Troy Elliott Eckhardt wrote:
>
> I must confess that I have Young Earth Creationist leanings, but that I do
> not claim to have it all worked out. The workings of it all, however, are
> the be-all, end-all of neither my existence nor my salvation.
Some on this listserve would claim that most people who believe in a
young earth feel that it NECESSARY for a Christina to believe in a young
earth. Do you have many acquaintances who lean as you do and how do they
feel about this.
>
> I must also confess that I recognize only the Authorized (King James) Bible
> as scripture in English. (Do I hear feathers rustling?) There are too many
> differences between the versions for them all to be correct. I also don't
> care for, nor do I intend to initiate, a debate on this issue. I have
> debated it before, heard all of the arguments both for and against, analyzed
> the situation, and have made a personal decision. Either there is absolute
> authority, or there is not. This decision is based on my belief in the
> inspiration of the Textus Receptus over the Latin Vulgate, if you really
> want to know.
I believe that is a very good position. Others have quoted later
translations as resolving some issues -- but that could well be because
they were "interpretations" instead of "translations".
> I understand that yom (day, era, time, etc.) can mean several things when
> translated into English.
>
> The clincher for me in the "what is a day?" discussion is "and the evening
> and the morning were the nth day." I wonder if we cannot trust the word
> "day" in the Bible, whether we can trust the words eternal, life, atonement,
> blood, redemption, salvation, etc. My concern is that either the Bible is
> true or not. If it is not perfectly true, then I can throw it into the cult
> section of my library, which may include works and references which some of
> the readers of this forum may hold in reverence, therefore I wont name them.
> Suffice it to say that I believe the entire Bible, and I believe it
> literally. Merely because I cannot understand portions of scripture does not
> prove the fallibility of its author, conversely, it proves my own.
>
> I also understand that light was created on the first day, dividing light
> (Day) from darkness (Night) , but that the lights in the heaven were created
> on the fourth day.
That particular sequence is what "Big Bang" theory would say also. Light
(electromagnetic force) came about in the first second of time while
matter and stars came later. (For what it is worth.)
And I too wonder how there could be days and nights for
> three days without the sun.
>
> I also see that the Earth itself was void and without form, yet it may be
> that it existed before the works of creation on the first day.
>
> Aye, what a conundrum!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 2:43 AM
> Subject: Days of Gen 1
>
> > To my YEC friends (and I really don't have anything personal
> > against you).
> >
> > Where in Gen 1 does it say that the creation days are
> > necessarily one right after the other? My NASB says
> > there was one day, a second day...not Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday.
> >
> > I have heard much commentary over why the text doesn't say
> > "first day." Could us modern westerners have misinterpreted
> > before we had sufficient scientific evidence?
> >
> > I realize the NIV uses "first day." Everything I have read
> > indicates the NIV translation is looser. This is not without
> > risk.
> >
> > Jim
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 16 2002 - 17:50:30 EST