God Created the Earth in Six 24 Hour Days

[rick6886]

Just looking to see what everybody thinks, this is not a salvation issue by any means. I have heard some interesting theories and was hoping to see if anymore would pop up.

For the record, I voted True, I do believe the days in Genesis were 24 hours long.

my humble 2 cents

Rick

[James Rondon]

I voted along with you, Rick.

[mike]

I voted false, but I agree that this is an issue where reasonable believers in Christ can disagree.

I think that the evidence demonstrates that the universe (and the earth) are billions of years old, and that some of the events mentioned in Genesis 1 occurred eons apart from each other.

There are a number of ways to try and reconcile this with a more literal reading of Genesis. But, I think it is more appropriate to realize that Genesis was not written as a scientific textbook. Instead, it was written to convey truths about God and his creation to an ancient people, who had an entirely different worldview than us.

Instead of teaching precisely how long creation took, the more important points are:
1. There is only one God, who has always existed.
2. This God is all-knowing and all-powerful.
3. This God created everything, and has no competitor (opposing a dualistic cosmology and theology).
4. This God actually likes human beings, and supplies their needs.
5. This God is a strict moralist.

There are undoubtedly a number of other points that could be extracted . . . these are just a few. All of these ideas would be astounding to an ancient Middle Eastern mindset.

As Royce Dickinson has said, Genesis may be looked upon as an evangelistic tract, teaching ancient peoples about the true God. I don't think the author(s) intended most of the scientific meanings that we have tried to extract from the text.

Mike

[Barry]

Mike,
If the creation days are not to be taken literally then why should we take your "more important points" literally? Who is to say what parts of Genesis are literal and which ones are not?

The fact is that the natural reading of Genesis 1 is that it is an historical account. There can be no doubt that the original readers understood this to mean literal 24 hour days.

Barry

[crocless aussie]

Barry

I'm worried.  I agree with you!:;):

Allan

[Bon Voyage]

The evidence relies upon mathematical assumptions and models which cannot be verified to be 100% accurate.

Because the rate of exponential decay of Carbon 14 follows a certain pattern for awhile, does not mean that all elements follow this particular model.  Also, Carbon 14 is only valid in situations less than 50,000 years.  A whole host of other dating methods are being used for things assumed to be of different ages.

It is very possible that current dating methods are not correct.

[Barry]

Jerry,
In addition, since the accepted dating methods themselves often disagree with each other, and have widely varying results, it is really hard to trust them. In other words, if one method says X and another says Y, which one do you trust?

Also, it really doesn't matter if you have an accurate dating method that says the earth is a kazillion years old. The earth was created as an already mature planet. It isn't as if Adam and Eve started off as infants, with seedlings instead of full-grown trees, etc... The earth was created with age.

IHS,
Barry

[Barry]

Allan,
I imagine we agree on many things other than politics  :p

Barry

[tidbit]

Didn't we just do this survey a few months ago?  

I voted false, but I wonder what the Orthodox Church's position is?   :cool:

[Barry]

For those who voted "False": What do you do with "morning and evening" each day?

Barry

[rick6886]

For those who voted "False": What do you do with "morning and evening" each day?

Barry

I agree with you Barry, how do you reconcile a morning and evening if they were not 24 hours days. Plus it is my understanding that the original word used for "day" ALWAYS means 24 hour time period in the rest of scripture, why would that be different in Genesis 1.

my humble 2 cents

Rick

p.s. the poll I did a couple of months ago asked whether or not the earth was 10,000 years old.

[tidbit]

Barry wrote:

For those who voted "False": What do you do with "morning and evening" each day?

Barry

I do with it the same as I do with, say, Psalm 18:

6 In my distress I called to the LORD ;
   I cried to my God for help.
   From his temple he heard my voice;
   my cry came before him, into his ears.
 
   7 The earth trembled and quaked,
   and the foundations of the mountains shook;
   they trembled because he was angry.
   8 Smoke rose from his nostrils;
   consuming fire came from his mouth,
   burning coals blazed out of it.
   9 He parted the heavens and came down;
   dark clouds were under his feet.
   10 He mounted the cherubim and flew;
   he soared on the wings of the wind.
   11 He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him-
   the dark rain clouds of the sky.
   12 Out of the brightness of his presence clouds advanced,
   with hailstones and bolts of lightning.
   13 The LORD thundered from heaven;
   the voice of the Most High resounded.
   14 He shot his arrows and scattered the enemies ,
   great bolts of lightning and routed them.
   15 The valleys of the sea were exposed
   and the foundations of the earth laid bare
   at your rebuke, O LORD ,
   at the blast of breath from your nostrils.

   16 He reached down from on high and took hold of me;
   he drew me out of deep waters.
   17 He rescued me from my powerful enemy,
   from my foes, who were too strong for me.
   18 They confronted me in the day of my disaster,
   but the LORD was my support.
   19 He brought me out into a spacious place;
   he rescued me because he delighted in me.

The language is figurative.

And anyway, God didn't create the sun until day four (Gen. 1:14-19), and so how could there have been a conventional sunrise and sunset?

[Bon Voyage]

For those that think it is false, do you believe that God has the power to create everything in 6 24 hour days?

[tidbit]

For those that think it is false, do you believe that God has the power to create everything in 6 24 hour days?

Absolutely.

[Bon Voyage]

As long as everyone is agreed on that point.

[Phil Wilson]

Well, and here's the thing too. There are two separate creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2. If you look at them carefully, you see that in the first one, the animals are created first, then people. In the second one, Adam is created first, then animals, then Eve.

So here's the question: Why does it matter?

The fundamental point behind Biblical creationism is the idea of the Bible being literal. If we grant that Biblical creationism might not have happened, then it opens the door to many other possibilities about Scripture, most of which we (evangelicals) feel like threaten orthodoxy.

Or we could grant that there is language in Scripture that is as figurative as the language in Revelation. And truly, if we grant that John (or whoever) couldn't find the words to describe the end of the world, why would we think it's any easier for Moses (or whoever) to describe the beginning?

[Barry]

What I'm curious about is what linguistic reason do you have for interpreting Genesis 1 figuratively? I don't claim to be an expert at Hebrew, although I have been schooled in it, and the fact is that "yom" (day) with a number NEVER means anything but a 24 hour day. If we are going to make an exception in this one place we better be able to back it up linguistically. If we are just going to pick and choose at random what is figurative and literal, then what do we do with the resurrection? Why not interpret that figuratively also? It is presented to us as an historical account, as is Genesis.

The truth is, no one ever thought about it being long days, or a "gap" between verses 1 and 2 until evolutionary theory came on the scene. Some of the early allegorists thought it could mean one 24 hour day, but I don't know of anyone who thought it was long periods of time.

Bascially what is happening is an attempt to conform Scripture to scientific theory, rather than judging scientific theory by the Word of God.

IHS,
Barry

[Phil Wilson]

I think you make some good points, Barry. And I agree that many times, faith fills in the gaps where science fail us. Which in the case of young earth vs. old earth, I don't think it has, but I also don't think it matters a lot in the overall scope of life.

By that same logic that you use though, you could make the same claims about Revelation and the twelve gates and mile high walls.

[Barry]

Phil,
Actually, that wouldn't work. When studying scripture we must understand the type of literature we are studying. Genesis is presented to us as a historical account, while Revelation is presented to us as an Apocalypse. Two different types of literature demand two different types of interpretation/understanding. It is just like Tidbit posting the reference in Psalms (nothing personal Tidbit). It is apples and oranges.

IHS,
Barry

[Phil Wilson]

So how do you deal with the two different orders for creation in Gen 1 and Gen 2?

[tidbit]

Barry wrote:

What I'm curious about is what linguistic reason do you have for interpreting Genesis 1 figuratively? I don't claim to be an expert at Hebrew, although I have been schooled in it, and the fact is that "yom" (day) with a number NEVER means anything but a 24 hour day. If we are going to make an exception in this one place we better be able to back it up linguistically. If we are just going to pick and choose at random what is figurative and literal, then what do we do with the resurrection? Why not interpret that figuratively also? It is presented to us as an historical account, as is Genesis.

In my opinion (and I have never studied Hebrew), the word "yom" means something other than a 24 hour day in Genesis chapter 1.  Gen. 1 is the exception.  And so you (or whomever) can't say that "yom" never means anything other than a 24 hour day.  Am I making myself clear?  (sincerely)

Likewise, with the resurrection, you could say that no one has ever been resurrected from the dead, and therefore, Jesus was not resurrected from the dead.  But as you and I know, Jesus was the exception to the general rule.

I guess my complaint is that you are using Deductive Reasoning to prove literal creationism.  (i.e., All dogs have four legs, Rover is a dog, so therefore Rover has four legs.)  It doesn't always work that way.

[Barry]

Phil,
I'll point you to an online article that will do a better job of answering your question than I could:
CLICK HERE

Barry

[Barry]

Tidbit,
My question remains. What linguistic evidence do you have to offer that allows us to twist the clear meaning of Genesis? You can't just say, "I just think it should be that way."

Your analogy on the resurrection doesn't make any sense. The Bible clearly says that Jesus rose from the dead, and He did. It also clearly says that God created in six literal days and He did.

Without any knowledge of Hebrew it is a bit dangerous for you to start twisting around the language. I think it is quite telling that no Hebrew (Jewish ones at that) scholars prior to the evolutionary mythos ever thought these days were anything but 24 hour days. Don't you think that should hold more weight than your mere wishing it were different?

I'm still trying to understand why you have a problem with it being a literal 24 hours? Is it because you've embraced evolutionary theory?

IHS,
Barry



[!--EDIT|Barry|1109352343--]

[tidbit]

I'm going to reorganize my post above in the goal of making my point more clearly.  (Not that I hope to persuade Barry.)

Barry wrote:

What I'm curious about is what linguistic reason do you have for interpreting Genesis 1 figuratively? I don't claim to be an expert at Hebrew, although I have been schooled in it, and the fact is that "yom" (day) with a number NEVER means anything but a 24 hour day. If we are going to make an exception in this one place we better be able to back it up linguistically. If we are just going to pick and choose at random what is figurative and literal, then what do we do with the resurrection? Why not interpret that figuratively also? It is presented to us as an historical account, as is Genesis.

I guess my complaint is that you are using Deductive Reasoning to prove literal creationism.  (i.e., All dogs have four legs, Rover is a dog, so therefore Rover has four legs.)  It doesn't always work that way.

Likewise, with the resurrection, a person could say (based upon available evidence) that dead people don't come back to life, and therefore, since Jesus was a person, Jesus was not resurrected from the dead.  But as you and I know, Jesus was the exception to the general rule.

In my opinion (and I have never studied Hebrew), the word "yom" means something other than a 24 hour day in Genesis chapter 1.  Gen. 1 is the exception.  And so you (or whomever) can't say that "yom" never means anything other than a 24 hour day.  Am I making myself clear?

[tidbit]

Barry wrote:

I'm still trying to understand why you have a problem with it being a literal 24 hours? Is it because you've embraced evolutionary theory?

Yes.  You figured it out--I'm a heretic.   :O

(And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for those nosey kids!)

[Barry]

Tidbit,
Your analogy still doesn't make any sense. My argument is based upon what God has revealed to us, and there is no doubt that He revealed both Creation and Jesus' resurrection to be literal events.

Again, please state some concrete reasons for why you believe the Genesis creation account is not literal 24 hour days. So far you've said that is what you've believed, but haven't given any reasons why.

IHS,
Barry

[Barry]

Yes.  You figured it out--I'm a heretic.

Okay, so now at least I know where you're coming from. So would it be fair to say that you interpret Genesis the way you do based on evolutionary theory, rather than on what Genesis says?

IHS,
Barry

[david johnson]

the answer is currently unknowable.  unlike barry, i don't think the account reads as history, but it is indeed phrased within an historical timeline.

dj

[Barry]

Well David,
If it doesn't read as literal history, were all the Jewish scholars down through the centuries incorrect when they read it as such? If so, on what linguistic basis would you make that charge?

If you are correct, what parts of Genesis are meant to be taken literally and which parts aren't? And by what accepted standard do you make that distinction?

We also have an additional problem, in that Jesus stated a literal understanding of the creation account:

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'- Mark 10:6 (NIV)

Notice, this was not "at some point" in creation, but at the "beginning" of creation. That pretty much does away with the long days or gap theory. Wouldn't you agree? Or was Jesus wrong too?

IHS,
Barry

[Phil Wilson]

Barry, do you view your belief in the literalness of Biblical creation to be a salvation issue?

[Barry]

Phil,
No I don't. But I do believe it is the "slippery slope" that leads people to begin denying the Bible as a whole. Once you remove the foundation, the whole building starts to crumble. If the first part of the Bible is in error, what happens to the rest of it?

IHS,
Barry

[James Rondon]

As I stated earlier, I do believe that the heavens and the earth, and everything in them was created by God in 6 actual, 24 hour days.

I will say this though, as a point to ponder... the Bible uses language which was taken for many, many years to indicate that the sun revolved around the earth. It speaks of then sun "rising" and "going down". Of course, I know the answer to this, as do most people, but how many understood this to mean that the solar system was geo-centric for quite some time?

Also, the Bible uses language which was taken by many, for years upon years to mean that the earth was flat. It speaks of the "four corners of the earth". Again, I know the answer to this, as do most people, but how many understood this to mean that the earth was flat?

Science began to open our understanding on these things, and many in the church considered such thoughts as heresy. Might it be possible that we could be doing the same thing?... Just something that I hope will spur on additional discussion.



[!--EDIT|James Rondon|1109358619--]

[Barry]

James,
I would have to differ with you. Rather than science clearing up our understanding of the Bible, the Bible has always been way ahead of our scientific understanding. Consider the following that was taught in the Bible, which science had to catch up with later:

• Spherical shape of the earth.
- (Isa 40:22)  He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.   
• Earth is suspended in nothing
- (Job 26:7)  He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.
• Stars are innumerable
- (Gen 15:5)  He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."
• The Hydrologic Cycle.
- (Job 26:8)  He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.
- (Job 36:27-28)  "He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; {28} the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind.
- (Eccl 1:6-7)  The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. {7} All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.
• Concept of Entropy
- (Psa 102:25-26)  In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. {26} They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded.
• Nature of Health, Sanitation, and Sickness (Lev. 12-14)

Most of the things you've pointed to were things that science taught in contradiction to the Bible. It was not necessarily held by Bible believers, but often by non-believers.

IHS,
Barry

[James Rondon]

Barry, of course I agree with those things that you posted, but the fact of the matter is that many "Bible believers" thought otherwise over the centuries. Look back into the writings of believers throughout the centuries, and see that they believed that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around it.

In light of your assertion regarding what every Jewish scholar believed about the literal 24 hour periods of Genesis 1, I think that this is pertinent, and should be at least considered.

[Phil Wilson]

In light of your assertion regarding what every Jewish scholar believed about the literal 24 hour periods of Genesis 1, I think that this is pertinent, and should be at least considered.

Of course it should. But we should also consider that they had no other context in which to operate.

Barry, to answer your point, I agree that for some it can lead to denial of Scripture.

It hasn't for me though. Because I wouldn't classify it as error. I'd classify it as mythology, storytelling for explanation.