Cheryl

Michael: Regarding your post #2 on the length of days.

You said “The seventh day has not ended. Is Hebrews in error when it suggests the seven day was not 24 hours?â€

I understand and I think most people understand that the word in Hebrew as well as the word in English for “day†can mean several things depending on the context. I don’t think that is a point of contention at all. However I fail to see in the verses that you point to in Hebrews that says that the seventh day has not ended. The Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God is not God’s rest that he is doing but the rest that God provides for us. If God’s rest is still continuing i.e. the 7th Day has not ended, then I think that would contradict the words of Jesus. He said in John 5:17: But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” If the Father is working until now, then he isn’t resting, right? Perhaps I have missed something that you see clearly. Where in Hebrews in the passage that you quoted does it say that God is still resting? Also if you believe that God is still resting, how would you explain the apparent contradiction of the words of Jesus that the Father is working right now?

As far as some of the early Church fathers that thought that the days of creation were longer than 24 hour periods, I haven’t studied that so I can’t comment on it directly, but it doesn’t bother me any more than the same Church fathers who also believed that women were inferior to men. It isn’t an issue of salvation and the church certainly hasn’t been with one mind on many issues throughout our history. I don’t think we can condemn any of the church leaders for their position on secondary issues. I don’t anyway and I would hope you don’t either. That is why I have said that it is more important to me to give you reasons for why I believe as I do and why I reject the old earth theory rather than to try to convince you. It is an important matter to me, but it certainly doesn’t come close to a salvation issue.

As far as the Evangelical leaders who embrace an ancient earth, I’m afraid that doesn’t impress me. I have never been impressed with PhD degrees. I have seen many men with PhD degrees take a very unbiblical stand on the women’s issue. In fact I think pretty much everyone that I counter in my DVD has a doctorate degree. I have had people who have been so impressed with the quality of people on CBMW’s board and their board of reference that they ask me how I could produce a DVD disputing their interpretations of scripture. While I accept these men as my brothers in Christ, their PhD degrees don’t seem to have stopped them from making some critical errors regarding the women’s issue. I also am reminded of the scriptures that say that God uses the lowly and those of us who are nothing in the world’s eyes to confound the wise.

1 Corinthians 1:26– 29 in the Amplified Bible “For [simply] consider your own call, brethren; not many [of you were considered to be] wise according to human estimates and standards, not many influential and powerful, not many of high and noble birth. [No] for God selected (deliberately chose) what in the world is foolish to put the wise to shame, and what the world calls weak to put the strong to shame. And God also selected (deliberately chose) what in the world is lowborn and insignificant and branded and treated with contempt, even the things that are nothing, that He might depose and bring to nothing the things that are, So that no mortal man should [have pretense for glorying and] boast in the presence of God.

I am not against education, but I think that sometimes education can be used to put more weight onto a person’s opinion than it ought to. Okay, here’s one of my thinking outside the box thoughts. If God hasn’t chosen many wise in the world’s standards then we might be better off disregarding any weight that PhD degrees places on one’s opinion and just test to see if a person is consistent with scripture rather then how much education they have. A case in point, it seems like the balance is off on the women’s issue in that more PhD kinds are on the side of the complementarian position. I know that there are people who won’t even dialogue with other people who aren’t on their PhD level. One Pastor told me it was intellectual snobbery. But I read a blog of a Baptist Pastor that really touched my heart. He said that he can learn from anyone no matter how insignificant that person is in other’s eyes. When we stop learning from others in the body of Christ just because they don’t seem to have the right amount of education, I think we miss out on so much that our Lord Jesus has for us.

I agree with you when you say that we should not have any extra-biblical agenda, ignore what scripture does say and that we should not make scripture say anything that it does not say. I can’t speak for anyone else but myself, but I know that I want only the truth that scripture has and anything extra biblical that doesn’t line up with scripture, I want to reject. In my opinion, the view that is correct will always have all of scripture line up. When one must ignore scripture or rewrite it to fit one’s view, it becomes suspect in my eyes. One of the biggest objections that I have to the old earth theory is in how it changes the biblical account of the flood. I don’t want to assume that I know anyone’s motives on why they do that, but I just can’t see how one can take the flood account and make it a local flood.

In Genesis 6:17 God says that he will bring a flood on the earth, not a flood on Egypt or Israel, or wherever.

In Genesis 7:17 the flood lasted for 40 days and the waters came not just from the sky but the waters in the earth were opened up to gush out. In verse 18 the flood waters increased greatly on the earth. The Hebrew word for greatly is a word that can mean abundance, might or power. In verse 19 every mountain was covered “under heaven†and the waters were higher than the mountains by about 22.5 feet. I don’t see how a vast expanse of water that high above the mountains could possibly be a local flood.

I also have a problem with Genesis 2:19 in that the old earth view doesn’t even want to try to make the verse fit into their timeline using the grammar that animals were also created after Adam as well as before Adam. In my view, I don’t have a problem if animals were only created before Adam. I also don’t have a problem if animals were created both before and after Adam. My view cannot be shaken in any respect no matter how the grammar is viewed. However it seems to me that the old earth view must contradict the grammar and cannot accept the grammar either way. I am not sure why because one would think that there would be some way to put the second creation of animals into their view without having any contradictions. If one cannot (and I would encourage you to try to see if you can find room for it) then this means that someone like me who holds to a strong view of scripture with inspired words and inspired grammar could never be an old earth person. Do you understand the dilemma that I see?