Then there we have it. I've just put YEC to rest here on this thread. Unless some one can prove otherwise of course. So far no one has been able to shake it.

There are those who believe that the world was created 4004 BC and in six days literally. That makes the world six thousand years and provides an insight into the millenium of Revelation as making for a 7 thousand year old earth - six thousand years followed by a thousand years of peace for a Sabbath rest before the Lake of Fire and so on...

But, it all rests on the literalism of the creation account in Genesis. If day one is not a literal day, well then Genesis is not literally true. This is established at the very beginning of the Bible. The whole house of cards built on a sand foundation (literalism) comes immediately crashing down! And Babylon has just fallen as far as I'm concerned.

There are also others, old earth creationists, who accept that the earth is old as science shows and like to say "a day is like a thousand years" to God. The idea is that Genesis is symbolic for thousands or even millions of literal years of the earth existing. The foundation is likewise built on sand. The ability to calculate both "days and years" comes on the fourth day of creation. So there couldn't have been so much as one literal day nor one literal year before the fourth day of creation and each day can not possibly be symbolic for any number of literal years at, bringing that house of cards down to the ground as well. It isn't science, it's mythology!

We can calculate the days in hindsight. You see, a day is simply the rotation of the Earth. As long as the Earth is rotating, the words hold true. There doesn't need to be a sun for there to be a day. Everything in the YEC worldview can be rationalized. First, the axiomatic underpinnings need a sprinkle of magic!

tat tvam asi wrote:Then there we have it. I've just put YEC to rest here on this thread. Unless some one can prove otherwise of course. So far no one has been able to shake it.

There are those who believe that the world was created 4004 BC and in six days literally. That makes the world six thousand years and provides an insight into the millenium of Revelation as making for a 7 thousand year old earth - six thousand years followed by a thousand years of peace for a Sabbath rest before the Lake of Fire and so on...

But, it all rests on the literalism of the creation account in Genesis. If day one is not a day, well then Genesis is not literally true. This is established at the very beginning of the Bible. The whole house of cards built on a sand foundation (literalism) comes immediately crashing down. Babylon has just fallen as far as I'm concerned.

There are also others, old earth creationists, who accept that the earth is old as science shows and like to say "a day is like a thousand years" to God. The idea is that Genesis is symbolic for thousands or even millions of literal years of the earth existing. The foundation is likewise built on sand. The ability to calculate both "days and years" comes on the fourth day of creation. So there couldn't have been so much as one literal day nor one literal year before the fourth day of creation and each day can not possibly be symolic for any number of literal years, bring that house of cards down to the ground as well.

The explanation is a simple one and is not the one Interbane proposes. If you care to stop by the Genesis forum I will post it soon. Meanwhile, it would be productive if you did a careful reading of Genesis Chapter 1.

I am surprised that no one else has explained it before.

Interbane wrote:We can calculate the days in hindsight. You see, a day is simply the rotation of the Earth. As long as the Earth is rotating, the words hold true. There doesn't need to be a sun for there to be a day. Everything in the YEC worldview can be rationalized. First, the axiomatic underpinnings need a sprinkle of magic!

The problem here is that the bible says that the sun was created on the fourth day for the purpose marking a day and a year. The first day has no way of being marked, or calculated until the fourth day when the sun is made to calculate time. The "evening and morning" of the first day has no point of reference to mark either a literal "evening or morning" without the existence of the sun which was created to do just that on the fourth day.

I suspect that the real answer is that this a creation myth arranged symbolically to provide three environments of existence paired with things to inhabit these environments of existence (1-4, 2-5, 3-6, and 7). Not literal days, not literal years of any type, not a literal explanation for either the origin of the earth nor the origin of life on the earth. I wonder if this can really be rationalized away in the end, the bitter end.

Stahrwe, I just hit a Roman Catholic with it recently, in person, and he immediately confessed that it isn't to be taken that literally. He just leaves the creation of the world as the mystery that it actually is in reality. We have no absolute answer at present because it's a work in progress. Why not be honest everyone about it Stahrwe? Don't you fancy sticking to the "truth" in life? I sure like to try to. The truth is that neither you or any other person has absolute knowledge of origins. Any one suggesting they do is lying and are therefore working in terms of "darkness", "deceit", and "error". Do mean to suggest that you have absolute knowledge of origins Stahrwe? That's a red flag for sure.

It isnt actually very mysterious either.

Its made up. Just make believe. That explains how it doesnt make sense in the real world, or even within the bounds of its own explaination.

it doesnt make sense because it is non-sense. garbage taken down in written language.

I am fully on board with your investigation here Tat, you can and should hold his feet to the fire, but unfortunately you won't end up boiling answers to the top of his YEC stew. You'll just end up with burnt mess.

Thanks Johnson1010, I'm honestly truth seeking here. It seems that one of the two options - symbolic or literal - can be eliminated as invalid. I just eliminated the option of literal. So symbolic is left standing. Then the question is symbolic of what? It can't be symbolic of literal years going by for each day of creation, so that is eliminated. It is symbolic in terms of pairing environments with the celestial orbs and livings creatures set to the number 7 mythological theme (1/4, 2/5, 3/6, 7). But of course that doesn't establish the literal age of the earth in any way. One has to take the myth literally in order to do that. Man had to be literally created on the literal sixth day of creation just as the bible literally says it. And his literal descendants lives have to be calculated to the present day in order to give the earth a young age which then conflicts with science and observation.

So this house of cards seems to rest on the foundation of Genesis 1 being taken literally true. With the sand foundation exposed to the tide that has just come in, it would seem the entire house falls down as the sand foundation of literalistic interpretation[/] is washed out. You'd think that a YEC proponent would do anything and everything to prevent that from happening rather than evade and attempt to divert the issue elsewhere. But, perhaps evading and diverting the issue elsewhere is a conscious or sub conscious mind strategy to draw attention away from the sand foundation of YEC so that no one will realize just how easily washed out it actually is when the torrent comes? It would be a good apologetic strategy for the most part, but it only works on those willing to take the diversion of course.

tat tvam asi wrote:Stahrwe, I just hit a Roman Catholic with it recently, in person, and he immediately confessed that it isn't to be taken as literal. He just leaves it as the mystery that it actually is. We have no absolute answer as it's a work in progress. Why not be honest about it?

Well, I'm not a Roman Catholic, and it is not a work in progress.

Read Genesis Chapter 1 again.

tat tvam asi wrote:
There are those who believe that the world was created 4004 BC and in six days literally. That makes the world six thousand years and provides an insight into the millenium of Revelation as making for a 7 thousand year old earth - six thousand years followed by a thousand years of peace for a Sabbath rest before the Lake of Fire and so on...

Maybe Stahrwe can answer this question regarding Young Earth beliefs. Some Creationists say the earth is about 6,000 years old, but Stahrwe has said that it's actually about 8,000 years old. For the moment I won't comment on the absurdity of guessing the age of the earth based on texts that were written 2,000 years ago. But I do wonder what weird ideological permutation accounts for this discrepancy.

geo wrote:

tat tvam asi wrote:
There are those who believe that the world was created 4004 BC and in six days literally. That makes the world six thousand years and provides an insight into the millenium of Revelation as making for a 7 thousand year old earth - six thousand years followed by a thousand years of peace for a Sabbath rest before the Lake of Fire and so on...

Maybe Stahrwe can answer this question regarding Young Earth beliefs. Some Creationists say the earth is about 6,000 years old, but Stahrwe has said that it's actually about 8,000 years old. For the moment I won't comment on the absurdity of guessing the age of the earth based on texts that were written 2,000 years ago. But I do wonder what weird ideological permutation accounts for this discrepancy.

Take 8 billion and drop the last six zeros.

Sorry, feeling a bit giddy this afternoon with all the birthday wishes.