Greetings to all readers of this discussion:

Point of information ...  The full text of his discursion upon the nature of
the Genesis narrative, as well as its context and commentary upon it by
YECs, was first posted on Allan Turner's bulletin board at:

http://pub3.ezboard.com/brethinkingsbulletinboard.html

I have taken the liberty of lifting most of what I will say here from that
post.  I apologize for the length of this essay.

At the moment, I have arrived at a position on the Genesis creation story
which seems satisfactory to me, but I have no hope or ambition that it will
satisfy anyone else. I am a long way from being the smartest fellow who has
ever attempted to deal with these issues, and I need to do a lot more
studying of what the scriptures have to say on these subjects before I can
feel comfortable with my position. This whole process has been a learning
experience for me, and I am sure the learning is not done.

To make this argument as terse as possible I am going to use the style of a
formalism, positing and defending a series of propositions.

FRAMEWORK PROPOSITIONS

1.  My purpose in this discussion is formulation of the strongest
possible position which both accepts the teaching of scripture as the
inspired word of God and explains nature as creationists see it today.

I doubt that purpose is shared by all others. I have observed in "science
and scripture" discussions a cognitive analog to quantum physics. In the
latter, it is the manner in which we observe which determines what we
observe. In the former, the objective of any investigation heavily
influences-I would not want to say "determines"-the result. I believe the
objective stated in (1) can be accomplished, though in an imperfect manner
as our knowledge is imperfect, and in an even less competent manner by me
because of my own deficiencies in ability and lack of time to devote to the
problem. But someone who is determined to show that the conclusions of
modern science must be rejected if one is going to believe the Bible will
undoubtedly find my conclusions unsatisfactory.

Taking (1), therefore:

2.  Any proposed reading of Genesis 1 must at some point also account
for nature as creationists observe it.

All YECs argue a young-earth interpretation of scripture as their reason for
rejecting the old-earth interpretation of nature.  Please note that (2) does
not exclude young-earth or catastrophic explanations for nature. It simply
says that before we elevate any truth to the status of (capital-T) Truth we
must validate it against God's cosmos. This proposition is just as fair as
the YEC/AAC insistence that OECs deal with the various creation accounts
found in scripture.

3.  Either the YEC burden of the interpretation of nature or the OEC
burden of the interpretation of scripture may be waived by an appeal to
agnosticism.

PROPOSITIONS CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE

4.  No statement in scripture can be understood apart from its context.

5.  The context of scripture includes the purpose and perspective of the
Bible.

6.  The perspective of scripture is anthropocentric and geocentric.

7.  The purpose of scripture is human redemption, not revelation of the
natural history of the cosmos.

I take (4), (5) and (6) as axiomatic. I believe (7) because the evangelistic
teaching of the New Testament does not include the natural history of the
earth or the cosmos except to assert that they are the result of the
miraculous work of God.

8.  Not all parts of the Bible are equally essential or useful in saving
sinners.

No part of the Bible is unnecessary, and the more we understand of it the
richer our faith and the more profound and elevated our growth. But my
salvation begins with a recognition of MY sinfulness, not Adam's. Paul's
argument in Romans is that I can know both my sinfulness and something
fundamental about the Personality before Whom I am a sinner completely apart
from scripture. I must turn to scripture for the remedy, but the foundation
of that remedy is not found in Genesis. The majority of scripture concerns
the history of the Jewish nation, and one does not have to start with any
part of that history-or the Canticle, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Job or
Genesis-to be saved. The foundation of the Christian faith is the
incarnation and resurrection of Jesus.

9.  To interpret any statement in the Bible as a "scientific statement"
is to misuse the Bible.

This proposition follows from (4) and (5). There are many kinds of truth:
logical, scientific, historical, visionary, mythical, allegorical. Science
does not have a monopoly on truth: there are truths (quite likely the vast
majority) which cannot be discovered or validated by the "scientific
method." The Bible, as proposed in (7), is concerned with non-scientific
truths. I do not argue that there are no scientifically verifiable
statements in scripture, but scripture would not be falsified if none was
found. To attempt, as some well-meaning apologists have done, to "defend"
the Bible by looking for "scientific truths that those primitive people
could not have known" is a serious mistake. If we insist that our
cherry-picked passages are evaluated scientifically in order to "prove" that
the scriptures are divinely inspired, skeptics will quite logically insist
that they be able to subject all literal statements in scripture to the same
test, and they will easily be able to defeat our argument.

CONVERGING PROPOSITIONS

10.  A miracle-in-progress may not be evaluated according to the
scientific method.

A miracle is by definition a singularity: a literal event which is outside
the scope of scientific investigation because it is inherently unrepeatable.
A black hole is a singularity. Jesus' changing water to wine was a
singularity.  Joshua's long day was a singularity. These events can be
described as historical events, and their effects, once the divine hand is
removed, can be evaluated scientifically. But no scientific description of
the process of any divine singularity is possible. By asserting "no
scientific description of the process," I claim that it is not possible to
describe the process of a singularity in terms of the four dimensions of
"ordinary" space-time, of material causality, or of observational sequence.
To put it another way, it is not possible to explain in terms of material
causality how God applied His non-material causal power to generate
miraculous effects.

11.  The creation story in Genesis is the description of a
miracle-in-progress.

The story of creation in Genesis 1-2 may, IMHO, involve-from the valid
perspective of geology and cosmology-the passage of a large amount of time,
during which natural causality could be observed (and the effects of which
can be observed today). This opinion does not invalidate (11).  I insist
that the supernatural causal agency of God was required repeatedly in the
natural history of the cosmos. Indeed, science is increasingly discovering
evidence of God's intervention as the shackles of pure materialism are
progressively discarded.

APPLICATION PRINCIPLES

Therefore, following the two lines of arguments (4) - (9) and (10) - (11):

12.  The Genesis creation account may not be taken as a scientific (one
which uses the tools of material causality, observational sequence, and
measurements of space-time) account of creation.

In other words, the Genesis creation account is not meant by the Holy Spirit
as an "alternative" or "competing" account to creationist observations of
nature, which-unless they begin with a young-earth bias-always result in the
conclusion that the cosmos is very old. There is no contradiction (though a
tension may be felt) between Genesis and nature if (4) - (12) are true.

An aside:

12a.  Creationist scientific observations of nature are not equivalent to
taking the Genesis account as a scientific account of creation.

When we infer that it has taken billions of years for the earth to reach its
present state, we are not using the tools of science to evaluate the
creation account in Genesis, which is a true but non-scientific account of
how the cosmos reached a state of readiness for the human part of the story.
We are instead looking at the other side of a single coin. However, the fact
that we are looking at a single coin which is ultimately of miraculous
provenance raises the possibility that the shape on one side of the coin may
be part of the shape on the other side: there may be "scientific truths" in
the Genesis creation account which ought to be factored into a creationist
evaluation of the history of nature.  We have to balance this realization,
of course, with what scripture tells us about the moral holiness of God, and
the difficulty of supposing that God unnecessarily left a "false history" in
nature. But, accepting the axiom that God is the author of both nature and
scripture, neither YECs nor OECs should find it unnatural to offer our
conclusions from our knees.

13.  While we affirm the creation as a historical event, the description
of the "creation process" in Genesis may not be taken as a sequence of
"historical" events.

This proposition follows from the fact that the creation story is the story
of the progress of a miracle. We can say, "God created heaven and earth" as
an assertion about history. But we would have to be able to make
"scientific" assertions about the sequence and duration of events in order
to describe the progress of any miracle in historical terms. In other words,
the "how" of a miracle is not only inaccessible to science, it is
inaccessible to history as well.

Therefore:

14.  Creation is a historical event, and it is a scientific fact (albeit
apprehended by faith) that creation happened. But the sequence of events
recorded in the creation story in Genesis cannot be considered either
scientific or historical.

offered from the perspective of a student, still learning,

Tom

Greetings to all readers of this discussion:

Point of information ...  The full text of this discursion upon the nature
of the Genesis narrative, as well as its context and commentary upon it by
YECs, was first posted on Allan Turner's bulletin board at:

http://pub3.ezboard.com/brethinkingsbulletinboard.html

I have taken the liberty of lifting most of what I will say here from that
post.  I apologize for the length of this essay.

In this post I provide an exposition of a position on the Biblical account
of creation which both accepts the Bible testimony and allows for holding
the findings of science which do not expressly contradict the scriptural
account. I have already explained why I do not believe that statements about
creation made in Genesis are intended as "scientific-historical"
explanations of creation, and why the Genesis account is therefore not in
conflict with interpretations of nature which hold that nature is billions
of years old.   I apologize for the length of this post.

God based His instruction to the Jews, that they were to work for six days
and rest on the seventh day, on His work in creating the heavens and the
earth.  According to many expositors, the strongest case for the assertion
that the "days" of the Genesis creation account were 24-hour days is God's
use of His creative work as a pattern for the Jewish work-week. Therefore, I
begin this exposition in Exodus 31, where God restates the Sabbath
regulations and says, "It will be a sign between me and the Israelites
forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the
seventh day he abstained from work and rested" (Exodus 31:17). This text
presents us with three "problems."

One of these "problems"--that God needs rest and refreshment-is an
interesting datum which might lead us to wonder if the statement in Exodus
is meant literally.  But I will not spend any more effort on this issue.  It
is the two other matters which are, I think, the keys to improving our
understanding of the creation story.

The first of these is the use of the word "forever." When God states His
intent He states a fact. His intent, as revealed in this text, is that the
Sabbath day be "a sign between me and the Israelites forever." But we know
from subsequent revelation that the Sabbath covenant is no longer in effect.
What, then, is the force of the word "forever" in this text?

The second problem is found in the letter to the Hebrews, the purpose of
which is to show the superiority of the covenant of Christ over the covenant
given by God to the Jews through Moses. Creation is not the primary point
under discussion, but creation is discussed. The writer's assertion of
superiority for Christ is based first on the fact that, "... through
[Christ] He made the universe ..." (Hebrews 1:2). The Hebrew writer
discusses the Sabbath day and its connection to the other six days of
creation explicitly. He quotes from Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit's "invitation"
and concludes, "So I declared on oath in my anger, they shall never enter my
rest" (Hebrews 3:11). Continuing his discussion the writer tells us that, "
... the promise of entering his rest still stands ..." (Hebrews 4:1). What
"rest" does he mean?

For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words:
"And on the seventh day God rested from all his work." And again
in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest." It
still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly
had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their
disobedience. Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today,
when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
"Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." For if
Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about
another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;
for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just
as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that
rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.
(Hebrews 4:4-11)

This passage does not appear to me to leave any doubt that the seventh day
of God, His day of rest, is still underway. The "rest" we are invited to
enter is specifically said to be the same rest that God entered after the
sixth day of creation, which God swore that the disobedient Israelites would
never enter. If the first six days of Genesis 1-2 are literally 24-hour
days, what information in any OT text makes the seventh day different? How
can we argue that the first six days must be 24-hour days, but not the
seventh? From the texts we are given in Genesis and Exodus, we cannot. After
all, the Jews rested on the seventh day, but they did not continue to rest:
they went back to work the next day! But Hebrews tells us the Sabbath-rest
of God existed during Joshua's time and still exists today! Hebrews chapter
4 and the 95th Psalm indicate that the seventh day is not a 24-hour day.

Thus, the strongest case that we can make for a "6X24" creation contains two
interesting problems: God makes a statement about "forever" which evidently
does not mean what it says, and the seventh day on which the "6X24"
interpretation depends is not a literal 24-hour day. How can we resolve
these two difficulties?

One of the most important points made in Hebrews is the inadequacy of the
Mosaic covenant, not on account of any divine deficiency, but because it was
incomplete. The incompleteness of the regulations delivered through Moses
and the angels is reflected, among other things, in information which was
only "temporarily true": true only until God saw fit to provide the
completing information, at which point the old information became
"obsolete."

This fact helps us understand the "forever" in Exodus chapter 31. The Jews
to whom the Law was being given could not know it, but we today know that
there was something more yet to be revealed, and that the "forever" was in
fact intended to be temporary. When more is revealed, the facts stated in
the text are superceded: they are "obsolete and aging [and] will soon
disappear."

Now we come to the crucial question. Is it possible that the Genesis account
of creation, the pattern upon which the sanctification of the Sabbath is
based, is an "incomplete" story in the same way that the "forever" in the
institution of the Sabbath covenant is incomplete? Is it possible that the
information in the creation account is given with the purpose that it will
someday be superceded, not by science but by perfect knowledge (which
science certainly does not represent)?

In answer to this question, first notice that the assignment of six days of
work to the Hebrews, and the command that they should rest on the seventh
day of each week, was an ordinance restricted to the covenant of Moses. But
the sanctification of the Sabbath day was not so restricted, for the Holy
Spirit tells us, "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been
doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed
the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work
of creating that he had done" (Genesis 2:2-3). This sanctification of the
Sabbath took place thousands of years before the Mosaic covenant was
instituted.

Subsequently, in creating the covenant relationship between Himself and the
Jews, God referred to the creation account and used it as a pattern for the
Jewish work-week. Those who hold that the creation week is a literal week of
seven 24-hour days maintain that, therefore, the Jews' work-week must have
been exactly like God's work-week. Perhaps they are right. However, there
are several facts which might cause a pious exegete to question whether the
Bible creation story was intended as a simple and direct account of God's
work; such as: (1) the very uniqueness of the creation event; (2) its
standing as a "miracle process" which is not describable in
scientific-historical terms (as I previously demonstrated); (3) the
difficulty of formulating a direct and detailed description of how God
wrought the cosmos. In light of these issues, the conclusion that the Jewish
work-week must be exactly like the creative work-week would be decisively
undercut if we knew of some other instruction God had given to the Jews in
which a divine model was used to illustrate an item which the Jews were to
imitate, which the scriptures tell us they could not and were never intended
to imitate successfully.

Exodus chapters 25-27 describe in very elaborate detail the construction of
the tabernacle and its furniture. Moses was warned specifically, "See to it
that you make them according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." When
these items were finished, God confirmed that the Israelites had made the
articles of the tabernacle according to the pattern by visiting the tent
with His presence. Were the tabernacle and its articles accurate copies of
reality? We know they were not, for the Hebrew writer tells us, "[The
Levitical priests] serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and a shadow of what
is in heaven" (Hebrews 8:5). After describing that "earthly" tabernacle, he
states, "When Christ came as a high priest of the good things that are
already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that
is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation" (Hebrews
9:11). They copied what Moses was shown, yet neither the tabernacle nor the
sacrifices offered accomplished that purpose for which God specifically told
the Jews He was giving them. The tabernacle and sacrifices associated with
it were poor imitations-"shadows"-of the tabernacle which Christ entered to
make atonement. And since the Jews had faithfully copied the pattern that
Moses saw in the mountain, even that pattern must have been an "incomplete"
representation of Christ's reality. That is the reason that His entry into
the heavenly tabernacle made the Jewish tabernacle and its sacrifices
obsolete.

Now, if we had reason to believe that the same situation prevailed with
regard to the Jewish work-week as prevailed in regard to the Jewish
tabernacle, we would have a scriptural warrant for regarding the pattern of
the work-week which the Jews were shown as "incomplete" as was the pattern
of the tabernacle which Moses was shown. Of course, we do have two reasons
to believe that God's instruction to the Jews regarding their work-week was
incomplete: first, the fact that the "forever" in the text in Hebrews 31 has
manifestly been superceded by subsequent revelations; and second, the fact
that the seventh day is still underway.

If the sanctification of the Sabbath is based on God's work in creating the
heavens and the earth (it is), but the Sabbath which God sanctified is not a
24-hour day (it is not), then the possibility that the creation account in
Genesis (which includes God's "original" sanctification of the Sabbath) and
Exodus is "incomplete" must be allowed. Moses was shown a pattern, from
which Israel faithfully copied the tabernacle, but the pattern itself was
incomplete: the "real" atonement did not look anything like that pattern.
Israel was also given a pattern of its work-week: the seven-day creation
week. But given what we know about the seventh day, it is entirely possible
that the Jewish work-week was only a shadow of God's actual creative work,
and that the pattern of the work-week which the Jews faithfully copied was
not intended to represent any simple and direct sequence of creative acts,
or to tell us how many hours it took for God to prepare the earth for Adam
and Eve.

I suspect, therefore, that the "days" of creation are God's time, not time
or sequence as science would observe. I believe that God showed the Jews a
pattern for their work-week, and as applied to the Jewish week the pattern
consisted of a "7X24" week. But just as the pattern of the tabernacle which
Moses so faithfully executed was only a shadow of the reality which Christ
would bring, so the pattern of the seven-day week was only a shadow of God's
true creative week, which is still underway as God's seventh day.

Indeed, there are other texts which suggest that the days of creation are
not a linear sequence of time. Though the seventh day continues today, God
is not confined to that day (John 5:17). And we are given indication that,
having entered that seventh day of rest, there will "later" be work for us
to do (Matthew 25:23; 1Corinthians 6:3). Like the Jews before the completion
of revelation in Christ, we are (at least I am) unable to understand exactly
what is meant by the week of creation. But perhaps that deficiency in my
understanding is due to the fact that complete knowledge awaits our
glorification at the end of time. The instructions and revelations God gave
to the Jews were completed in Christ, so that we can know what God meant
when He told the Jews certain things. But the six "working days" of
creation, and the sanctification of the seventh day which continues to the
present, are artifacts of creation, the meaning of which awaits the
redemption of creation and the glorification of the children of God (Romans
8:18-25). From what the Hebrew writer tells us, we should be able to
perceive that regarding the creation-days as simple 24-hour days may be an
inadequate way of understanding God's creative miracle. One day--may it be
soon!--the pattern of the creation-week may "become old and pass away." What
more than that fact we can know, I am unable at this point to say.

CONCLUSION REGARDING THIS INTERPRETATION

Beyond the texts I have cited, I have no way of knowing whether or not this
interpretation is correct, and I do not expect anyone who reads this
discussion to agree with it. However, it has been my intent, an intent I
believe I have met, to interpret scripture in a manner which is consistent
with a "conservative" and reverent approach. I do not see that we have any
problem-free interpretations of the Genesis account available to us, and I
do not see that the "scientific-historical" interpretation has fewer
problems than the others. It would therefore appear to me, pending critical
reaction by other readers of this discussion, that the interpretation which
I have proposed is a likely to be valid as any others.

from one who is still learning,

Tom

Hi, Rod.

Your Russian reports do not provide any support for your discredited
idea. Frankly, I don't like the confusion you promote with this
information that is at best tangentially related to your proposal but
not actually relevant to substantiating what you are trying to
support. If those astronomers are presenting information and
explanations that genuinely imply that the stellar explosion SN1987A
could have occurred less than 10,000 years ago rather than about
168,000 years ago, then please, please (I'm absolutely serious about
this Rod!) contact them and invite them to present their information
to us and discuss it. Since you and I both know that their discussion
has *absolutely* nothing to do with proposing this about SN1987A,
your citations of them is nothing more than the smoke-and-mirrors of
rhetorical obfuscation. I'm being completely honest and forthright
with you, and everyone else, when I state this. I am being as
forthright about this as I am, because it is my sincere belief that
it is wrong for you to continue to present these citations of
legimitate astronomers as being somehow in support of your
discredited YEC lightspeed decay even though we all know that these
astronomers are not actually presenting anything in support of this
already discredited idea.

In essence, you agree that (1) it is a fact that *absolutely* no
effects of lightspeed decay are observed, and (2) you posit any
number of "explanations" for how lightspeed decay could have occurred
and yet not be detectable ("explanations" which in some cases even
contradict each other) even though (3) you have *absolutely* no
evidence for any of these "explanations," and (4) you make
*absolutely* no attempt to explain how these "explanations" which in
some cases imply pretty bizarre changes to the physical state of
reality which are incompatible with life on earth 6,000 years ago.
You do this in the face of (5) all astronomers (i.e., professional
experts in the relevant field) who would laugh (and have laughed) at
the discredited YEC lightspeed decay idea (and I do not state this as
ridicule, I state this as a very honest fact at the absolute lack of
credibility of the YEC lightspeed decay idea), and you do it despite
the fact that (6) besides astronomy, there is also terrestrial
geology which in learning that the earth is ancient has completely
independent information which happens to be consistent with the
astronomical fact that the universe is ancient.

Of course, you could easily "blow a hole" in my criticism of your
support of lightspeed decay: Simply provide examples where
astronomers observe the predicted slow motion effects.

Magic fairy dust is what makes me sometimes feel extra sleepy when I
wake up in the morning. I don't need any evidence. It's just a neat
idea. Therefore it's a legitimate argument. Right?

Finally, this is something like the third or fourth time you have
said "no more on this topic from me," and I have honored your
statements to this effect by making no more comments on it myself -
until you end up bringing it up again. It is any wonder that
scientists and others become so exasperated over the sheer
intractibility of YECs in refusing to give up bad ideas? This is a
perfect example.

Regards,
Todd


######## Roderick Bernitt ########
Todd, did you read the Russian reports? Todd, you said [Simply
provide examples where astronomers observe the predicted slow motion
effects.]

The point of slow motion effect in Setterfield cDK (not same metrics
as the Russian) is that we would observe radioactive decay rates
(among other variables and possible constants) in proportion to c
today - 3 x 10^10 cm/sec, not in proportion to say c at 3 x 10^15
cm/sec. Same applies to the fine structure constant so I stand by my
criticism posted yesterday. You would probably do better using
neutrino momentum change(s) and possible Cherenkov radiation observed
as a side effect from cDK but the 2 arguments used in this newsgroup
are in my opinion, not an absolute refutation of Setterfield cDK slow
motion effect. You can disagree with me and that is okay, no more on
this topic from me, thanks----Rod

To those who are following this discussion:

As I have stated in this and other forums, my position on the age of the
earth is haunted by the ghost of Galileo.  I believe that YECs are making
the same mistake that the established religious order in the days of Galileo
made:  they are attempting to force a "scientific" meaning into statements
in the Bible.  Rod has given us a good example of this thinking by
speculating that "the waters above the heavens" refers to God collecting
hydrogen to form into stars.

The Galileo episode was as much political as scientific and exegetical.  But
there is simply no denying--even though the YECs will attempt to do so--that
it had a dispute over exegesis at its core.  And it is *a simple historical
fact* that those who defended geo-centrism did so *from scripture* and
*because of what the scripture said*.

One can find within scripture itself reasons to question whether the
creation account in Genesis is intended to be taken as a scientific and
historical description.  But one cannot find any place in scripture any
similar equivocation concerning the relative motion of the sun and earth.
There are literally hundreds of references to the motion of the sun relative
to the earth which may be found in scripture.  There are literally zero
texts in scripture which state that the earth orbits the sun.  Defending
geo-centrism from scripture is much easier than defending from scripture the
notion that all of creation was accomplished in 144 consecutive hours.

Several texts will confirm this point.

Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the
Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel:
"Sun, stand still over Gibeon;
And moon, in the valley of Aijalon."
So the sun stood still,
And the moon stopped,
Till the people had revenge
Upon their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jasher?  So the sun stood still in the
midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
(Joshua 10:12-13)

There is simply no misunderstanding what this text states.  It was the sun
which "stood still," not the motion of the earth.  It was the moon which
"stopped."  The text says it "did not hasten to go down for about a whole
day."  Bible students could see clearly what the inspired word said.  They
did not need "false science" to tell them which object moved and which
object stood still.

In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,
Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
And rejoices like a strong man to run its race.
Its rising is from one end of heaven,
And its circuit to the other end;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.  (Psalm 19:4b - 6)

If we needed any confirmation that it was the sun which stood still during
Joshua's long day, this text provides it in the clearest language possible.
It is the sun which will "run its race" every day."  It runs "from one end
of heaven ... to the other end."  If the Holy Spirit were intending to tell
us that it is the sun which moves, and that it moves from one end of heaven
to the other, *what clearer language* could be used?

The sun rises and the sun sets,
And hurries back to where it rises.  (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

Again we note how directly Koheleth confirms the testimony of the other
writers.  The sun rises, goes across the sky, sets, and then moves
underground back to the place where it must rise.

The earth does not move.  Indeed, arguing that the earth might move is
clearly contrary to what scripture says.

On what were its footings set,
Or who laid its cornerstone   (Job 38:5)

The earth is set on a foundation, a fact confirmed in numerous texts.

In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth  (Psalm 102:5)

It is a *historical fact* that God laid the foundations of the earth in the
beginning.

... that you forget the Lord your Maker,
who stretched out the heavens
and laid the foundations of the earth ... (Isaiah 51:13)

An object set on a foundation, which scripture clearly says is the case with
the earth, cannot move about another object.  It certainly cannot move about
the sun, and the scripture says clearly that it is the sun which moves about
the earth.  There is not a single "scientific" or "historical" point which
scripture teaches more clearly than this one, including the alleged
"scientific" reading of 144 hours of creation!  From their perspective, the
defenders of geo-centrism had many scriptural reasons to regard the notion
that the earth orbited the sun as a "damnable heresy."  Will you accept the
fallible theories of fallible science based so shakily upon human reason, or
will you accept the clear and un-contradicted testimony of the infallible
word of God?  Which will it be?

How does anyone know, from the scripture, that it is the earth which orbits
the sun?  This is a question which the YECs who are participating in this
discussion will not dare attempt to answer.  It is a question which neither
the Anchors nor the Watchmen will dare to consider.  All they will say is
that since they agree that the earth orbits the sun, the ghost of Galileo is
not an issue for them.

That's because they refuse to acknowledge the *historical fact* that all the
arguments they are making today for a particular view of the Genesis
creation account were made 500 years ago on behalf of geo-centrism.  What
made them wrong then, and right now?  If you are now willing to reject what
science says about the age of the earth, why are you not now willing to
reject what science says about the earth going round the sun?

Or maybe you're ready to tell us that the earth really is set on a
foundation, the sun really does move, and it goes across the whole sky.  Who
can deny that's what the Bible says?  Who can deny it says so clearly, in
various ways, without any contrary indications?  Are you going to trust
fallible science, or the infallible word of God?

tom

Tom, you said here

[13.  While we affirm the creation as a historical event, the description
of the "creation process" in Genesis may not be taken as a sequence of
"historical" events.]

In my opinion, I believe this is probably the biggest difference between YEC
and OEC interpretations of Genesis chapter 1.-----Rod

Todd, this is wasted time on your part in my opinion.  See this text below -

Here is a crude metric I have worked on based upon arguments that pulsar
spin rates and cepheid variable star periods would show dramatic changes
today.

(c_n/c)*P_o = P_i  (1.0)

dP_i/dc = dP_o/dt  (2.0)

In equation (1.0), c_n = velocity of light > c today (c_n > 3 x 10^10
cm/sec).  c = velocity of light today (3 x 10^10 cm/sec). P_o = period of
cepheid or pulsar observed today in relation to c.  P_i = period of cepheid
or pulsar in relation to c_n (something we do not observe).

Equation (1.0) suggests that cDK slow motion effect (at least in Setterfield
model) could result in very rapid pulsar spin rates and cepheid periods in
the early universe (if equation 1.0 applied.)  In equation (2.0), t = time
so today perhaps we would expect to see a time rate of change in pulsar spin
rates and cepheid periods.  A question needs to be asked about equation
(2.0), is the dt going to be a very short time span as measured on earth or
a very long time span?  I ask this because if c was decreasing in velocity
in the unobserved past, time may have dilated or expanded in the universe
too.  dP_o may not be something that astronomers would observe today unless
dt was a small value.  I don't know and the whole subject is speculation but
I find it interesting.

Anyway Todd, provide your metrics in response to mine or show how equation
(2.0) would be expected to observed today if cDK and slow motion effect had
taken place in nature.  You need to show your predictions here, otherwise
please stop, thanks-----Rod

Tom, interesting.  Was the problem with the Bible or the Church adopting
Ptolemy sysem from the 2nd Century AD and reading this back into the Bible?
I did not see any mention here of Ptolemy in the influence he had when he
published his Almagest.  This text I believed highly influenced the Church
and its interpretation of the scripture-----Rod

Rod:

Ptolemy *influenced* the way the church interpreted scripture in that day,
just as other uninspired writers--beginning with Whitcomb and Morris in
1961--influence the way YECs interpret scripture today.

However, the point is that they defended their position from scripture, just
as YECs today do.

My answer to your question is that the "problem" was not the Bible:  it was
*their reading* of the Bible, which we now know to be flawed.  Flawed, I
must add, by the same flaw as the YEC reading of Genesis.  It doesn't matter
much to me if the "influence" is Ptolemy or Morris.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 8:21 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] The Ghost of Galileo

Tom, interesting.  Was the problem with the Bible or the Church adopting
Ptolemy sysem from the 2nd Century AD and reading this back into the Bible?
I did not see any mention here of Ptolemy in the influence he had when he
published his Almagest.  This text I believed highly influenced the Church
and its interpretation of the scripture-----Rod

okay but my point is that the problem was not the Bible but Ptolemy
influence which is an example of taking secular science and using it to
reinterpret the Bible.  YEC folks would claim OEC folks are making the same
mistake today-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 10:28 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] The Ghost of Galileo

Rod:

Ptolemy *influenced* the way the church interpreted scripture in that day,
just as other uninspired writers--beginning with Whitcomb and Morris in
1961--influence the way YECs interpret scripture today.

However, the point is that they defended their position from scripture, just
as YECs today do.

My answer to your question is that the "problem" was not the Bible:  it was
*their reading* of the Bible, which we now know to be flawed.  Flawed, I
must add, by the same flaw as the YEC reading of Genesis.  It doesn't matter
much to me if the "influence" is Ptolemy or Morris.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 8:21 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] The Ghost of Galileo

Tom, interesting.  Was the problem with the Bible or the Church adopting
Ptolemy sysem from the 2nd Century AD and reading this back into the Bible?
I did not see any mention here of Ptolemy in the influence he had when he
published his Almagest.  This text I believed highly influenced the Church
and its interpretation of the scripture-----Rod

Rod:

Then you *missed* the point.  "Secular science" in that day said that the
earth went round the sun.  "Standard exegesis" of scripture--influenced by
Ptolemy--said that the sun went round the earth.

Today "secular science" says the earth is billions of years old.  Secular
science might be wrong.  But it's secular science that YECs say they want to
reject.  "Standard YEC exegesis" of scripture--influenced by Whitcomb,
Morris, AiG, ICR, et al.--says that the earth is at mos 10,000 years old.
That's the situation.

The analog to Ptolemy today is not "secular science"; it's AiG/ICR/Morris.
What they did was argue *scripture* against "secular science."  I have
demonstrated beyond yours or anybody else's ability to refute that
*scripture*, read the way they read it, says that the sun orbits the earth.
They argued that from *scripture*, Rod, not from the _Almagest_.  Today YECs
argue their case from *scripture*, and they use the science fiction found in
_The Genesis Flood_ a lot more liberally than the theologians of Galileo's
day used the _Almagest_.  That's *history*.  Deal with the facts, Rod.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 8:30 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] The Ghost of Galileo

okay but my point is that the problem was not the Bible but Ptolemy
influence which is an example of taking secular science and using it to
reinterpret the Bible.  YEC folks would claim OEC folks are making the same
mistake today-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 10:28 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] The Ghost of Galileo

Rod:

Ptolemy *influenced* the way the church interpreted scripture in that day,
just as other uninspired writers--beginning with Whitcomb and Morris in
1961--influence the way YECs interpret scripture today.

However, the point is that they defended their position from scripture, just
as YECs today do.

My answer to your question is that the "problem" was not the Bible:  it was
*their reading* of the Bible, which we now know to be flawed.  Flawed, I
must add, by the same flaw as the YEC reading of Genesis.  It doesn't matter
much to me if the "influence" is Ptolemy or Morris.

tom

No Tom, secular science from AD 140 until the early 1600s did not teach the
earth went around the Sun, Ptolemy system was geocentric, the earth was the
center and the Sun revolved around it.  Secular science had adopted the
Ptolemy system, even Carl Sagan knew this and admitted to it.  So too
Astronomy and Sky & Telescope magazines admit this about astronomy in that
period.  Remember Copernicus?-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 10:41 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] The Ghost of Galileo

Rod:

Then you *missed* the point.  "Secular science" in that day said that the
earth went round the sun.  "Standard exegesis" of scripture--influenced by
Ptolemy--said that the sun went round the earth.

Today "secular science" says the earth is billions of years old.  Secular
science might be wrong.  But it's secular science that YECs say they want to
reject.  "Standard YEC exegesis" of scripture--influenced by Whitcomb,
Morris, AiG, ICR, et al.--says that the earth is at mos 10,000 years old.
That's the situation.

The analog to Ptolemy today is not "secular science"; it's AiG/ICR/Morris.
What they did was argue *scripture* against "secular science."  I have
demonstrated beyond yours or anybody else's ability to refute that
*scripture*, read the way they read it, says that the sun orbits the earth.
They argued that from *scripture*, Rod, not from the _Almagest_.  Today YECs
argue their case from *scripture*, and they use the science fiction found in
_The Genesis Flood_ a lot more liberally than the theologians of Galileo's
day used the _Almagest_.  That's *history*.  Deal with the facts, Rod.

tom

Rod:

This is obfuscation on your part, and you know it.

Copernicus and Galileo, based on *scientific observation*, stated that the
earth went round the sun.  _De revolutionibus orbium coelestium_, published
shortly after Copernicus' death, so argued.

It was the theologians of the day, not the scientists of the day, who based
on *scriptural interpretation* said that the sun went round the earth.

You have not dealt with any of the texts in scripture that I cited.  You
will not.

I want all readers to see this point.  Rod is *not* going to deal with the
texts I cited, the texts which the defenders of geo-centrism in Galileo's
day used to put Galileo into prison.  He is *not* going to deal with those
texts because he is using the same kind of approach to scripture that they
used to defend a young earth.  Rod thinks he can make everyone believe that
the people who put Galileo under house arrest were defending the _Almagest_.
They were not.  Rod knows they were not.

The facts, Rod.  Deal with the facts.  Deal with the texts in scripture I
cited.  I dare you.

I said I dare you.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 8:47 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] The Ghost of Galileo

No Tom, secular science from AD 140 until the early 1600s did not teach the
earth went around the Sun, Ptolemy system was geocentric, the earth was the
center and the Sun revolved around it.  Secular science had adopted the
Ptolemy system, even Carl Sagan knew this and admitted to it.  So too
Astronomy and Sky & Telescope magazines admit this about astronomy in that
period.  Remember Copernicus?-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 10:41 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] The Ghost of Galileo

Rod:

Then you *missed* the point.  "Secular science" in that day said that the
earth went round the sun.  "Standard exegesis" of scripture--influenced by
Ptolemy--said that the sun went round the earth.

Today "secular science" says the earth is billions of years old.  Secular
science might be wrong.  But it's secular science that YECs say they want to
reject.  "Standard YEC exegesis" of scripture--influenced by Whitcomb,
Morris, AiG, ICR, et al.--says that the earth is at mos 10,000 years old.
That's the situation.

The analog to Ptolemy today is not "secular science"; it's AiG/ICR/Morris.
What they did was argue *scripture* against "secular science."  I have
demonstrated beyond yours or anybody else's ability to refute that
*scripture*, read the way they read it, says that the sun orbits the earth.
They argued that from *scripture*, Rod, not from the _Almagest_.  Today YECs
argue their case from *scripture*, and they use the science fiction found in
_The Genesis Flood_ a lot more liberally than the theologians of Galileo's
day used the _Almagest_.  That's *history*.  Deal with the facts, Rod.

tom

Yes Tom, Galileo was arrested because of *Church Doctrine* but the YEC
maintain that this *doctrine* was the direct result of using Ptolemy
Almagest as the basis for secular science.  Once secular science adopted the
geocentric system, the Church simply read this back into the Scripture
passages and used Scripture to defend secular science.  When Copernicus and
Galileo arrived, the Church doctrine was threatened.  The mistake was the
Church using Ptolemy to interpret the Bible for nearly 1500 years-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 10:58 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] The Ghost of Galileo

Rod:

This is obfuscation on your part, and you know it.

Copernicus and Galileo, based on *scientific observation*, stated that the
earth went round the sun.  _De revolutionibus orbium coelestium_, published
shortly after Copernicus' death, so argued.

It was the theologians of the day, not the scientists of the day, who based
on *scriptural interpretation* said that the sun went round the earth.

You have not dealt with any of the texts in scripture that I cited.  You
will not.

I want all readers to see this point.  Rod is *not* going to deal with the
texts I cited, the texts which the defenders of geo-centrism in Galileo's
day used to put Galileo into prison.  He is *not* going to deal with those
texts because he is using the same kind of approach to scripture that they
used to defend a young earth.  Rod thinks he can make everyone believe that
the people who put Galileo under house arrest were defending the _Almagest_.
They were not.  Rod knows they were not.

The facts, Rod.  Deal with the facts.  Deal with the texts in scripture I
cited.  I dare you.

I said I dare you.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 8:47 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] The Ghost of Galileo

No Tom, secular science from AD 140 until the early 1600s did not teach the
earth went around the Sun, Ptolemy system was geocentric, the earth was the
center and the Sun revolved around it.  Secular science had adopted the
Ptolemy system, even Carl Sagan knew this and admitted to it.  So too
Astronomy and Sky & Telescope magazines admit this about astronomy in that
period.  Remember Copernicus?-----Rod

Tom,

Hello again. Let me take up what you wrote:

>>No, I don't want to quibble about a few minutes, but I will ask:
How long, from the first prophecy, did it take God to bring about the birth
of His son?
For how long has Jesus been upholding the creation by the word of His power?
How long did it take God to accomplish the prophecy given in Hos 6:2?
How long did God work to accomplish the prophecy in Gen 49:10?  In Psalm 2?
Any other Messianic prophecy?<<

Prophecies stating the future work of God should be distinguished from the
actual time that a miracle takes place. The spoken commands of God in Genesis
one were not prophetic statements. Hos. 6:2 may not refer to any miraculous
activity in regard to physical Israel.

I had read Hill Roberts' material before and looked over it again. Would I be
more precise to say that Hill says that God proclaimed what He would do on
each day and then it took however long to be fulfilled? Would this not be six
creative proclamation days with gaps of time for their fulfillment in
between? What am I misunderstanding?

I read over your treatise on Ex. 20:11 and the comparison of the week of
Gen.1 and the Sabbath week. I want to respond to a few points on that, but I
am up against it in time. I must be away from my computer for a week, and so
I will take it up when I return. I will still get whatever mail you send in
the meantime. I will read it when I return.

Thanks for the ongoing discussion.

Marc Gibson

Rod:

And the mistake you guys are making today is using AiG/ICR/Morris to
interpret the scripture, and then using the scripture to "prove" that the
earth is less than 10,000 years old.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] The Ghost of Galileo

Yes Tom, Galileo was arrested because of *Church Doctrine* but the YEC
maintain that this *doctrine* was the direct result of using Ptolemy
Almagest as the basis for secular science.  Once secular science adopted the
geocentric system, the Church simply read this back into the Scripture
passages and used Scripture to defend secular science.  When Copernicus and
Galileo arrived, the Church doctrine was threatened.  The mistake was the
Church using Ptolemy to interpret the Bible for nearly 1500 years-----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 10:58 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] The Ghost of Galileo

Rod:

This is obfuscation on your part, and you know it.

Copernicus and Galileo, based on *scientific observation*, stated that the
earth went round the sun.  _De revolutionibus orbium coelestium_, published
shortly after Copernicus' death, so argued.

It was the theologians of the day, not the scientists of the day, who based
on *scriptural interpretation* said that the sun went round the earth.

You have not dealt with any of the texts in scripture that I cited.  You
will not.

I want all readers to see this point.  Rod is *not* going to deal with the
texts I cited, the texts which the defenders of geo-centrism in Galileo's
day used to put Galileo into prison.  He is *not* going to deal with those
texts because he is using the same kind of approach to scripture that they
used to defend a young earth.  Rod thinks he can make everyone believe that
the people who put Galileo under house arrest were defending the _Almagest_.
They were not.  Rod knows they were not.

The facts, Rod.  Deal with the facts.  Deal with the texts in scripture I
cited.  I dare you.

I said I dare you.

tom

Thanks Tom, some good comments on your part.  For me, YEC folks would likely
say the same applies to OEC who use big bang and geology and then go back
and rexamine the Bible, take care----Rod


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Couchman
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 11:52 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] The Ghost of Galileo

Rod:

And the mistake you guys are making today is using AiG/ICR/Morris to
interpret the scripture, and then using the scripture to "prove" that the
earth is less than 10,000 years old.

tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick Bernitt, USACCSA
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: [CreationProcessAge] The Ghost of Galileo

Yes Tom, Galileo was arrested because of *Church Doctrine* but the YEC
maintain that this *doctrine* was the direct result of using Ptolemy
Almagest as the basis for secular science.  Once secular science adopted the
geocentric system, the Church simply read this back into the Scripture
passages and used Scripture to defend secular science.  When Copernicus and
Galileo arrived, the Church doctrine was threatened.  The mistake was the
Church using Ptolemy to interpret the Bible for nearly 1500 years-----Rod

Tom,

Continuing our discussion of Heb. 4:

You wrote...
>>Are you willing to apply the same technical rigor to all statements in
scripture about "foundations of the world" and "God's work" that you are
trying to apply to the text in Hebrews?<<

Sure, if the immediate context will allow it. In Job 38:4, the "morning
stars" could refer to spiritual being (angels). The spiritual realm was
already in existence before the physical realm. John 5:17 does not refer to
"creation" working, for that was finished "at the foundation of the world."
God continues to work in redeeming man from his sins. God has been doing many
things on that front since man first sinned. The Father and Son are one in
purpose and work for man's salvation.

The word "world" in Heb. 4:3 is "kosmos" and can refer to the whole created
universe unless the context limits it. Nothing in the context here would
limit it to something less than all of the physical creation. A parallel
context is Rom. 1:20 "since the creation of the world (kosmos)" - this would
take in all of God's creation in the observable heavens and earth. Heb. 4:3
is a precise statement about the historical six day work of creation. It
supports the literal understanding of Gen. 1-2. The entire work of creation
was accomplished "at the foundation of the kosmos," at the beginning. This
would include man's creation. He is no late-comer on the creative calender.

On the rest of God...

>>Heb 4:9-10--"There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.  For he
who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did
from His."
What "rest" remains?  Into Whose rest are we to enter, if not God's rest?
What is God's rest if not the seventh day? At the start of this text the
"rest" was the "seventh day."  At the end of this text the rest into which
Christians may enter is the same rest that God entered when He ceased from
His works.  Now how do you deny that the seventh day is still in existence?<<

Why are you equating the rest of God itself with the day that He rested on?
The day is the day and the rest is the rest. The "rest" is not the "seventh
day." The Scripture says that God rested "on" the seventh day. The rest and
the seventh day are not the exact same thing. One was accomplished on the
other. The seventh day was sanctified. The rest itself continues. The rest
can continue long after the day that it was started on. The only way you can
have the seventh day still continuing is to say it is the exact same thing as
the rest. But the rest is not the day. The rest was done "on" the day.

The context teaches that man could enter the rest of God at different times,
but some failed to do so because of disobedience. There is identified
"another day" reserved for us today (4:8). Why "another day" if the same
"day" is continuing from the seventh day of the creation week? Because that
day ended, but the rest of God continues and we have an opportunity today to
enter it. Same rest - another day. Each day we call "Today" is another day to
enter God's rest in Christ.

Thanks for the good spirit of discussion. I may not be able to respond again
before I must be away for awhile, but I will still get the e-mail and will be
back with you as soon as possible. Look forward to hearing from you on these
matters and giving them careful attention.

Marc Gibson