Hey! Did you ever want to go to the Creationist Museum but couldnt find the time?

[Ruminator]

Please don't think all creationists believe that God created everything in six sequential literal 24 hour days.
Personally I don't, and there are scientists who are creationists that also believe that the evidence indicates creation occurred over a long period of time.
Dr. Hugh Ross and his group are one example.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

Dr. Hugh Ross and his group are one example.

I fact checked and found Hugh Ross along with the mention that he accepts 'dual revelation'.

I will will withhold any references to 'doublethink' and simply say that IMO it appears that dual revelation is a method by which one reconciles the difference between evolution and a literal interpretation of the bible by saying that both are correct but that we imperfect humans are reading the bible wrong.

From Inherit the Wind (but you won't find it in the quotes section)

Brady: That is correct.
Drummond: That first day, what do you think, it was 24 hours long?
Brady: [The] Bible says it was a day.
Drummond: Well, there was no sun out. How do you know how long it was?
Brady: The Bible says it was a day!
Drummond: Well, was it a normal day, a literal day, 24 hour day?
Brady: I don't know.
Drummond: What do you think?
Brady: I do not think about things that I do not think about.
Drummond: Do you ever think about things that you do thing about?! Isn't it possible that it could have been 25 hours? There's no way to measure it; no way to tell. Could it have been 25 hours?!
Brady: It's possible.
Drummond: Then you interpret that the first day as recorded in the Book of Genesis could've been a day of indeterminate length.
Brady: I mean to state that it is not necessarily a 24 hour day.
Drummond: It could've been 30 hours, could've been a week, could've been a month, could've been a year, could've been a hundred years, or it could've been 10 million years!!

Dual Revelation is explained here.

Now, since the scientific method deals only with naturally recurring and observable processes in the present, historical events are by definition outside of the scientific method. Therefore such views on origins as Evolutionism and Creationism are inherently outside of the scientific method since they both require the study of ancient historical events in an effort to find evidence for or against their central claims. Similarly, the scientific method has no application in the realms of reason or the conscience since they are defined by different methods of acquisition. In the end, we simply must recognize that while the scientific method is a powerful method for acquiring knowledge of the natural world, it is severely limited in scope for the central interests of man.

The current revival of what has been called "dual revelation" theology (DRT) is motivated by the same impulse as when it first arose in medieval Europe. During the initial influx of the Greek philosophical works into the West some felt compelled to reconcile the new knowledge with the Bible. According to this view, all knowledge was classified as "truth" and as such it was weighted equally when judging its value to the interests of man. Therefore, there was rational truth, historical truth, and revealed truth. An example of this school of thought was the heterodox philosopher Siger of Brabant (1270 A.D.) who advocated a philosophy of double truth, i.e., that there is one truth in human reason--Aristotle--and another in religion--the Christian revelation (4). For some in the Scholastic tradition this approach was intended to reconcile what they feared was a threat to the Christian world view. Siger's philosophy can be traced even farther back to the Muslim commentator Averroes (1198 A.D.).

Today, one of the most prominent advocates of DRT is the progressive creationist, Hugh Ross. His reasoning goes as follows:

"God's revelation is not limited exclusively to the Bible's words. The facts of nature may be likened to a sixty-seventh book of the Bible. Some readers might fear I am implying that God's revelation through nature is somehow on an equal footing with His revelation through the words of the Bible. Let me simply state that truth, by definition, is information that is perfectly free of contradiction and error. Just as it is absurd to speak of some entity as more perfect than another, so also one revelation of God's truth cannot be held as inferior or superior to another." (7)

For God to lie would be a violation of his holiness. The Bible claims that God created the universe. Further, it declares God is responsible for the words of the Bible. On this basis, no contradiction between the facts of nature and the facts of the Bible would be possible. Any apparent contradiction must stem from human misinterpretation (8).

[Ruminator]

Interesting find richlevy.

Let me add some more information for you.

Progressive creationism does not contradict a literal understanding of the Bible. Heres why:
In Genesis 1 we read that God created everything in this physical universe. It further breaks down into six time periods the creative acts of God.
Translated into the English language as "day" in these verses is the Hebrew word- "yom".
Yom has a few definitions and many uses and applications, not just one.

It can mean the daylight hrs of a "day", a 24 hr. day/night period, its used in terms like Day of Something, or a time of something, or in the broadest reference- a period of time- various lengths in different uses.

So how well does a Creator creating new aspects of creation in six periods of time(referenced by modern man possibly as supereons, eons, eras, epochs) over the first billions of years of the universe's existence compare with the Genesis account?
Perfectly until you try to dogmatically claim that [yom] can only mean a 24 hr. time period, which has unfortunately become the prevailing interpretation. *(one of the reasons for my signature below)

How well does progressive creationism fit with scientific evidence? As a model it fits perfectly from the Big Bang onward.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by richlevy

...
For God to lie would be a violation of his holiness.
...

I have not been educated within any religious framework, so I'm hoping someone can clarify what the work "holiness" means, at least within this context.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

I have not been educated within any religious framework, so I'm hoping someone can clarify what the work "holiness" means, at least within this context.

Hmm. Tough. That you have to ask may mean you'd never know.

But.

There is that which is godly, and there is that which is not. At the least. That's the simplest. Falsehood, well, that is not godly. Godhead may of itself make falsehood impossible. Though there is empirical evidence all around that truth is not necessarily obvious, nor laid bare. The ontological universe in which we live remains subtle, whether we like it or not. We who ruminate upon matters philosophic should take a lesson in that.

Another lesson may be drawn: if Godhead makes falsity impossible, it's an illustration of just how far from Godhead we mortals really are. Definitely deflates the ol' hubris.

[Ruminator]

HLJ, God's personal character that is defined as His holiness is virtually impossible for humans with limited speech to fully describe. I'll make a separate thread for it as soon as I can.
Meantime, holiness refers at once to His perfect, pure sinlessness.
God is incapable of sin; its impossible for Him to think, let alone do anything wrong, anything period.
Perfect love, selfless in nature, desiring only what is the absolute best for all others with no selfish restrictions or motives, just pure love.
Love, pure love beyond our human capabilities to understand because we aren't able to totally extract our selfish nature's from our loving.
And like UG said, falsehood cannot exist within God.
In the ways that we are tempted... God is not. Nor can He actually be tempted to do any wrong.
God's holiness also incorporates His other personality and character traits. Its an awesome study to do.
An excellent start would be reading A.W. Tozer's small book on the Holiness of God.

If you define the deity to mean the sum total of the universe, and the laws of the universe simply an expression of said deity, then you have metaphorically reconciled science and crationism...but in a way that is not subject to be verified by evidence, nor would it be appropriate to attempt to do so.

As you can see in the above, I define God as a specific being with a personality and character.

UG- I had explained to me by a college professor a fascinating definition of eternity in which all of time since its creation at the big bang exists separately from eternity. Sweet stuff.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

HLJ, God's personal character that is defined as His holiness is virtually impossible for humans with limited speech to fully describe. I'll make a separate thread for it as soon as I can.
Meantime, holiness refers at once to His perfect, pure sinlessness.
God is incapable of sin; its impossible for Him to think, let alone do anything wrong, anything period.
Perfect love, selfless in nature, desiring only what is the absolute best for all others with no selfish restrictions or motives, just pure love.
Love, pure love beyond our human capabilities to understand because we aren't able to totally extract our selfish nature's from our loving.
And like UG said, falsehood cannot exist within God.
In the ways that we are tempted... God is not. Nor can He actually be tempted to do any wrong.
God's holiness also incorporates His other personality and character traits. Its an awesome study to do.
An excellent start would be reading A.W. Tozer's small book on the Holiness of God.


As you can see in the above, I define God as a specific being with a personality and character.

If it's beyond our human capabilities to understand, don't you think you're being presumptuous, assigning these definitions? Why do you think you have the right to do this? Because some guys wrote somewhere that it's okay?

[Ruminator]

bluecuracao, you misread my post. I apologize for not being more clear.

I didn't say

it's beyond our human capabilities to understand

; rather I said that its

virtually impossible for humans with limited speech to fully describe

... the key word in that sentence is fully. There is a world of difference in meaning.
My stated meaning provides for a fantastic opportunity to discover and experience God, to discover personally more about Him than we can adequately describe to someone else in our limited ability with words.
That isn't to say that we can't describe a great deal of what we know with language, just pointing out its limitations when trying to describe the eternal, limitlessness of God, and in this case His Holiness.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

...there are scientists who are creationists that also believe that the evidence indicates creation occurred over a long period of time.

I don't reject the idea outright; but I do take exception to the word "evidence" being attched to the idea.

The laws of physics unfolding into the universe as we know it, described as an act of creation by a deity, is more a matter of semantics. If you define the deity to mean the sum total of the universe, and the laws of the universe simply an expression of said deity, then you have metaphorically reconciled science and crationism...but in a way that is not subject to be verified by evidence, nor would it be appropriate to attempt to do so.