to the evil generation and those who refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah understood the sign and tried to fight against it by sealing the tomb.

There is no contradiction at all since the sign was given yet “not given” since it was not only not accepted but no unbeliever saw Jesus after his resurrection.

Don,

You were responding at the same times as I was, so our comments crossed over.

I am fuzzy on details, perhaps it is as you say, perhaps not, this is something that I have on the shelf as I see thru a glass darkly on this.

What part of the sequential account in Genesis 2 would cause you to be fuzzy so that you are not sure if the account is historical or not? Why might animals not be created (formed by God) after Adam?

Don,

My questions remain unanswered, I at least attempted to answer yours, altho you might not agree with my answers or even think they are answers.

What questions on the creation of Adam or the animals did I not answer? You are the one who has not answered my questions. It seems that you are trying hard to skirt the questions than even try to answer what you believe. You gave me what Genesis 2 appears to say, but you did not say what you believe. I do not yet know if you believe the animals created after Adam were real animals or were “poetry” animals or “hymn” animals which would mean that it is not a historic event (or historical animals). The fact that you fail to answer my questions seems to me that you do not want me to know the answers as it wouldn’t be to your benefit. What else can I think?

It is because my questions remain unanswered (even in an attempt) that I feel disrespected as this indicates to me you see this as a non-peer relationship.

I do not disrespect you. In fact I agree that this is a non-peer relationship because I am not even in the ballpark with your education or your intellectual capacity. But just because I am not as smart as you are doesn’t mean that what I have to say or the questions I ask are not to be considered. And it also doesn’t mean that I disrespect you. I just want my questions to be answered.

Many understand that it is rude to tear down a straw man by trying to refute something that an opponent does not believe. I believe that it is best to completely understand what the other person believes so that I can either agree with it or give my objections to it. I cannot understand what you believe because you are not giving me enough information to understand your view. If you actually believed that the account was a historical event it should not be too hard to say so. Must I assume that you believe that Genesis 1-3 is mostly non-historical? What else can I assume since you will not tell me?

But if you do not know about the possibility of truncation then it is a (seeming) contradiction for Jesus to say “No sign” in one gospel and “No sign except Jonah” in another. (Mat 12, 16; Mark 8; Luk 11).

Jesus said that “no sign” would be given because no sign would be given unless they believed. The sign of Jonah is the resurrection and Jesus did not appear to anyone who was not a believer. Therefore “no sign” was given to the unbeliever. Yet a sign “the sign of Jonah” was given but it was “no sign” to the Pharisee leaders. There is absolutely no contradiction at all and one doesn’t need a truncation to explain the matter.

Don, you have been on my blog for a long time and I have always treated you with respect even when I haven’t agreed with you in everything. I have appreciated your help in a lot of things on this blog. For you to be offended by my questions seems very out of character for you. I haven’t seen you offended even when comps were coming at you on the slick discussion boards. It seems to me that somehow I have pulled on your security blanket. If this is the case perhaps it would be better for the discussion to end because I will not stop asking for enough information so that I can understand. Perhaps someone else can give me the answers to my questions and you and I can stop discussing this issue so that you are no longer offended. Fair enough?

Don,
At this point I would like the conversation to stop the discussion of OE and YE. This is taking us away from the points that I would like to make. Please stay on track and talk about the creation of Adam and Eve and the animals. The account is a historical account. Here is what I see as the problem:

Sally woke up and had breakfast. Then she went to school and dropped off her two younger children. Next she went shopping to pick up some bread. Then she dropped off her older children at high school. Then she went to the dog store and bought some dog food. Then she went home.

This is a historical account. It is not rocket science. The question is did Sally drop off children after she went shopping for bread?

Can we say that we cannot answer this question because of the schema of the person asking the question? The fact is that we are talking about history, not the plans to build a house or disputable theology. We are also not talking about Calvinism or whether tongues is for today or any other doctrinal issue where we can have differences. We are also NOT talking about the length of the “days”. We are talking about whether animals were formed by God after Adam was formed from the dirt by God. Are these historical events? I say they are historical events. From your inability to answer my questions, I don’t think you see history at all. Would you do the same things with the gospels? Is John historical but Mark is allegorical? Is Luke half allegory and half history and is Matthew completely pie in the sky, with no historical information? If you do not do this to the historical gospels, why will you not answer questions about the historical account of creation?

So no more discussion about the length of the days, please and thank you.

Was Adam formed by God? If it was a real, literal event, then it has a set point in time. Were animals created after Adam? If animals exist and they were formed by God, then we should be able to answer this question without accusing the person asking the question of having a “schema”?

While I agree with Paula that you have not given any reason why you believe as you do, I also believe that you have not given out what you do believe. I cannot get a handle on what you believe and instead of helping me understand, you attack me for asking questions. This is not right.

I do not know if you actually believe that animals were really created after Adam or if these animals were a piece of poetry that said one thing but was not actually a historical event. If you cannot answer this question so that logical people like me can figure out what you believe, then this conversation will have to end. It is extremely frustrating to me that you do not directly answer questions but want to accuse me of seeing history as merely history and thus somehow I must be illogical.

Perhaps you do not see Adam as a real man created at one point in history. Perhaps I have misunderstood and you believe that everything is poetry. Adam is poetry and Eve is poetry and the first animals are poetry. Then we actually know nothing at all about the history of creation, but we can “feel” God’s love and that is about all we really know.

Don,

1 I still don’t know what you believe. Since you believe that much is allegory, I don’t know if what you are saying is allegory or real. Do you believe that God formed the animals after Adam in realty or is this one of the “stories” that is meant to be taken as an allegory because it contradicts the “actual” creation account?

2 I do not believe that the Bible contradicts itself, even the gospels. Are there differences in the creation accounts that allow them to contradict each other?

Don,
I can see that I gave too much information again so that my questions were not answered. Let me try one more time. Are you able to answer questions to allow someone from outside of your view to understand? If so, please answer these questions so that I can get a handle on what you believe.

1 I asked for a yes or no answer because I want to know what you believe. Were animals formed by God after Adam was created? I don’t want to hear what both sides say. I want to know what you believe from the text.

2 You appear to me to want to cut up the creation account into different stories that have different creation accounts that are allowed to contradict one another. Perhaps a different Adam in each account? Are there differences in the creation accounts that allow them to contradict each other?

Don,
I am trying to get answers so that I can figure out if the problem is me (that I am such a dimwit that I cannot even figure out a simple straight answer) or if the answer is that you are not actually answering my questions.

1 I asked for a yes or no answer because I want to know what you believe. Were animals formed by God after Adam was created? I don’t want to hear what both sides say. I want to know what you believe from the text.

2 I do not understand why you do not see creation days as 24 hours. When I read your answers it makes me feel akin to watching someone say to God that they will not believe in Him unless He does some miracle in the sky. In other words what He has already said is not good enough. It has to be exactly the way that only they would believe. So if I take your “evening to evening” I can see that if God had said that you would say that it is a unique saying and nowhere else in the bible does it say “evening to evening” so this is a sign that we are to take it as poetry, a parable, a metaphor, etc, etc. Secondly it appears that it isn’t just the days that turn you away from the literal. You appear to me to want to cut up the creation account into different stories that have different creation accounts that are allowed to contradict one another. Perhaps a different Adam in each account? I really don’t know, but I am starting to doubt that I will ever get a straight answer so that I can even acknowledge your view. Perhaps this is a self-defense mechanism. Perhaps it is still me as a dim wit. But honestly it feels like trying to nail jello to the wall. So unless I can even identify the jello (and attach it gently to the wall so it stays), I cannot agree that your view is faithful to the text because I do not understand your view at all.

Does this make any sense?

Don,

2. While the Hebrew day starts with sunset and ends with sunset, a “day” is not referred to as “evening to evening”. And since the scriptures speak about a regular day throughout the bible without ever using the term “evening to evening” we would not expect God to use this term either. If you need that term “evening to evening” to be the only way that God could prove to you that he was speaking about a normal day, then I don’t think we could ever prove a normal day at all throughout the rest of the scriptures if this was the standard.

It is time to drop this one because it is going nowhere.

1. The ESV is wrong in adding “had” to the verb formed. The grammar is verb, qal, active, prefixed (imperfect) sequential. In answering question #1 you answered both yes and no. Which is it? Were animals formed by God after Adam was created? Yes or no? What do you say?

Don,
I can see that you have become offended. For that I am sorry. It has not been my purpose to offend you. Please forgive me. I have not challenged other people here who are old earth as it appears to me that they are taking the days as more than 24 hours but keeping the creation acts as sequential. With you I have not been able to get a handle on what you believe is literal and sequential and what is an allegory. Everytime I asked questions I didn’t get answers that helped me to understand. I honestly don’t think that I able to get answers that would help me to understand your view so maybe it is time to drop it so that what as I say is not seen as a attack.

However there are two things that I would like answers to if you are willing to engage and to try to help me to understand if possible. I am not looking to put you down or put your view down. The key is that I want to understand. Maybe I am the one who is too dinkable because of my inability to understand.

Here goes:
1. Were animals created after Adam was created? Yes or no?
2. You said that “evening to evening” implies a 24 hour day. Can you please point me to the phrase “evening to evening” in the bible so I can see that it is this exact phrase that implies a 24 hour period? I have not been able to find this phrase so please show me what scripture you are referring to.

If you would like to engage in these two questions, then I am willing to continue. If not, let’s drop it because, honestly, I cannot understand your view at all. For someone who has been accused of being too logical, I cannot get a handle on your view of the creation account because I cannot understand it.

I would also like to make the point that I have not purposely challenged any other OEC person who appears at all consistent in the issue of sequential grammar. I believe that I have stated several times that those who do not agree with me are my brothers and sisters in Christ. If I haven’t made it clear enough, I am sorry. I am not questioning anyone’s salvation.

Don, I consider you a valuable person. I believe you are a dear brother in Christ.

Don,

There can be logic to poetry, but it does not need to be strict, it can be allusional.

No need for strict logic? God is the Master Communicator and He is the Creator of logic. I see no such category as “allusional” logic. Rather God consistently through the scriptures communicates what He means and any allegory has meaning.

I see the less order/more order as allusion/metaphor inside each creation day, it does not need to cross days.

Then the different days have no meaning. God could be helped in His endeavor if He would have removed the order of the days and removed the detail of the creation actions. He also could have been helped if He would have provided the meaning of the allegory. Without a identified meaning for the “allegory”, God has failed to be the Master Communicator if you are right and He has left the most important record of Creation’s history up for grabs. Make it say whatever you want. This does not cut the mustard with me. The God that I find in the pages of scripture has kept his word as meaningful throughout the generations. Through the history of the church, the record of creation has given us hope that there is a God who is attentive to detail and that he has created all things for our benefit. Without the detail, the proof is gone and left up for grabs to whoever thinks he knows God’s mind.

In Gen 1:4-5 God does not call night good, while daytime is called good.

The darkness is absence of the light. But even in the absence of light, God brings his smaller lights to reveal the light. There is no pure blackness in this “good” creation that is without light.

I never even thought the creation days are a mishmash, I see the order as forming a structure as I mentioned.

The order is what God has given. The structure is what God has already said. Our words can never compare to what God has already revealed. If we remove the sequential order that God deliberately has woven into the account, and we distrust that He revealed event after event after event after event, then how can we honor his grammar? The measuring stick is His word, His grammar and His eye witness account.

I see each of the 3 origins stories at first as standalone by themselves.

Adam was not created more than once. If the accounts meaning something other than the one creation account, then God has purposely set out to confuse us. Then he really doesn’t care what we can know about creation. That isn’t the God that I have found in the pages of the Bible. I have fallen in love with the Master Communicator not a parable maker who refuses to give the meaning of the parables.

But story 2 is a challenge to integrate with the others and faithful people can do it differently.

Either the chapters integrate with the other chapters without contradiction or God has failed. The question is not are people faithful, but is God faithful to inspire an account without contradiction.

By the way I haven’t read how you integrate the accounts. I only get the idea that you don’t integrate them at all, which frankly tells me that you can’t integrate them together. So if you can’t, why not let me try? All you need to do is show me the contradictions in my view. I believe that all false views will have problems and contradictions. If my view is false, there should be contradictions to expose. I welcome that if you are able.

Given that I do not see Gen 1 as requiring synchronization in universe time, there is no time problem to address in Gen 2.

This makes no sense at all. God has not revealed what is “universe time”. It also would be foolhardy to reveal the creation account in a time that is meaningless to humans on earth. It would seem that He was writing the account for angels instead of his human creation. I don’t think so.

So yes, in Gen 2 the man knows more than the woman and bears more responsibility; not because he is a man, but because he knows more.

Don, my friend, I am absolutely thrilled that we agree on one thing. May the Lord bless you real good!

The first sermon that we heard our new pastor preach was amazing to me because it really hit the nail on the head. He said that there is no peace unless there is both justice and righteousness. He said that righteousness without justice cannot bring peace and neither can justice without righteousness. There has been a barrier between male and female that is dissolved in Christ. But that peace between the two must have both justice and righteousness. When those who hold to male privilege teach the righteousness of the gospel but hold women back and give them no justice, there is a deep hole in our hearts. When we are brought together with our brothers in Christ and are no longer stopped from ministering, then we will come a lot closer to being a bride ready for her bridegroom.

91 Don,

And a natural metaphor (for me) is evening is the onset of darkness/night, which is associated with less order and morning is the onset of light/daytime, which is associated with more order. And God is increasing the order in Creation in each day, so this metaphor makes sense in context.

If you are saying that God chose evening and morning to not indicate time but rather to indicate “less order”, then you are saying that each new time period starts out with “less order” then the day before. This is not a natural thought from the text. If this is the picture that God wanted to bring, He would have done much better to show light getting brighter and brighter from dark to dim to medium brightness and then to full brightness. But to show a recurring pattern of dark to light to dark to light to dark to light, etc, is not an indication of going from disorder to more order to even more order to the most order. It is going backwards instead of continuing forward. It is much more natural to take the passage for exactly what it says.

I would also like to see a second witness that shows “evening” being used to mean less order. None of the bible examples that you gave show that meaning.

Part of the reason is that God can create over time, that is, the “creation days” can be times of proclamation of God’s activity that will take place over universe time in any order God wishes. For example, the first 3 days are anti-tohu (form) and the latter 3 are anti-bohu (void). I see this as a literary device that forms an ordered structure of forming the places for the occupants.

It doesn’t seem reasonable to me that God would express an “ordered” creation by using a mish-mash of numbered days that are meaningless. Why even give a number to day one if it isn’t first in time? Maybe Eve was created before Adam on day two? Didn’t God think that people would scramble what He said?

I have been told that God inspired wrong grammar (in 1 Timothy 2:15) because God can do anything He wants. The problem with having God communicate meaningless words is that it makes Him to be a mutterer of nonsense. Ever hear a person who isn’t quite sane who mutters things that don’t make sense? Is our God like that? That is what some seem to think. They make it appear that God doesn’t have to use the rules that he creates for us. He doesn’t have to make sense. He doesn’t have to use proper grammar and he can give an ordered creation a meaningless set of numbers that have no correlation to His works.

However if we take Genesis for what it actually says, we see that animals were also created after Adam. This is an extremely important event. It helps us to understand that the woman was not a dimwit who could be easily deceived while the man was smarter than Eve was. Instead it gives us a valid reason why God made Adam the guard of the garden and why God deemed Adam’s sin to be treacherous.

I would really like you to consider that the animals were made after the man (the second half of the creation of the animals). Do you not see any significance to this at all? If we cannot believe the order that God gave then by what logic can we believe any man who tells us the order of creation? And then perhaps woman wasn’t created after man. Perhaps it is only a metaphor that we are supposed to figure out and we haven’t got it yet. It is crazy making to think that there is no solid foundation in Genesis, just make it say whatever one “feels” is right. We have been there before.

Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.

Why would thousands or millions of years be described as morning (singular) and evening (singular)? One daytime and one nighttime doesn’t work well for millions/billions of years. I think it would have been wise for God to say there were mornings (plural) and evenings (plural) if He meant to identify many human days. Remember that God is the one who created time.

However it might be better to discuss the issues that I have brought up regarding why Adam was not deceived, like the issue of animals created after Adam. How does the creation of animals after Adam in Genesis 2 become an important fact to glean from the account? Does this present any problems for those who see the creation account as sequential events over thousands (millions, billions) of years? Or is the creation of animals after Adam a thing to be ignored by OEC believers? This is what interests me.

I agree that ” consistent and well-defined methods of interpretation” is important. I also believe that there is a difference between those who try to be consistent with the creation account and those who see the accounts as what I would call OT parables, or non-literal stories because there is no consensus on what the parables mean. This is not consistent. For those who try to be consistent, I think it is helpful to dialog because it isn’t also understandable to us what is believed. I think the next post will be very helpful to explore our views. That is when I get a chance to finish it. Hopefully I can break away from family to finish it on Sunday.

I do sincerely appreciate the respectful dialog on these issues.

Paula,
It looks like your comment was coming in at the same time as I was writing my comment.

If I said that you only saw what you want to see, that would have been a wrong way to say it as it would come across as if I know your motives and I certainly do not. If this is what I said, then I ask your forgiveness. It is not up to me to judge heart motives.

Having said this, I have been feeling like Don is promoting the old earth view and not just interacting with my argument. I have not removed any link because I do want to steer clear of controlling the conversation. This is a place to speak up and say what we think without having to have someone control as long as the comments are respectful. Yet when a view is promoted that I believe contradicts some very important principles of scripture, I have to speak up. Yet I will not close my ears to the argument. I will challenge the view by the scriptures and I will listen carefully for the answers so see if it is I who err. But if someone misses out on my argument and is influenced by old earth because of my own blog, then would it not be right for me to feel bad? Would I not be to blame like I have missed out in providing a solid rebuttal using the scriptures? I do welcome any one to try to refute me, but it does make me nervous when there is no refutation of my view, just a challenge to read up on the other side where the other side gives a point of view that has no opportunity to be challenged because it is not interactive.

I hope this is understandable. I will be out of the office for a week, but I will be working on finishing the next post that I am already well on the way to putting on line. When I get a chance I will pop in here to read the comments and respond to as many as I can.

I have great love for you all, whether you accept my view or not. The fact that all of you read what I have to say is such a blessing to me. Thank you!!!

Don,

All I want to assume is that anyone (young earth or old earth view) will be open enough hear and understand the points that I am bringing out and then I would desire that they would be open-minded enough to test my argument by the scriptures. If anyone who follows my blog were to dismiss my arguments just because it contracts their presuppositions, then the door is shut for me to teach them anything.

This is where I put the rubber to the road as far as what submission means. Submission means that one is willing to listen and understand what is being taught. Submission can mean that one is willing to reflect back what he/she hears in order to make sure they properly understand. Then the teaching must be tested for truth against the only measuring stick that is not a rubber ruler. The test must be against the word of God.

I usually chose not to ignore alternate arguments. I try to ask questions to pinpoint the meaning of the argument so that I can fully understand where the person is coming from. Sometimes my questions are not answered so I find myself assuming I know what they mean. If I am wrong, I like being corrected because it would never do to misrepresent another point of view. When I get to that point, I must test the view by the scriptures. Some may think that this is a wrong thing to do. Some may think that one must just accept another view as valid so that there is no one right view. I do not believe this is scriptural. The Apostle Paul’s teaching was tested by the Bereans and they were considered “noble” for testing even the Apostle Paul. If we test a teaching by the word of God, we too should be considered “noble”. Unless we are instructed that our biblical test is wrong or that we misunderstood the opposing view, the test from scripture will stand. When we our views are tested by the scriptures by others, it gives us a chance to correct our view to measure up to scripture, refine our view or hold to our view even more strongly if it stands the test.

As far as “evening and morning” that go together with the first day, day two, etc, how would we know what metaphor “evening and morning” refer to? If there is no reference to another meaning, how could we ever come to a consensus about what it means? It seems impossible unless we just take God at his word that there was a time period one the earth that appeared as a dark time (night) and a light time (called day) followed by another dark time and another light time, etc?

I think the thing that amazes me is the closed mindedness that most old earthers have. Perhaps I am just so amazed because I don’t think this way. I understand that truth is more valuable than my own ego and I also understand that truth can be uncomfortable. Because of that I brace myself to accept truth even if it is uncomfortable and even if contradicts my point of view. But I will not accept another point of view without first testing it by the scriptures. For for old earthers I don’t see them trying to test my arguments by the scriptures. When I have been on other forums all I got was science and reason. The scriptures did not play a major part or perhaps any part at all in the “test”. That way of thinking just doesn’t cut the mustard with someone like me who wants truth more than life itself. However the spiritual truth that I will hold onto will always and only be the truth that is able to be tested by God’s word. Does that seem fair?

Ah, I think I was mostly preaching to myself in what I said. The ones who consider themselves my enemies think they have the power to stop me from ministering. They think that they have the power to harm and I have no power to continue to serve because of God’s grace. Those who seek to harm God’s sheep will reap what they sow. None of us can afford to rent any space in our heads over the persecution that we receive at their hands, because it is God’s business and it is our business to be faithful and carry on what God has called us to do.

See what you did to me by mentioning “enemies”? It was an opportunity for me to reflect on my own inability to make peace with those who hate what I am doing for God’s women. Now that I have taken that moment, those unnamed ones will go back into the “uncounted” box in my head. 😉

Paula,

I am learning that those who have set themselves up as my enemies can be safely ignored so they don’t “count”.

I am also learning that God will deal with those who unjustly attack us. Paul mentioned the name and he spoke about the harm one of his attackers did to him, but he left it in the hands of the Lord for the “payback”. This leave us free to serve without having to worry about our enemies.

2 Timothy 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.

In essence if our enemies are in the Lord’s hands for Him to give them to reap what they sowed, then to us they truly don’t “count”. Think on this as you count up your brothers and sisters in Christ. 🙂