We know Mt. Everest was not as high in Noah’s day as it is today. Therefore that is a scientific fact.
I really doubt God created a magic wall to hold the waters in the Mesopotamian valley to the North, South and West, just so thousands of years later, people could call it a local flood.
It is scientifically impossible for the flood of Mesopotamia to be local if the mountains to the east were under water.
The point is not about Ken Ham and his business practices. My point was the SIZE of Noah’s Ark and if you were living in Noah’s day and saw that ark, don’t you think the word would spread all over Pangea?
The scholarly article in Science and God at Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were Not 24 Hours (for example) - begs to differ.
And even if scholars **could **reach a consensus, there’s still the problem of Genesis and modern science, along with inerrancy and infallibility - in regards to understanding Genesis.
Nice thoughts.
I suspect, God knowing the heart of mankind, knew in advance only 8 would be saved.
It is not that God just “knows the end from be beginning” though to be sure that is incredible. It is scriptural to state:
“God declares the end from the beginning” (Isa.46:10) and so He declared what the end would be prior to the flood.
Some have asked me, “If God already knew only 8 would be saved, why did He plead with mankind for 100 years to repent prior to the flood?” My answer would be that mankind didn’t know just how evil their heart was. And so God had to reveal that to them.
It is like God gave the law to Israel even though He knew in advance Israel could not keep the law. But Israel thought she could keep the law. So it was a lesson to be learned.
I am sorry I lost the tracking of this argument, however, your question is very interesting. Regarding Scriptural data I cannot think of much. However, I speculate that the witness of Noah was universally heard by all mankind so that the condemnation of unbelieving mankind was just, fair, and universal. God is always just and fair. Hebrews 11:7 suggests that Noah’s witness was heard by all mankind.
How many hours are “from evening to morning” to “evening to morning” to “evening to morning” to “evening to morning” ect.?
In other words, if you go from one evening to the beginning of the next evening, that is one solar cycle, it is not?
No. Not necessarily See how days are used in different ways, in the article. I think you are over simplifying science and the Genesis creation story, when each day could be understood differently - in terms of both biblical exegesis and modern science.
Some questions for you:
Did you read The scholarly article in Science and God at Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were Not 24 Hours ? What is your reaction to the article? Especially, how they relate the different days of the creation story and a 24-hour period?
Where do you stand on modern science and their evidence of the big bang, old earth, Carbon-14 dating, evolution, etc?
Where do you stand on biblical inerrancy and infallibility?
I will have to read more from your link. I did read some.
As to the “Big Bang”, scientifically speaking, I don’t see how there could have been the sound of a bang since space is a vacuum. However God did spread the universe out as a tent, the OT states.
I am one who believes Genesis 1:1 is when God created the heavens and earth and that Genesis 1:2 is when the earth became chaos and vacant of all life. Genesis 1:2c is when God began to make the already existent earth habitable again. There could be millions of years between 1:1 and 1:2c.
Some call it “the gap theory” but I call it “the gap fact.”
Isa_45:18 For thus says Yahweh, Creator of the heavens; He is the Elohim, and Former of the earth, and its Maker, and He, He established it. He did not create it a chaos. He formed it to be indwelt. “I am Yahweh, and there is none else.”
Since He did not create the earth a choas, it had to become chaos and vacant.
I am also one who does not believe man evolved from a “knuckle dragger” if you will. 6 or so thousand years is just too short a time for that kind of evolution to have occurred after the earth became vacant of all life and God making the earth habitable again.
I think you will find, Eusebius, that if folks ask the right questions - they might find their positions are not that far apart.
Mainline Christians would normally fall, into one of 2 categories:
Basically, there are those who believe in different findings of modern science: Big Bang, evolution, carbon-14 dating, etc. Not everyone would believe in all modern science findings.
Then there are those that believe that every word of the Bible is true. And any apparent contradictions, need to be explained away. That’s the whole thrust of “creation science”.
It depending on which side Bible scholars and theologians side with.
Do they try to explain all scientific findings, theories and experiments, into a 7 day, 24-hour creation cycle (i.e. creation science)?
Or do they try to explain it, with a longer creation cycle (i.e. gap theory, as you mentioned)?
Jeff - who started this thread - prefers the first category. Most others here (like myself), prefer some variant on the second category.
Hi HFPZ,
Well I re-visited the link you provided (thank you for that) re: days in the Genesis account.
Here is something they wrote:
Of course I disagree with their idea above that God created the universe, including the earth on the first day. Genesis doesn’t say such.
I am of the persuasion that the spirit of God creating a vibrational frequency over the waters separated the waters and also the creation of light is the summation of what God did on the first day of making the earth habitable again. Remember, God did not create the earth a chaos. Therefore the creation of the heavens and earth and becoming a chaos etc. did not occur on day one.
http://themoderatevoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/dgasfdfd-e1396033514879.gif
Yes. They feel some things were done in 24 hours, on a particular day. And some “days” in Genesis, would take more than '24 hours", to accomplish everything the text said. And they didn’t bring in science, to explain the text - like they said.
Everyone will have their own spin on different Biblical texts. Either here on this forum, or in the mainstream Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant worlds.
So those on this forum, that are good at arguments and academic style presentations, can really put forth any biblical viewpoint - and defend it. All via Sola Scriptura. Same thing is true in the mainstream Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant worlds.
Yes, this is why I like to just share my understandings. If folks don’t see things the way I do, at least we can be respectful of opposing ideas.
I look at things this way. What we are trying to do is reconcile the findings of modern science and Genesis. There are many ways to do this:
The Gap theory, like you suggested.
The God and Science article position
The Morning and Evening as an Idiom
Etc.
If someone can put forth a reasonable and arguable position, to bridge modern science and Genesis (other then to fit them into a 24 hour times 7 framework) - I’m all for it.
I do have great respect for folks like Paidion, Jason and Davo. They are very good at putting forth positions and defending them. And to understand my mannerism, you need to be familiar with the historical Eastern Orthodox, Holy Fools tradition.
For what we are discussing now, just give me some reasonable theories and ideas, to reconcile the findings of modern science and Genesis (other then to fit them into a 24 hour times 7 framework) .
Build me an escalator to Mt. Everest and I’m happy. 
I see only one contradiction between mainstream science and a literal reading of Genesis 1-3. There is nothing in the text literally read to contradict the Big Bang, billions of years, the evolution of life, and all the rest. The one exception is the biological evolution of mankind from animals. The text literally says that God created Adam from the dust of the ground and Eve from Adam’s side. One would have to understand the three verses of Genesis 2:7, 21-22 in a non-literal manner to believe in the biological evolution of man. The other 77 verses of Genesis 1-3 literally and plainly read do not contradict mainstream science.
It is not widely known that early 20th-century American Christian fundamentalism did not have any religious problems with billions of years, a local Flood, and even biological evolution. Its one beef was with the biological evolution of man. Read The Great Monkey Trial by L. Sprague de Camp (1968) for a thorough history of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. Also consult the 90 essays (published from 1910 to 1915) collectively entitled The Fundamentals (from which we get the term “fundamentalism”). They, too, oppose only the biological evolution of mankind. In other words, Fundamentalism originally had things figured out. It recognized the plain truth that the only pronouncement of modern science at variance with the plain words of Scripture is the biological evolution of mankind.
The Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris (1961) muddied the waters by positing readings of the Scripture that are anything but plain and literal. They were in part inspired by the Seventh-Day Adventist George McCready Price, who tried to give scientific foundations to some of the purported visions of his prophetess, Ellen G. White (who died in 1915). Modern young earth creationism is an unusual outgrowth of Mrs. White’s trances.
Just to be clear on a point. I think you will find that the modern day Seventh Day Adventist Church (and its members), tend to distance themselves, from the visions and prophesies of Ellen G. White.
Anyway, as an aside, the Protestant site Patheos, had some interesting articles today:
The Yin-Yang of Contextualization
Preview of a New Book about Calvinism…
While it is indeed true that many contemporary Seventh-Day Adventists distance themselves from Mrs. White’s visions, George McCready Price (1870-1963) did not. Here is a major writing of Mrs. White’s about the Flood:
whiteestate.org/books/pp/pp8.html
I’m not a big fan of Mrs. White. It’s unfortunate that someone as late as 1963 - still paid her homage. If we look at Seventh Day Adventists, they used to be considered on the fringes by mainstream Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox groups. In fact, I have read that a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, can’t marry someone from the Seventh Day Adventist church - in the Seventh Day Adventist Church (is this correct, Geoffrey?). It’s all to do the prophetic revelations of Ellen G. White. There’s even a Wiki article entitled Criticism of Ellen G. White. What I found particularly interesting in the second article, is the mental illness section (which would also encompass organic illness). The modern Seventh Day Adventists have distanced themselves from her and are more accepted by mainstream Christian groups these days.
Suppose we were coming to join the Seventh Day Adventists. How would we determine if Ellen G. White was a real prophet? It’s an interesting thing to ponder. I think you will find a real prophet, is always 100% right (can anyone name me a case, where a true Old or New Testament prophet - prophesied anything incorrectly?). Take my Protestant Christian mom - now deceased at 92.5 - having the lifelong gift of prophesy. She never “advertised”, “charged money”, nor “sold tickets”, but she was always right. And she told me as a Boy Scout teenager, to take an umbrella to a parade. None of the weather TV or radio services forecast rain. And I got ribbed by fellow scouts. Until there was a downpour, in the middle of the parade. And I was the only one - with an umbrella.
P.S. Here’s an interesting prayer article I found today.
My understanding is as follows:
It is of course best for a member of the Orthodox Church to marry a fellow member of the Orthodox Church.
A member of the Orthodox Church is reluctantly allowed through economia (but certainly not encouraged) to marry a non-Orthodox Christian who A) has received trinitarian baptism, B) agrees to be married in the Orthodox Church, and C) agrees to have all their children baptized, chrismated, and raised in the Orthodox Church.
Obviously, probably only someone not too serious about his own denomination would agree to marry an Orthodox on those terms.
I think Seventh-Day Adventists receive trinitarian baptism, don’t they? If so, an Orthodox could conceivably marry a Seventh-Day Adventist.