God Created the Earth in Six 24 Hour Days

[Barry]

James,
You're missing my point. Hebrew scholars, both ancient and modern, agree that the Genesis text means literal 24 hour days. There are those who deny that creation literally took place in 24 hour segments, but they all agree that that is what the Bible teaches!

Here is the main issue I have. Those from the Theistic Evolutionist framework want to rewrite the Bible to fit their scientific theory. But they are not being honest. You cannot fit evolutionary theory into Genesis. I would have a lot more respect for them if they just flat out denied the Genesis record, as it is linguistically dishonest for them to make Genesis say something that it does not say.

IHS,
Barry

[Barry]

I'd classify it as mythology, storytelling for explanation.

Okay, but why would you do that? What hermeneutical and/or linguistic standard allows you to make that assumption? My point is that you have to rewrite our understanding of the Hebrew language to do what you are trying to do. If you are going to do that, you can't do it just because you think it is a neat idea. You have to offer some legitimate proof for it.

Do you see the problem here? I could do the same thing with the resurrection of Christ. I could say: "Science has proven that it is impossible to rise from the dead. And since the Bible says Jesus did rise from the dead, it must be using metaphorical language." Why would that not be justified, but it would be okay to do it with the Genesis record, which clearly presents itself as a historical account?

IHS,
Barry

[Phil Wilson]

Ok, Barry. We obviously believe two different things. I'm willing to let it go at that.

[Barry]

Phil,
I'm not trying to be a horse's rear end, but I would rather you didn't leave it at that. I've clearly stated why I believe what I believe. Why won't you and Tidbit do the same?

IHS,
Barry

[Phil Wilson]

I believe that I have as well.  I've stated my reasons for believing it's figurative. You disagree with them. Ok. I can live with that.

I also can see that this only serves to divide us. That's why I'm going to walk away from this discussion. No hard feelings on my part.

[Barry]

Phil,
I don't think it is dividing anyone. I'm just trying to have an honest conversation. The problem is, all I've seen from your side is that you "think" it should be interpreted a certain way, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. If there is none, why not simply state that and be done with it?

IHS,
Barry

[rick6886]

Some very good discussion,

But I must reiterate that this is NOT a salvation issue. I know there are going to be some things I and everyone else was dead wrong on when we see God face to face. That is why I so richly believe in his grace.

But I do like apologetics a lot and it certainly gets good conversation going, so you might see some more true/false posts from me...

my humble 2 cents

Rick

[marc]

Just because I may disagree with evidence that has been presented does not mean that evidence has not been presented.

Personally, I think this has to do with recognizing that different types of writing have different purposes, and that these purposes determine the way that words are used.  To the man who objected to non-24 hour creation days by saying "God knows how to write a book", I would say "Yes, and He knows that writing books often involves using metaphors."

God exists apart from time, but we humans do not, so He speaks to us on our level.

The strongest evidence that these days were not 24-hour has been brought up, the non-existence of the sun in the beginning.  I also have found much of the young-earth scientific evidence I have read singularly unconvincing.

To put it another way, I have read both Bert Thompson and John Clayton, and find that Clayton's work had much more of a ring of truth to it.

[mike]

jerryBrooke said:

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

Certainly. God may also have created the universe five minutes ago, completely mature and populated with individuals who have memories that were also created five minutes ago. How would we know?

Except that seems deceitful, which is not consistent with the nature of God, as I understand it.

This is part of the argument I would use for an old universe. To assume that God created it with the false appearance of age also seems deceitful.

Mike

[mike]

Barry said:

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.  (emphasis mine -- Mike)

Don't you think this is a bit strong? I understand that this is controversial and open to debate, but many bright people have doubted that the writer intended a literal 24 hour day.

Mike

[mike]

Barry said:

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.

and

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?

These assertions are incorrect.

Philo believed that the creation days in Genesis 1 are a metaphor, that God created instantaneously.

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Lactantius believed that each creation day was 1000 years long, basing their arguments on Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8.

Clement of Alexandria interpreted the days metaphorically, like Philo. He said that creation could not take place in time, since time was also created.

Origen also believed that the seven days had a spiritual, not a literal meaning, especially days 1-3 & 7.

Basil of Caesarea stated that the days in Genesis 1 represent ages, not literal 24 hour days.

Ambrose of Milan agreed with Barry that the seven days were a literal 144 hour period, but also explained that yom can be translated as a nonliteral day, e.g. "Day of the LORD", and "eternal day of reward".

Augustine taught that the creation days are figurative, not literal 24 hour days. Evening was when angels looked upon the creation after contemplating the Creator, and morning was when angels rose up from their knowledge of the created things to praise the Creator.

.................................................................................

My point is that belief in the Genesis 1 account as figurative or teaching something besides science is not a new idea. We need to be careful that we don't take such a firm stand on this that we inadvertently repeat the error of the Catholic church in their condemnation of Galileo.

I may be wrong . . . I will acknowledge that, but it seems that an ancient universe and a less than strictly literal reading of Genesis 1 is not only plausible, but best fits the scientific data. Study of God's creation is also a means of reading his revelation.

Oh yeah . . . before anyone asks, I am not a theistic evolutionist.

Mike

[tidbit]

Thank you, Mike for saying it in a way which I could not.

You made good points.  I personally look at nature and see an Earth and a Universe that appear to be very old.  The stars tell us that, if nothing else.  Think about it--they say that our Galaxy--the Milky Way--is 120,000 light years in diameter. (Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, or 5.87 trillion miles in a year.)  Earth is about 25,000 light years away from the center, so the farthest star is about 85,000 light years away from us.  And that's just the stars in our Galaxy.   By some estimations, there may be billions of galaxies in the universe.  

Now if God created the universe in a literal six days (which I admit he could do), and the Earth and the Universe and Everything is only about 6,000 years old, then for us to be able to see the stars at the edge of our galaxy, he would have had to create light beams already in motion hurling from the source of the stars toward Earth no more than 6,000 light years away from Earth.  While God is certainly capable of doing this, why should he?

Rather than being evidence that God did not create the universe, I believe that scientific observation confirms that there is no way for Life, the Universe and Everything to exist absent God creating it.

(And, BTW, Barry, I am NOT a theistic evolutionist, or any other kind of evolutionist, for that matter.)

[david johnson]

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

barry:

to explain myself for you & others, in case anyone is really interested;

1) i did not vote in the poll because neither the true nor false responses are knowable.  none of us were there, our beliefs can only come from faith.

2) i enjoy a bit of apologetics sometimes.  be wary of apologists, though.  they're like atomic hand grenades...they do the job of clearing out the 'baddies' but you can't escape the blast zone yourself.
as soon as you disagree with an apologist, it's you who are are wrong.  that's why i don't trust the idea a lot, but a little is ok with me...need that grain of salt, you know.

3) '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?'

...'all'?  impossible for you to know.
the part of genesis we're concerned with here is the literary equivalent of a 'theme & variation' form used in music.

a - state the motif
b - begin the development of the motif
by varying it's expression through expansion, diminution, retrogrades, inversions, etc....


gen 1:1 is the motif.  then moses or his scribal aides under the Spirit's direction continued developing the one great statement that in the beginning, it was God who created.
the elaborations start with v2.

historical fact can be presented thusly, but that is not the general way to present what you want your readers to view as literal history.

4) '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?'

...?? where's the problem?  Jesus obviously did not mean at the very beginning...that's when light was created!

dj

[Mere Nick]

I'll go out on a limb and say that it beats the snot out of me.

It seems that if it really took billions of years and Moses, or whoever, had God tell him to write it all out he would have developed such a nervous twitch he couldn't write a thing.  It could be God's mercy by just giving him the abridged version.

Maybe God could have had him write "First there was nothing.  It exploded.  Some of it got damp and some organisms slithered out and turned into people".  

As for dating of old stuff, I don't understand that, either.  I don't get the idea of a brand spanking new rock.

[boringoldguy]

When I was a little kid,  I thought the neatest thing in the world was dinosaurs.   I read all the little kid books about dionosaurs,  and as I got older I read some more advanced books about them.

Then I discovered sports and cars and girls (in about that order) and quit thinking about dinosaurs until  I took historical geology in college, and learned that there were new theories about how dinosaurs acted and looked,  and that what I learned as a little kid was incorrect.   Then I forgot about dinosaurs again until I had my own little kid.    He got excited about dinosaurs and we read all the new little kid books about dinosuars,  and guess what -  they said different things than what I had learned in college.  I got curious and did some more advanced reading and found out that the paleontologists now thought most of what we believed about dinosaurs when I was a kid was now wrong.

Not long ago I picked up a science magazine that had an article with the latest dope on dinosaurs,  and once again,  they think that what they thought just a few years ago was wrong.

That's one little story about one relatively minor area of allegedly scientific inquiry.   But what it tells me is that scientists are good at being wrong,  especially when they are talking about things they can't observe directly.

All of that has brought me around from believing that the Genesis account was figurative or a myth to believing,  as I currently do,  that it all happened in six days.   I just can't see any reason to believe anything else.   I don't have enough confidence in science and scientists to accept their versions of events.

[Lee Freeman]

I'd classify it as mythology, storytelling for explanation.

Okay, but why would you do that? What hermeneutical and/or linguistic standard allows you to make that assumption? My point is that you have to rewrite our understanding of the Hebrew language to do what you are trying to do. If you are going to do that, you can't do it just because you think it is a neat idea. You have to offer some legitimate proof for it.

Do you see the problem here? I could do the same thing with the resurrection of Christ. I could say: "Science has proven that it is impossible to rise from the dead. And since the Bible says Jesus did rise from the dead, it must be using metaphorical language." Why would that not be justified, but it would be okay to do it with the Genesis record, which clearly presents itself as a historical account?

IHS,
Barry

This is exactly the presupposition used by the Jesus Seminar Fellows and other liberal scholars who deny that the resurrection occurred. They argue from a presupposition: Since science has proved that people cannot rise from the dead, its impossible for Jesus to have been raised from the dead. Or, since modern man no longer believes that miracles can happen, the miracles in the Bible, especially the resurrection, couldn't have happened.

Barry makes some excellent points from a lingustic/textual standpoint. We have to read and interpret scripture as it was intended by its authors, who were all Jews, former Jews, or Greeks who understood the Jewish theological framework. We can't read twentieth century ideas into an ancient Jewish text like Genesis-or any other biblical or other ancient texts. We wouldn't read a novel like Johnathon Swift's Gulliver's Travels through modern, twenty-first century political presuppositions, we have to read it through eighteenth century political presuppositions. Same with the Bible.

I'm not sure where I fall in regard to the age of the earth and whether creation was in six twenty-four hour days. But I do know that whatever we decide must be faithful to the original intentions of the writer(s) of Genesis.

Pax vobiscum.[/color]

[rick6886]

All of that has brought me around from believing that the Genesis account was figurative or a myth to believing,  as I currently do,  that it all happened in six days.   I just can't see any reason to believe anything else.   I don't have enough confidence in science and scientists to accept their versions of events.

BOG,

just a curiosity question if I may boldly ask: You say that at one time you believed the Genesis account was figurative or a myth, how did you feel about the rest of the Bible at the time?

my humble 2 cents

Rick

[boringoldguy]

This is a follow up to my earlier post.

I'm a real ignoramus when it comes to posting links and such,  but if you'll go over to the Yahoo news site,  you'll find a story about some astronoical discovery that causes astronomers to now say the universe "evolved"  much longer ago than they had previously thought.   It has something to do with a cluster of galaxies being in a place where,  according to theory,  they shouldn't have been.   They're too far away to be explained under the current thinking of how the universe "evolved."

Just more proof that we shouldn't get too worked up about what scientists think about these things -  because whatever the experts think about any subject today,  in a few years they'll think something different.

Rick

I suppose in those days I believe the Bible was "based on" fact but inaccurate about a lot of things.

Today,  I'm more inclined to believe the Bible on its own terms,  or perhaps less inclined to believe the questioners.
Either way,  it's easier for me to accept that what the Bible says is accurate.

[James Rondon]

That's one little story about one relatively minor area of allegedly scientific inquiry.   But what it tells me is that scientists are good at being wrong,  especially when they are talking about things they can't observe directly.

All of that has brought me around from believing that the Genesis account was figurative or a myth to believing,  as I currently do,  that it all happened in six days.   I just can't see any reason to believe anything else.   I don't have enough confidence in science and scientists to accept their versions of events.

Why should we accept their version, anyway? Afterall, they weren't there. Instead of listening to them, why don't we just listen to the One who was there?...

[tidbit]

That's one little story about one relatively minor area of allegedly scientific inquiry.   But what it tells me is that scientists are good at being wrong,  especially when they are talking about things they can't observe directly.

All of that has brought me around from believing that the Genesis account was figurative or a myth to believing,  as I currently do,  that it all happened in six days.   I just can't see any reason to believe anything else.   I don't have enough confidence in science and scientists to accept their versions of events.

Why should we accept their version, anyway? Afterall, they weren't there. Instead of listening to them, why don't we just listen to the One who was there?...

By thinking that the universe might be more than 6000 years old, I'm not necessarily listening to the scientists over God.  I'm not calling God a liar.  Rather, I am looking at the universe he created, which attests that it was created by a higher power (intelligent design, if you will).

Psalm 8:3-4

When I consider your heavens,

   the work of your fingers,

   the moon and the stars,

   which you have set in place,

   4 what is man that you are mindful of him,

   the son of man that you care for him?

BTW, in my mind, man probably was created about 6000 years ago, as per Genesis; but the earth and the universe are much older.  That's my theory du jour, and I'm sticking with it.

Peace[/color]

[johntwayne]

I don't suppose this will come as a surprise to anyone, but I voted for six literal days.

[rick6886]

I don't suppose this will come as a surprise to anyone, but I voted for six literal days.

johntwayne,

Why would this be a surprise? I voted 6 literal days too. You almost sound like you are apologizing for voting 6 literal days...

my humble 2 cents

Rick

[johntwayne]

I don't suppose this will come as a surprise to anyone, but I voted for six literal days.

johntwayne,

Why would this be a surprise? I voted 6 literal days too. You almost sound like you are apologizing for voting 6 literal days...

my humble 2 cents

Rick

Not at all!  I happen to believe in something called "creation evangelism" (imitating Paul's approach in Acts 17).  I believe most kids today are so indoctrinated with evolution that the key to getting them to turn to God is to destroy their faith in Darwin and establish it in the one, true Creator of the universe.

Dwarnism, relativism, humanism are the banes of the modern world.[/color]

[zoonance]

I skipped to the end so forgive me if this is worn out territory.  If I have to choose between 6 literal 24 hour periods and no God, then I go with the literal 6 24 hours periods.  If I simply read what Genesis 1 and 2 say about what happened only on the one day, day 6.  Naming animals, looking for a mate in a male/female created animal world, the deep sleep at the end of all that.... Literal?? No way.  Same with Noah's ark.  If we say the world is that young while considering the number of species alive today.... must have been frozen embryos (but then why all the food too?)  because the ark wasn't big enough.   Do we bow to Carbon 14 et al as our saviour? NO!  Do we chunk our brains out the window knowing what we actually do know about science?  The early genesis stories fall apart when forcing the literalness.  To stand and say I have more faith than you because I believe they were 24 hour periods only suggests that you have not seriously considered the evidence.  The interpretation of the evidence is not the same as the observation of evidence.  One can not force a baby earth at the same time explain the diversity of species USING genesis 1 and 2 as the PROOF text for all the answers and explanations.  The earth may very well be only a couple of thousand of years old but genesis 1 and 2 do not explain the science.  We know science has value as we are using science at this very moment to communicate on the web! Those who might therefore suggest that satan was involved in the "aging" evidence suggests that satan can create too?

[Jimbob]

Regardless of which you voted for, don't trust carbon-14.  I know too many archeologists and scientists to (because when we've talked about it, none of them trusted it, either).

[zoonance]

I am cursed with a brain who thinks too much.  I happen to work in a zoo and believe me, a christian in the zoo world are either endangered or at risk of extinction!  I picture all the animals in the world waiting in the ark for over a year (some animal' life spans are less than a year by the way), separated by the clean and unclean (meat eating, for humans any way, was not OK'd until after the flood.  All these animals are then turned loose on Mount Ararat and the earth is then replinished, all the continents, all the isolated islands, all the strictly tropical and the strictly frozen polar animals (not sure about the plants) from animals that can produce their own kind.  I am in no way suggesting that evolution is the answer, but rather, by the grace of God I have been cursed with questions in a profession that does not fit genesis literally.  However, the truth of a created world, whatever the details, points to my God in ways that words could never quite explain.  The vast majority of my world could not care less about fighting over points of theology.  They can't even accept the 'theo' yet!  This is why the grace centered magazine is so important to me.  you all believe and allow thinking minds to think!   THANK YOU ALL!!!  Mike

[tidbit]

I am cursed with a brain who thinks too much.

You, too?

I recently heard a new theory on the flood (new to me, anyway)--localized flood.  The theory goes that it was not a worldwide flood, but only particular to the middle east.  If this were true, it would explain alot about all the different species of animals distributed around the world.

Please don't misunderstand me--a localized flood is not a theory I subscribe to, but it is interesting.

[It is also interesting the lengths we will go to fit our theological beliefs into a scientific and rational model.][/color]

[Jimbob]

The guy who found the Titanic subscribes to that theory (can't remember his name).  He was looking for proof in one documentary I saw a few years ago.

[mike]

Some geologists and archeologists have found evidence for an enormous flood in the region of the Black Sea at the end of the last ice age. The Black Sea was an isolated inland lake and much smaller then, with settlements or villages along the shore. When the glaciers receded, the Mediterranean Sea flowed through the Straits of Marmara and the Dardanelles, massively enlarging the previous fresh water lake, and rapidly inundating the towns along the lakeshore.

This is touted by some to be the origin of the flood story.

More info at this link:

National Geographic Black Sea flood story

Mike

[Dennis]

Barry and others who subscirbe to the 6 literal day theory:

Do you also believe in a young earth or do you believe the two issues are unrelated?

If you believe in a young earth, how do you account for the appearance of age?

[Barry]

Barry and others who subscirbe to the 6 literal day theory:

Do you also believe in a young earth or do you believe the two issues are unrelated?

If you believe in a young earth, how do you account for the appearance of age?

The earth, just like Adam and Eve, was created as a completely mature planet. It would have the appearance of age regardless of how old it literally was. Adam and Eve were eating from fully mature fruit trees, not seedlings.

IHS,
Barry[/color]

[charlie]

I think the creation story is a test to reveal which people are truly loving to their fellow man and which are more concerned with being right than getting along. I've never, even once, witnessed an indepth discussion of Creation without very clear lines being drawn between those two classes of people.

[Barry]

I think the creation story is a test to reveal which people are truly loving to their fellow man and which are more concerned with being right than getting along.

Are you serious? You really think that is why God revealed His marvelous work of creation to us? How sad...

IHS,
Barry[/color]

[charlie]

(not sure about the plants)

This comment got me thinking. The flood started on the second month of Noah's 600th year. In 8:5, we find the tenth month when the mountain tops were visible again. But Noah released the raven and the dove at the end of the forty days. The dove came back and was released again in seven days, after which it returned with an olive leaf. How did it get an olive leaf sometime from the first to the middle of the fourth month when the mountains weren't even visible until the tenth?[/color]

[mike]

.... because the whole earth wasn't covered with water!

(Pardon me while I dodge incoming fire) :)

Mike