YEC without the bible, possible?

Hello Coragyps,
I was arguing against Genesis being metaphorical, and therefore that the Bible really does imply YEC, so it is still on topic mostly. But I have asked Meldinoor if we need to open new thread to discuss this aspect in more detail.Perhapps I should have said 'Adam & Eve were originally intended to live forever.' I was including the tree of life with Adam & Eve's creation, so in that context they were created to live forever. Genesis 3:22 does indicate that they could not live forever independant from God and/or the tree of life, which is what I had already indicated in the post.

Hello Meldinoor, Because it is consistent with the rest of scripture. Scripture itself is the test for any interpretation of any one particular verse. Scripture interprets scripture.I think you are missing a point here, that there are standard rules for interpretation, which can be applied to any text including the Bible. Yes many people do interpret Genesis differently, but most alternative interpretations come from not following some basic rules of interpretation. For example, you believe 'day' in Genesis to mean something other than the normal meaning of day. One rule is that you should only do so because either the context within the text suggests this, or the normal meaning does not make any sense with the rest of the sentence/paragraph/story. We are only interested here in the Author's intended meaning at this point, irrespective of whether it is scientifically possible or true. Here you question how a day can exist before the sun, as grounds to doubt the author's use of 'day' to mean an ordinary 24 hour day. I have to assume you mean; how can the 'daytime' portion of a 24 hour day exist without a sun, and how can the text make sense with the use of evening & morning without there actually being an evening & morning.The earth can still rotate on it's axis in 24 hours without the sun existing, and God created light(though unspecified) on day one. So a 24 hour day is still possible without our sun. However this does not address the author's intent. The author not only uses the terms 'evening & morning' on days one, two & three, before the sun was created, but also on days four, five & six, after the sun was created. The author uses the same terminology for all six days. This suggests the author wanted us to beleive they were all the same, regardless of when the sun was created. Also, when you cross check this with other verse's such as Exodus 20:11 'For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth...', this further confirms the 'day' in Genesis is intended to mean a normal day. Also, our current 7 day cycle with a sabbath day of rest, is directly linked (by a number of verses), to God creating in Six days & resting on the seventh. It does not make sense for us to follow God's example of Six days work, rest on seventh, unless God had actually worked for Six normal days & rested on the seventh. Also, each day is being qalified by a number(ie 1st day, second day etc), which if not an actual day, is hard to reconcile with an indefined long period of time. In light of all this, I cannot see how the Author's use of 'day' in Genesis, was intended to mean anything other that a normal day. Because if the Bible implies a young earth, and God is the ultimate author of the Bible, and God cannot lie, then it follows that the world must be young, regardless of how old it looks. Think about the verse in JOB 38:4 where God asks rhetorically 'Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?' God is basically saying, who are you to question me, you know nothing, you were not there, so how can you doubt my words? No. Words do have an inherrant plain meaning. Communication would be impossible if there were no agreed upon meanings of words, and grammatical rules regarding their use. Stop means stop. Go means go. Yes they can have an alternative meanings, but only if accompanied with context.

Hello Son, We are getting a little off topic I agree. I assumed people could see from all the posts, that this question does not have a strictly yes or no answer. There is more too it. It is also based on a hypothetical situation, which also complicates things.So I will try & summarise in order to clarify my answer. I do agree that the Bible is the main reason for YEC, but I also believe it has supporting evidence. I also believe that some of this evidence may not be 'seen' for reasons such as our prior knowledge effecting how we interpret evidence(re-example of staircase drawing). I also believe that because scientists can only ever look for a natural explanation, evidence left from past supernatural events will not be interpreted correctly. I also have yet to argue how the beliefs of scientist effect how they interpret evidence.The OP was based on the idea that YEC is purely a Bible based belief, and if we remove the Bible, would evidence alone support it. But Meldinoor is seemingly arguing that the Bible does not necessarily imply a young earth to begin with. So if YEC is not an obvious deduction from the Bible or evidence, where does it come from? I am trying to first demonstrate, that YEC IS clearly implied in the Bible, and that the Bible is the main source for YEC, before examining whether YEC can be determined from evidence alone. Also, as shown above, I wanted to demonstrate that the way we interpret evidence has some inherrant problems. I felt that this groundwork needed to be laid first before introducing evidence for YEC.Edited by Minority Report, : No reason given.