Young Earth Frustration

[_stemelbow]

I see no indication in the text that the actual work was done by another. You've gone beyond taking the text figuratively to impressing upon it that which is not there at all.

edited to correct spelling.

That's the point of not taking the text literally. It might not quite convey the intended meaning, originally designed. Also, I see no reason to assume that God, for instance, spoke and light first shined. Perhaps light was already somewhere. The flashbulb went on when He spoke.

[_Hoops]

This is just silly, there are enough studies on genesis that one can understand the creation story as purely metaphorical.

What does this mean? Just because one "can" understand Genesis as metaphorical doesn't mean one should.

To believe in a young earth is a very brave yet ignorant phenomenon to do, and I admire your ignorance.

As I do yours.

[_Runtu]

And, for what it's worth, there is no getting around a "hyperliteral" reading of Genesis. Either it's true and means what it says, or it isn't.

I have never subscribed to such a view of Genesis. Whether it's literal or not has no bearing on whether it's true or not. Your position is precisely what I would call a hyperliteral reading of Genesis. Mormons read the same book of Genesis you do, and yet very few Mormons I know believe in a young-earth creation.

[_just me]

If the Sun was created several (solar Earth) days after the Earth doesn't that present some problems? I'm just thinking as far as not only stars not being able to be seen, but also the temperature of the Earth and atmosphere. I mean, I am not a scientist, it just seems problematic to me.

I guess it just falls back on God creating everything by magic. That isn't really a Mormon thought, though. Mormon thought is that God uses and obeys the laws of nature. The atmosphere would have had to be created by magic and so would the lighting of the stars.

If those things started out by magic how come they have reverted to working by laws that can be learned and tested? Actually, I guess some stars are still working by magic since a 6000 year old Sun would not have reflected light off them yet....Hmmmm.

[_Runtu]

Fair questions that I would be happy to discuss with you, but not the point of this thread. In short, you are addressing questions that one has already hammered out to get to the point of regarding Genesis literally. In other words, you are asking, "why should one trust the Bible."

Why does "trusting the Bible" require a literal reading of Genesis? Help me out here.

[_Hoops]

That's the point of not taking the text literally. It might not quite convey the intended meaning, originally designed. Also, I see no reason to assume that God, for instance, spoke and light first shined. Perhaps light was already somewhere. The flashbulb went on when He spoke.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm taking the text for what it reads. You are the one making assumptions, for which you should account.

[_Hoops]

I have never subscribed to such a view of Genesis. Whether it's literal or not has no bearing on whether it's true or not.

I think that it does. If it's not literal, what does "truth" even mean?

Your position is precisely what I would call a hyperliteral reading of Genesis.

I know.

Mormons read the same book of Genesis you do, and yet very few Mormons I know believe in a young-earth creation.

Okay. Not sure what that supports though.

[_Runtu]

I think that it does. If it's not literal, what does "truth" even mean?

Jesus' parables were not literal, but they certainly impart truth, do they not?

I know.

Okay. Not sure what that supports though.

It suggests that one can trust in the Bible as the word of God yet not believe in a literal, young-earth reading of Genesis.

[_Hoops]

If the Sun was created several (solar Earth) days after the Earth doesn't that present some problems? I'm just thinking as far as not only stars not being able to be seen, but also the temperature of the Earth and atmosphere. I mean, I am not a scientist, it just seems problematic to me.

You've asked about several things here, but recall from the text that The Holy Spirit was "hovering" over the earth. I think the original word implies some sort of shaking or action being put on it.

I guess it just falls back on God creating everything by magic. That isn't really a Mormon thought, though. Mormon thought is that God uses and obeys the laws of nature. The atmosphere would have had to be created by magic and so would the lighting of the stars.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

If those things started out by magic how come they have reverted to working by laws that can be learned and tested? Actually, I guess some stars are still working by magic since a 6000 year old Sun would not have reflected light off them yet....Hmmmm.

Why wouldn't they "revert" to measurable laws of the universie. Secondly, you're assuming that these laws are constant. I think there is some evidence that they are not. I'm going from memory here (tipoff is in 3 hours!!:) For example: the big bang theory has impacted the idea that light has always travelled at a constant. Also, that time has not always been how itss measured today. That kind of thing.

[_just me]

Where did the light emit from in day one?

Not necessarily. We do know that time began with the first moment of creation. We also know that there was another source of light than the son, which is the "genesis" of your question I think.

I'd like to hear more about that. Do you believe that Jesus was the source of light on the first day? Sorry if that is totally not where you were going with that, but that is the only thing I can come up with.

I'm also interested in what is said about the moon, which I assume is the "light" that rules the night. Do you think that the moon is literally a light in the sense that it has its own light source? Or is it okay to read into the text what we know about the moon being reflective of the solar light? Same goes for the "lights" that I assume are talking about stars.