God Created the Earth in Six 24 Hour Days

[Barry]

Mike,
Could you please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that Genesis is in the same genre as a "typical Mesopotamian creation myth"? I mean, what clues in the Hebrew language would lead you to such a conclusion? Don't you think it is just possible (I would say "probable") that the various creation myths are based on the Genesis account rather than the other way around?

Also, do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

Barry

[mike]

Mike,
Could you please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that Genesis is in the same genre as a "typical Mesopotamian creation myth"? I mean, what clues in the Hebrew language would lead you to such a conclusion?

It's not my original idea, of course. It has just seemed reasonable to me. And I don't know enough Hebrew to have an intelligent discussion about that part of your question.

Don't you think it is just possible (I would say "probable") that the various creation myths are based on the Genesis account rather than the other way around?

It's possible.

Also, do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

Barry

Don't know. I'm wishy-washy on this one. It doesn't really matter to me either way.

Mike[/color]

[James Rondon]

Don't you think it is just possible (I would say "probable") that the various creation myths are based on the Genesis account rather than the other way around?

Not only that, but the events actually took place. So they could be based on the actual account, as it was described by Moses, with or without Genesis.

[James Rondon]

Also, do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

Barry

Don't know. I'm wishy-washy on this one. It doesn't really matter to me either way.

Mike[/color]

It should matter.

[Barry]

Also, do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

Barry

Don't know. I'm wishy-washy on this one. It doesn't really matter to me either way.

Mike

Mike,
I'm sure you're not thinking this one through, but if Adam was not a literal man, the entire New Testament can be flushed down the toilet.

Think of the ramifications if Adam was not a literal man:
*The genealogy of Christ is a myth.
*Paul was lying as he certainly viewed Adam as literal.
*If Paul was mistaken about Adam and Eve, how can we trust anything else he has written?
*There can be no death nor resurrection (1 Cor. 15:22)
*I could easily list 20 or more things here that would make the cross a joke if Adam were not literal.

Do you see why I take this so seriously? Once you start chipping away at the foundation the whole house comes down.

And Mike, I'm a little flabbergasted how you could even seriously consider Genesis to fall into the "myth" category without even considering the biblical language. From what you've posted so far, it sounds like you are putting more trust in science (which has failed us countless times) than in the Word of God (which has never failed us yet).

I am not anti-science, but where science conflicts with the Word of God, I'll go with the Word of God every time.

Barry[/color]

[DCR]

Something else to think about... Is all future prophecy to be taken literally?  God reveal some things in vivid imagery that may or may not be literal but sometimes are metaphorical or typological.  Just read the prophets in the Old Testament and Revelation in the New Testament.

Prophecy is revelation from God to man.  Since no human witnessed the events in Genesis 1, could it not be classified as prophecy... prophecy concerning the past?

[Barry]

DCR,
You've lost me on that one. What in the creation account reminds you of prophetic literature?

Barry

[DCR]

Glad you asked!  There are some things in the book of Revelation that take me back to Genesis.

Reflect on the events in the Garden of Eden, and then read passages like this...

Revelation 22
1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. 4They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.

Also, remember how Satan is referred to as a "serpent" in Genesis.  Notice where that description makes another appearance in the Bible... Revelation 12:9; Revelation 20:2.

Just something to think about...

[Barry]

Okay, I see what you mean now. But I don't see how that takes away from a literal creation account. Perhaps that wasn't your point?

For a long time I have viewed heaven as a 'Return to Eden' based on the very passages you are referring to. I'm looking forward to literally partaking of a literal Tree of Life.

(In case anyone wonders, I do lean toward the amil view, but that doesn't mean everything in Revelation is symbolic!).

Barry

[DCR]

My point is that when I read prophecy about the end times and eternity, and when I read prophecy about the beginning times and eternity past, I realize how vast it all is, and how little of it I actually grasp.

Not everything in Revelation is symbolic or metaphorical, but then again, maybe some of it is.  I don't rule out the same possibility in the early chapters of Genesis.  There is great mystery in the creation.  But, God has revealed what He has chosen to reveal and in the ways that He has chosen to reveal.

Something else to consider... I don't know if we fully appreciate all the ways that creation itself was affected by the fall.  Remember that it apparently didn't rain before the flood.  And, man lived to be a much older age (900+ years) than is physically possibly for a modern man.  It seems that some fundamental laws of nature changed.  So, all I'm saying is that in early Genesis, all bets are off on our having an complete understanding of the way things worked, how time passed, and how much time passed before the fall.

I believe there is so much we don't know.  That's why I'm not taking it for granted that those "days" in Genesis 1 are necessarily exactly what we know as days.  Besides, I don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before they sinned.  Did Adam & Eve's "pre-fall" years count in their age in years at death?  Maybe so.  But, that would be another assumption.

[Marzipan]

Speaking of drawing parallels between Revelation and Genesis:
I remembered reading this in Halley's Bible Handbook:

"The Bible is all one story. The last part of the last book in the Bible reads like the close of the story begun in the first part of the first book in the Bible."

The first word in Genesis:
"In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth" (Gen. 1:1)
Almost the last word in Revelation:
"I saw a New Heaven and a New Earth." (Rev.21:1)

"The gathering together of waters He called the sea." (Gen.1:10)
"And the sea is no more.." (Rev 21:1)

"The darkness He called night" (Gen. 1:5)
"There shall be no night there" (Rev 21:25)

"God made the two great lights (sun and moon)" (Gen. 1:16)
"The city has no need of the sun nor the moon" (Rev. 21:23)

"In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:17)
"Death shall be no more" (Rev. 21:4)

"I will greatly multiply your pain" (Gen. 3:16)
"Neither shall there be pain anymore" (Rev. 21:4)

"Cursed is the ground for your sake" (Gen. 3:17)
"There shall be no more curse" (Rev. 22:3)

Satan appears as deceiver of mankind (Gen. 3: 1, 4)
Satan disappears forever (Rev. 20:10)

They were driven from the tree of life (Gen. 3:22-24)
The tree of life reappears (Rev. 22:2)

They were driven from God's presence (Gen. 3:24)
"They shall see His face" (Rev. 22:4)

Man's primeval home was by a river (Gen. 2:10)
Man's eternal home will be beside a river (Rev. 22:1)

*I'm not saying this means both accounts are literal, figurative, or anything. This just came to mind when I read the post above about similarities in the "symbolism" whether it is literal or not.

[James Rondon]

Interesting, indeed.

[OkiMar]

:amen:

[CDHealy]

I wanted to clarify a bit more the interpretation I am proposing regarding Genesis 1-2.

Let's note a couple of things (most of this is reiteration):
1. The sun, moon, stars, etc. were created on the fourth day.  It is explicitly stated that these are meant to "rule" (or regulate) the night and the day, to note seasons, days and years, and to divide the night from the day.
2. Prior to the creation of the sun, moon, stars, etc., we do have the following:
*Day 1: creation of light, separation of night from day
*Day 2: creation of the firmament
*Day 3: creation of dry land, seas, vegetation
3. From day one there is the repetitive phrase, "and there was evening and there was morning, one day (second day, etc.)."

I have proposed that prior to the fourth day of creation, "day" was not divided into our current 24-hours (or in any sort of present-day understanding of the measurement of the length of a day).  I have made that contention based on the fact that the sun, which is how the current measurement of a day is calibrated, was not created until the fourth day.  Prior to that time, then, there was no way to calibrate a "24-hour" day.  Thus the "days" prior to the fourth day are, it seems plausible to me, of unknown duration.  Perhaps they were 24-hour days such as we currently know, but given that our current understanding of the length of a day is based on the earth's rotation vis a vis the sun and that the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, this is not something, I think, we can be dogmatic about.

Now some will say, "Aha, but whenever yom is used with a number, it always refers to a 'literal' 24-hour day."  To which I would reply, "Sure, but all those references are to days in which the earth rotates vis a vis the sun."  I would also reply that there is at least one day in Scripture that was not a 24-hour day (think Joshua).

Furthermore, it will likely be said that if we do not assume six (but assume the three I'm proposing) twenty-four hour days that we will somehow not be taking the text literally.  This, I think I've demonstrated, is not the case.

I have taken the text quite literally in my interpretation.  I have assumed that the world was created by God, because that's what the text says.  I have assumed that beginning with the fourth day, "days" in Scripture are the "24-hour" day we now know.  But I have also paid attention to the literal meaning of the text regarding the creation of the celestial bodies on the fourth day: it is the first notice we have that these bodies are to divide day and night, to mark days and seasons and years, and so forth.  Prior to the fourth day of creation, then, it is plausible to assume that the "day" was of unknown duration.

And on that basis I further infer that it could well have been long enough to account for the old appearance of the cosmos.

Thus, I have presented a literal interpretation of the text that presents a plausible case for the old age of the earth.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

[Barry]

CD,
Your proposal would also cause us to interpret "morning and evening" differently until the sun was created. Do you really see your proposal as a natural reading of the text?

Barry

[CDHealy]

Barry:

Yes, I do.  If "day," based on a close reading of the text itself, can have a flexible meaning, so, too, can "morning" and "evening."

More to the point, however, morning and evening do not designate a specific duration of time, but rather indicate a specific point of time during the day.  Also, prior to the creation of the sun, the alteration between morning and evening could not be based on the rotation of the earth vis a vis the sun.  Since prior to the creation of the sun there is no connection of morning/evening to a "24-hour" day, then we are free to conclude that the alteration between morning and evening prior to the creation of the sun was of unknown duration.

[Barry]

CD,
I guess I just don't see it at all. Unless there were some linguistic clue, I don't think we can change the interpretation of "day," used in the same story and context. It is hard for me to comprehend that the biblical writer would change gears like that without letting us know.

And then there is the question of why? Of what benefit is it to interpret "day" differently halfway through the creation account?

It would seem much more consistent, and in line with standard hermeneutical principles, to interpret "day" consistently throughout the passage.

Can you think of any other instance in Scripture where a word can have such a radical swing of meaning as what you are proposing here?

Barry

[CDHealy]

Barry:

I'm not sure how having a "day" of unknown duration from days 1-3 of creation, to a "day" of "24-hour" duration from day 4 to the present is "a radical swing of meaning."  And, indeed, there is a linguistic clue tucked away in the fourth day description of the celestial bodies; i.e., that they were to mark days, seasons and years.

If hermeneutical principles demand a consistency that does not take into account all the evidence of the text, then I think we ought to be suspicious of such a hermeneutic.  While I recognize that my interpretation is perhaps a bit novel and is at odds with perhaps the majority of creationists, I do think my warrants for my interpretation are better, because they do, in fact, take the text at its word.

What are the benefits?
*It is a literal understanding of the text that takes into account all the data, and thus is respectful of the text and its divinely inspired origins.
*It can be reconciled with the accumulated knowledge/understanding undergirding the current consensus on the age of the earth/universe, and thus is respectful of the use of God-given human reason and intelligence.

One might ask, what are the drawbacks to assuming a six 24-hour day interpretation?
*It first of all can potentially set up a false dichotomy: either accept Scripture or accept the accumulated knowledge/understanding humans, using their God-given reason, have come to about the present age of the earth.
*It can also potentially set up an irrational stance vis a vis the efforts of human scientists to understand the creation God has made, and the general consensus of those scientists about the cosmos.
*It can potentially set up a false bifurcation of truth into that which is inspired and that which is human (and therefore inherently to be suspect).
*It necessitates an understanding of the genealogical data of Scripture that includes gaps of perhaps thousands of years, if the Scriptural interpretion is going to match current scientific understanding.
*It necessitates that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden for perhaps thousands and millions of years prior to the Fall, if the Scriptural interpretion is going to match current scientific understanding.

As to other instances of Scripture where a word has different connotations in the same context?  Nothing comes immediately to mind.

[Barry]

CD,
The majority of your "drawbacks" are directly related to the contemporary scientific community. As I'm sure you're aware, this leads to all kinds of problems. Why would we only accept their view of "billions of years" and not their view of macro-evolution? Can't you see the slippery slope?

In addition, if we were to use this reasoning down through history our interpretation of Genesis would have to change consistently and often based on the different views of science down through the ages. If a century from now scientists conclude that they have been wrong on the age of the earth, and now believe it is only 10,000 years old, do you have to change your interpretation again?

I see absolutely no problem with interpreting the Genesis creation account as six-literal-24-hour-days and a whole slew of problems with doing otherwise.

Barry

Barry

[s1n4m1n]

Frankly, I'm not crazy about any current interpretation of the creation account.

1) Literal 6 day (24 hour period) creation - like I commented earlier the astronomical evidence goes against a young earth. In addition, it appears to me, the account don't appear to be a strictly historical narrartive.

2) Creation mythos - this has some appeal to me, but, every time I hear the word "myth" I think of "fake".

3) Day - Age Theory - this just seems to be a half way stop for young earth creationists.

4) Israel Origin Theory - I'm not sure of the proper title for this, but its my favorite. Basically the thought is that the creation accounts are of God creating paradise (heavens and earth) in the area of Israel.

Those are the ones I'm familiar with. Like I said, I'm not crazy about any of the them.

[s1n4m1n]

CD,

Did you read my comments in the Development of Doctrine in the Theology forum related to this?

Ken

[Barry]

like I commented earlier the astronomical evidence goes against a young earth.

Ken,
Have you read any young earth astronomers?

Barry[/color]

[DCR]

That is a good point about the "greater light" (the sun) ruling the "day" starting on day four.  That suggests that days 1, 2, and 3, were not "ruled" by the sun.  

24 hours is determined by the "rule" of the sun's position in the sky.  Only God knows what "ruled" days 1, 2, and 3.  I guess He did. :)

[CDHealy]

Barry:

You raise some important concerns.  Let me see if I can address them with something rising to the level of plausibility to you.

The majority of your "drawbacks" are directly related to the contemporary scientific community. As I'm sure you're aware, this leads to all kinds of problems. Why would we only accept their view of "billions of years" and not their view of macro-evolution? Can't you see the slippery slope?

Actually, the drawbacks are not related to the contemporary scientific community except indirectly.  They are directly related to a, to me, troublesome lack of appreciation of the gift of reason and its ability to accurately and adequately come to real knowledge of the world God has created.

I can accept the scientific community's views of geological age and reject their views of macroevolution because the former is based on empirical and falsifiable evidence and methodology, while the latter is wholly a metaphysical philosophical speculation.

I grant you that cosmological age and macroevolution are often synthesized, but I do not think they are in any way essentially related.

Slippery slope arguments are notoriously fallacious . . . most of the time.  There is a way to argue a valid slippery slope argument, but to do so, one must establish essential and logically necessary connections between the acceptance of a particular position and the consequences resultant from that position.

My interpretation in no way need be connected to macroevolutionary metaphysical speculation.

In addition, if we were to use this reasoning down through history our interpretation of Genesis would have to change consistently and often based on the different views of science down through the ages. If a century from now scientists conclude that they have been wrong on the age of the earth, and now believe it is only 10,000 years old, do you have to change your interpretation again?

No, I won't, and here's why.  My interpretation makes no dogmatic pronouncement on the actual age of the earth.  It simply says that Scripture does not give a direct, or even indirect, account of cosomologial age.  If scientific consensus changes and ultimately accepts a young-earth creation, my own interpretation need not change one whit.[/color]

[CDHealy]

Did you read my comments in the Development of Doctrine in the Theology forum related to this?

Ken:

I haven't been following the discussion.  Can you point me to the comment you have in mind, or reproduce it here?

[s1n4m1n]

like I commented earlier the astronomical evidence goes against a young earth.

Ken,
Have you read any young earth astronomers?

Barry[/color]

Yes. Though I'm sure there is more out there then I know of, and I don't make it a habit of specifically reading their work.

Ken

[s1n4m1n]

Did you read my comments in the Development of Doctrine in the Theology forum related to this?

Ken:

I haven't been following the discussion.  Can you point me to the comment you have in mind, or reproduce it here?[/color]

Here you go:

That "Seeking 'David'" topic in the Apologetic Forum got me thinking about something related to this topic.

Tidbit[1] made some comments in defense of a young Earth related to having faith in God over faith in scientists. Basically, if there seems to be conflict between the Bible and scientists one will choose the Bible because scientists are always changing their understanding.

However, especially in churches of Christ, I believe this argument to be self-defeating. Churches of Christ make a big deal of interpreting the Bible using the inductive method. The inductive method is nothing more then the scientific method used by scientists to determine the age of the Earth. What this means is the members of churches of Christ use the same method in Bible interpretation that scientists use in interpretation of natural data. Since the accuracy of the method is no greater between the two, the accuracy of interpretation of the Bible is the same as the accuracy of the interpretation of the natural world, this leads to several conclusions:

1) If one claims scientists are always changing what they understand about the world the same goes for church of Christ members of what they understand about he Bible.

2) The interpretations from the natural sciences are of equal weight to interpretations of the Bible.[2]

3) The nature of "faith" in God is of the same order of the nature of "faith" in the scientists. This is especially true in churches of Christ where "faith" if often equated with "belief of facts".

Just thought I'd throw that out there as food for thought.


Ken


**********************************************
[1] Tidbit did say that this was not necessarily his views

[2] Less weight may actually be given to Biblical interpretation using the inductive method simply because the inductive method was not intended to be used in that area, its geared more toward repeated experimentation and large data sets.

[CDHealy]

Ken:

I think your comments pretty much spot on.

I don't think any particular hermeneutical method is illegitimate, however.  I think the primary problem is one of authority: who has the authority to say what the text means?

In this regard, the inductive method, divorced from the life of the Church, is the one particular method most conducive to establishing the "infallible" authority of the individual interpreter.

But then you probably knew I'd say something like that!

[s1n4m1n]

Ken:

I think your comments pretty much spot on.

I don't think any particular hermeneutical method is illegitimate, however.  I think the primary problem is one of authority: who has the authority to say what the text means?

In this regard, the inductive method, divorced from the life of the Church, is the one particular method most conducive to establishing the "infallible" authority of the individual interpreter.

But then you probably knew I'd say something like that!

Yes. I thought about saying that the Orthodox and Catholic don't have this problem simply because they don't solely rely on the historical critical method to discern God's will. But I didn't want to distract from the basic idea.

Anyway I just find it interesting that, especially in churches of Christ, they will rely on the inductive method to determine God's will from the Bible data but complain that scientists (who use the exact same method) are constantly changing there interpretation of natural data.

Ken

[marc]

Bumping for Harold. I don't have the mental ability to go into this again, but much has been said on this thread.

[CSloan]

This discussion should continue on the thread it started, since I'm not going to particpate now after 16 pages I had no part in.

Just my opinon.

[Jon-Marc]

To answer Yes or no is just an opinion since none of us were there. Since He didn't separate  day from night until the fourth "day", I have my doubts they were actual 24 hour days. Since a day is as 1,000 years and 1,000 years as a day to God, Can we take the "6 days" literally? I always used to until I realized that time means nothing to an eternal God. He created it for our benefit. I'm not trying to limit God since He could haver caused everything to appear instantly had He wanted.

[CSloan]

He created it for our benefit.

Okay marc, now you got me involved.

You bring up an incredible point of relevance.

Think about the 7 day week. Where did it come from?

24 hour day, earths rotation. 30 day month, moon phases. 365 day year, earths orbit around the sun. Wheres the 7 day week come from?

[soterion]

Moses wasn't there either.  However, he wrote by inspiration from the Spirit of God, and God had him write that He created in six days.

From the time God said, "Light be." each day was specified as being an evening and morning.

In Exodus 20:8-11 God gave commandment to the children of Israel to keep the Sabbath because in six days He made the heavens and the earth and the seventh day He rested.

Between the references in Genesis 1 to the day being composed of evening and morning and the command given in Exodus 20 to rest on the seventh as God did, I don't see any good reason to make the days of creation in Genesis 1 figurative instead of accepting them as 24 hour periods of time.

Although the sun and moon weren't in place from the first day doesn't keep God from knowing the actual amount of time spent and giving that info to Moses to record.

My question is since God could have created it all in the blink of an eye, why did He spend so much time as six days to create?

[zoonance]

Or why a flood?  Why not just start over instead of a big boat and further difficult explanations as to the diversity of flora and fauna on this earth?  (Which is even much less than millions of years over trillians of acres, isolated by water, diverse in climates, etc etc etc.)