Bravus,

You may be right about tying everything to a single event....for some or even many. But I think there is a large number of SDA's that recognize the inconclusive nature of much of what we are told is 'truth'. I believe in the possibility of a literal 6 day creation. For me it is logical to believe such if I am going to believe in an all powerful God, I don't put limits on God. Now if it were to turn out that He took longer...so what! It does not change my belief! Why, some my ask, because I do not know everything or claim too about how the process of creation took place. It is a mystery that I can't solve nor has anyone else. I do not see the Bible as a science but as a relationship book.So for science, I will use a science book. When they disagree, I will simply scratch my head and say...hmmmmm, Houston we have a problem! Science is always learning, changing and growing, so there is more to discover and learn. I just simply choose to believe what I have learned from the Bible and continue on my merry way to the promised land for answers!

We have to find our own belief and not rely on other humans...they may be wrong. I choose to believe that God knows each persons heart and will keep the individual from going astray when they are trusting in Him and not by myself or any one else's definition of that relationship.

You are right, a circular discussion it will be w/o ending...so adios everyone to this session!

If you accept a literal 6-day Creation event about 6000 to 10 000 years ago, followed by a world-wide destructive Flood, do you run into any problems with harmonising this belief with the rest of Scripture?

If you believe in some other interpretation (such as theistic evolution, each day representing a long period, etc) do these beliefs lead to any necessary "re-interpreting" other parts of Scripture?

I believe we can do so much re-interpreting that eventually the Bible becomes a mere fractal of itself - it may still have a long boundary but it no longer has any useful area.

Graeme

To your first question - no, it all seems to fit.

To your second - it still all seems to fit. Since the creation account is concerned with meaning, and the other references to it elsewhere in the Bible are too, it doesn't damage them, IMO.

I take your point about reinterpreting. But to be honest, at this stage for me it is a matter of reinterpret or reject. It's not just creation - a number of things in the Bible, including its treatment of gay people, also sit very badly with me. That's my problem, of course, but despite the kind efforts of my friends here, it's not one that gritting my teeth and believing harder is going to make go away.

As I said, I don't know everything...so I will just wait and see!

(opps, was going to stay out of this mess...my bad)

The framework interpretation is far from Sola Scriptura. What Biblical basis do we have for even considering the creation account to be symbolic? The text itself reads "evening" "morning" after every day.

Now look at how they handle the Sabbath Commandment.



If we are going Sola Scriptura, we need to find something in the Bible that would lead us to believe the days were symbolically added to the creation account. Where is that? Basically they are saying we don't keep the Sabbath because it is an actual memorial of creation, rather symbolic days were added to the creation story in order to give us a reason to keep the Sabbath. So... if that is the case, and the days were not real days, then we really don't have a real reason to keep the Sabbath either. Why would God need to invent symbolic days in order to make up a reason for us to keep the Sabbath. Does that make any sense to anyone?

If the Sabbath is given to us as a memorial of Creation, that doesn't mean it's necessary for Creation to have happened in a certain number of days. We celebrate Armistice Day on one day, but that doesn't mean World War 2 happened in a week. God is at liberty to commemorate his creative acts in any way he chooses.

Mercy. That is some industrial-strength rationalism, pardner.


Regards,

oG

The Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God. They are literally the words of God. What reason do we have to believe that the "days" mentioned in the Fourth Commandment we inserted symbolically?

Even if we concede that the six days of creation were symbolic (and I don't know how to get there using Sola Scriptura) we are still left with the issue of death and sin. The Bible teaches sin came before death. Are we to now believe that death was occurring in the animal kingdom long before man was ever created? How do we get there using Sola Scriptura?

Meh, it's going to be a circular argument forever. Let's just leave it aside. As mentioned, I'm clinging onto faith by my fingertips, and you guys are enthusiastically stamping on them.

A lot of us struggle with our faith. At least I can say I do. I don't think anyone on this site wants to silence another in order to make our spiritual battles any easier. Part of the battle is listening to others that think differently than we do. That goes both ways.