# What is your view on creation?



## Bill The Baptist

We are currently studying this in church and I just wanted see what the consensus, if any, was here on the PB.


----------



## JimmyH

Far be it from me to disagree with the Westminster Confession, much less the Holy Scriptures. I voted 6 literal days.


----------



## earl40

I would vote if a choice was offered that said "The world was created in the distant past and the days of creation are literal."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K

I think six 24-hour days is most likely, but I allow for the possibility that the "days" may have been something other than that. I guess that makes me a "not sure." I think a plain reading of Scripture argues strongly for the 6/24 position, but not so strongly as to be absolutely certain.


----------



## DMcFadden

My position? Why, the biblical one of course.


----------



## THE W

God's Word says 6 days so i'll go with that.


----------



## Edward

None of the above as presented.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Only on the Puritanboard would there be a preponderance of people voting for option 1.


----------



## MarieP

I said "not sure" only because I believe in 6-day creation but am not certain of the age of the earth. If I had to say, I lean toward young earth because I think it's a valid point that something God created would already appear to have age, but then again, maybe it didn't before the Fall. I don't think we know for sure, except that literal 6-day creation makes the best sense to me, and there are theological implications otherwise.


----------



## THE W

Anything other than option 1 being true means the creation account in genesis is wrong, thus breaking the scriptures, foiling biblical inerrancy, and rendering the LORD to be a lier and the bible to being rubbish.


----------



## kodos

2 people voted for this option on the PuritanBoard???
_God created the world in the distant past using evolution_


----------



## CharlieJ

Semper Fidelis said:


> Only on the Puritanboard would there be a preponderance of people voting for option 1.



Really? Is the Answers in Genesis crowd funded and patronized mostly by PB members?


----------



## GloriousBoaz

The same exactly wordage and language used for Genesis that God made the 6 days (yom in Hebrew) and rested on the seventh (yom). Is expressed in Exodus 20 where it says man shall work 6 days (yom) and rest on the 7th (yom) because God made the earth in 6 days (yom) and rested on the seventh (yom). Also


> The Hebrew word yom is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. The words “evening” and “morning” together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + “evening” or “morning” (23 times) always indicates an ordinary day. Yom + “night” (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day.
> 
> Read more: Does Genesis chapter 1 mean literal 24-hour days?


----------



## JimmyH

kodos said:


> 2 people voted for this option on the PuritanBoard???
> _God created the world in the distant past using evolution_



Seems it is up to 3 people now. Apparently they haven't read the membership rules regarding confessional requirements ...... or they have but changed their mind ? 

vBulletin FAQ


----------



## Clark-Tillian

6 Days--literally. Although, I do not consider brothers with divergent views as heretical. For me, evolutionism and the "pious myth" views are the problems.


----------



## kvanlaan

We always go 6 24 hour days, but a friend of mine put forward something I had never thought about: what was the age of the void (and what exactly was it)? That may have been around for bazillions of years...

Still, if He did this on one day, that on another, and then rested on Sunday, a 24-hour day (same _yom_), then I would have to say that since the Sabbath is not 17 million years long, it is 6 24 hour days. Also, I find it interesting that it was pointed out to me once that years and months and days have astrological associations, but a week is a fairly arbitrary measure of time.


----------



## Zach

MarieP said:


> I said "not sure" only because I believe in 6-day creation but am not certain of the age of the earth. If I had to say, I lean toward young earth because I think it's a valid point that something God created would already appear to have age, but then again, maybe it didn't before the Fall. I don't think we know for sure, except that literal 6-day creation makes the best sense to me, and there are theological implications otherwise.



Agree with this. I think the Earth appears to be old and is young, but I do not know that for certain. But I do affirm that the Earth was created in six days.


----------



## VictorBravo

kvanlaan said:


> We always go 6 24 hour days, but a friend of mine put forward something I had never thought about: what was the age of the void (and what exactly was it)? That may have been around for bazillions of years...



I go with six literal days, but I won't say 24 hour days, because Scripture says nothing about clocks or hours at creation.

The only timepiece at that point was "evening and morning."

As far as the age of the void was, how do you measure time when there are no objects to mark it? If it was void, it was without time.


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist

THE W said:


> Anything other than option 1 being true means the creation account in genesis is wrong, thus breaking the scriptures, foiling biblical inerrancy, and rendering the LORD to be a lier and the bible to being rubbish.


*BAM. What a boss answer*

_Therefore the wisdom of God also said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,’ that the *blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world* may be required of this generation, *from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah* who perished between the altar and the temple._ (Luke 11:49-51)

Click here to see what Jesus thought of the Age of the earth...


----------



## JonathanHunt

I voted confessionally lest my mouse-clicking finger come under judgment!


----------



## Tripel

THE W said:


> Anything other than option 1 being true means the creation account in genesis is wrong, thus breaking the scriptures, foiling biblical inerrancy, and rendering the LORD to be a lier and the bible to being rubbish.



Thanks for clearing that up. I guess the poll serves no purpose other than to show how many heretics still maintain a user ID.


----------



## Tirian

Teaching our children to manipulate the days/hours concept in chapter one of the bible seems like sending the church to hell in a hand-basket. Did God really say there was an Adam?


----------



## earl40

VictorBravo said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> We always go 6 24 hour days, but a friend of mine put forward something I had never thought about: what was the age of the void (and what exactly was it)? That may have been around for bazillions of years...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I go with six literal days, but I won't say 24 hour days, because Scripture says nothing about clocks or hours at creation.
> 
> The only timepiece at that point was "evening and morning."
> 
> As far as the age of the void was, how do you measure time when there are no objects to mark it? If it was void, it was without time.
Click to expand...


So may I assume you did not vote either?


----------



## VictorBravo

I did vote, because the question spoke only of six literal days. I was hesitant on the "recent past" portion, because I don't think thousands of years ago is all that recent.

But I went with option 1 because it was close.


----------



## Andres

VictorBravo said:


> I did vote, because the question spoke only of six literal days. I was hesitant on the "recent past" portion, because I don't think thousands of years ago is all that recent.



6-8k years is quite recent though compared to "hundreds of millions of years", which is generally what the evolutionists purport.


----------



## kvanlaan

> I go with six literal days, but I won't say 24 hour days, because Scripture says nothing about clocks or hours at creation.
> 
> The only timepiece at that point was "evening and morning."
> 
> As far as the age of the void was, how do you measure time when there are no objects to mark it? If it was void, it was without time.



See, I have no idea about the void, but it was my friend's answer to geologists saying 'billions and billions' of years.


----------



## GloriousBoaz

A couple of thoughts. To read up on the age of the void, look into the gap theory, which was popular in the 90's but fall apart at it's furthest logical conclusion.

We cannot have death for millions (or billions) of years before Adam and Eve because death came into the world with sin. Creation science teaches that Adam brought death into the world, evolution teaches that death brought Adam into the world.



> how do you measure time when there are no objects to mark it? If it was void, it was without time.



Before there was anything we need to think of it as not being a big open space like outer space but literally beyond our comprehension nothingness. Outer space is something, it is not nothing, so if the void was outerspace it was something and therefore had markers. Even if i'm off base here the time piece God did give us was evening and morning which is based on the rotation of the earth which is constant, (only minor variation from then till today) and it was based on unilateral light that hit the earth, i.e. morning and evening, i.e. 24 hours.

To also address "to God one day is like 1000 years" 2 Peter 3:8, keep reading it says "and a 1000 years is like a day" so it poetically undoes the mechanism that it just postulated, showing that is just a literary/poetic devise to demonstrate a point, not to mention that 1000 is used all over scripture to mean "a tremendous and or infinite number".

Last thought if you add all the genealogies in Genesis up and do some math throughout scripture you will see that the earth is around 6 thousand years, assuming there are no gaps in the genealogies, but I don't believe the text gives us any reason to think there should or could be any gaps, plus if you are a native Hebrew speaker you will see an amazing message of salvation in the name in the genealogy when put all together (and no this isn't a bible code because it would have been discernible immediately if you know Hebrew, to us yes we speak English, to a Jew whose been illuminated and regenerated, no) this message would fall apart if there are gaps in the genealogies. Sorry this is rushed I just wanted to throw out some food for thought.


----------



## Peairtach

I'm highly cynical about attempts to make the days of creation into long ages, as there seems little basis if any in the Scriptures for them to be taken as anything other than about 24 hours. Furthermore Day One seems to involve the creation of the first day; if the days are a figure or literary framework, we're being told about the creation of that figure on Day One, which seems a strange way of presenting things. There are theological problems with placing animal death and decay before the Fall, and also positing a creation that for years has no Head.

There are no doubt scientific problems with the YEC position, but there are also scientific problems with the OEC position, and greater ones with theistic evolution.

I don't know if there is a gap at the beginning between the creation of the Heavens and the Earth as a "blank canvas", and the forming and filling of the Earth and Heavens on the Six Days. I don't believe in the traditional "Gap Theory" of a previous creation being overthrown.

The time period from Adam to today may be considerably longer than 6,000 years.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Peairtach said:


> The time period from Adam to today may be considerably longer than 6,000 years.



Yes, but considerably longer can hardly be construed to be billions of years.


----------



## Peairtach

No. I didn't mean that there might be billions of years from the creation of Adam until now. At the most tens or hundreds of thousands.

Many creationists and biblical scholars agree that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Zach

I think one of the often unthought out arguments with regard to the age of the Earth that Christians who believe the Earth is very old is that we have no idea how the fall effected creation. It is impossible for us to arrive at an age of the Earth through scientific means because as Christians we affirm that the creation was radically altered and corrupted by the Fall.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Peairtach said:


> No. I didn't mean that there might be billions of years from the creation of Adam until now. At the most tens or hundreds of thousands.
> 
> Many creationists and biblical scholars agree that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2



I would agree with you, but I have heard some people claim that these gaps in the genealogies allow for the Earth to be billions of years old. That would have to be one big gap.


----------



## Peairtach

Bill The Baptist said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I didn't mean that there might be billions of years from the creation of Adam until now. At the most tens or hundreds of thousands.
> 
> Many creationists and biblical scholars agree that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with you, but I have heard some people claim that these gaps in the genealogies allow for the Earth to be billions of years old. That would have to be one big gap.
Click to expand...


The problem with that, apart from the fact it does not comport with a realistic view of the Scripture genealogies, is that if they are trying to reconcile Scripture with current popular and false science, even evolutionists themselves only posit that "man" has been on earth for 2.3 million years, and "modern man" much less than that, so no-one is saying that man has been around for billions of years anyway.

The evolutionists will desperately cling to their false theory, but when it is finally discarded there will be much reassessing and recalibrating of timescales to go with that.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Mushroom

Peairtach said:


> The evolutionists will desperately cling to their false theory, but when it is finally discarded there will be much reassessing and recalibrating of timescales to go with that.


And then the bigbangers will have a case of the redshift blues...


----------



## Jack K

Zach said:


> I think one of the often unthought out arguments with regard to the age of the Earth that Christians who believe the Earth is very old is that we have no idea how the fall effected creation. It is impossible for us to arrive at an age of the Earth through scientific means because as Christians we affirm that the creation was radically altered and corrupted by the Fall.



Agreed. Beyond that, we also have biblical testimony that the aging process in humans changed considerably over the time period of the book of Genesis, and is different today than it was as recently as the time of the Exodus. It's certainly possible that this is connected to larger changes in the aging process of things on earth. The dating methods in use by most scientists today assume that the rate and process of aging and decay has always been the same as it is today, but that assumption likely is false.


----------



## earl40

Andres said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did vote, because the question spoke only of six literal days. I was hesitant on the "recent past" portion, because I don't think thousands of years ago is all that recent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6-8k years is quite recent though compared to "hundreds of millions of years", which is generally what the evolutionists purport.
Click to expand...


Of course as Victor pointed out that this may not work depending on how one measures time before the the sun and moon were created. BTW I am not a macroevolutionist.


----------



## GloriousBoaz

The amount of carbon 14 being constant back then would have to be observed to be known and, as i understand it, since no one was around back then that puts it into the realm of historic science and not operational science. Also consider the question of if carbon 14 decayed at the same rate with certain pre~andeluvian atmospheric differences like for instance a firmament. Or had the same saturation amounts.

Here is a quote from page 82~84 of "The New Answers Book" 2007 general editor Ken Ham, which the same information is available at Doesn



> A Critical Assumption
> 
> A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.
> 
> Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.
> 
> In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).
> 
> If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2
> 
> Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.
> 
> The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3
> 
> What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.
> Magnetic Field of the Earth
> 
> Other factors can affect the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere. The earth has a magnetic field around it which helps protect us from harmful radiation from outer space. This magnetic field is decaying (getting weaker). The stronger the field is around the earth, the fewer the number of cosmic rays that are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of 14C in the atmosphere in earth’s past.
> 
> The cause for the long term variation of the C-14 level is not known. The variation is certainly partially the result of a change in the cosmic ray production rate of radiocarbon. The cosmic-ray flux, and hence the production rate of C-14, is a function not only of the solar activity but also of the magnetic dipole moment of the Earth.4
> 
> Though complex, this history of the earth’s magnetic field agrees with Barnes’ basic hypothesis, that the field has always freely decayed.... The field has always been losing energy despite its variations, so it cannot be more than 10,000 years old.5
> 
> Earth’s magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.6
> 
> If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere was less in the past, dates given using the carbon-14 method would incorrectly assume that more 14C had decayed out of a specimen than what has actually occurred. This would result in giving older dates than the true age.
> Genesis Flood
> 
> What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.
> 
> If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level....7
> 
> When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.
> 
> Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Peairtach said:


> No. I didn't mean that there might be billions of years from the creation of Adam until now. At the most tens or hundreds of thousands.
> 
> Many creationists and biblical scholars agree that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies.


I voted literal six days and recent past.

Maybe Harold Camping was close to the real date, i.e., 11,000+ years:




[Click to Enlarge]

Camping relies on an examination of Peleg's geneology to conclude that the term “begat” as used in Genesis Chapters 5 and 11, must have, at least in some instances, reference to a relationship other than that of an immediate father-son.


----------



## jandrusk

I let the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures instead of letting science force it's worldly view on the doctrine.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Peairtach said:


> Many creationists and biblical scholars agree that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies.



I have heard some theories which imply gap in the early genealogies but it doesn't make sense to me. In the Gospel of Luke, Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way up to Adam, it would seem odd that Luke would have taken the time to trace literal genealogies up to Noah but then only include the "generalized" genealogies prior to the flood up the Adam. Why not generalized the genealogies prior also and only include David, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Shem and Noah?


----------



## Peairtach

Fogetaboutit said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many creationists and biblical scholars agree that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard some theories which imply gap in the early genealogies but it doesn't make sense to me. In the Gospel of Luke, Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way up to Adam, it would seem odd that Luke would have taken the time to trace literal genealogies up to Noah but then only include the "generalized" genealogies prior to the flood up the Adam. Why not generalized the genealogies prior also and only include David, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Shem and Noah?
Click to expand...


In comparison of the various biblical genealogies there have been found gaps in the genealogies after the time of the Patriarchs also.

The genealogies aren't "literal" if complete, or "metaphorical" if they have gaps, or untruthful if they have gaps. Are we presuming that a genealogy is untruthful if it has gaps? Is this just a presumption on our part? Do we always presume that when we are presented with a genealogy, it will have no gaps? I know that my family tree going back to 1682 has gaps in the main line.

What did Israelites expect from familiy trees? Did they always expect gap free family trees, or condensed family trees especially if a very long period of time was covered, or just the main people to be mentioned?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## wish2bflying

*"In the beginning"*

"In the beginning" - the Hebrew for this can be used for an undetermined, or unspecified period of time. My understanding is then "in an unspecified period of time, God created the heavens and the earth" and then at a time of His choosing (unspecified period of time later), God carried out the work of Creation in six literal days. Besides, what is "time", except a measurement of the speed of light? What is light? Well, the Bible tells us God is light, and also God said "let there be light". It can be inferred then that God is/determines/controls time, and until He spoke it into existence, light(time) was not.

This satisfies the "appearance of age" in geology and the observed expansion of the universe, and then reconciles nicely with the apparent recency of the earth as we understand it. It matches the Scripture's position for there being no death before the Fall, for the earth WAS, but it was formless and void, i.e. without life, until God breathed life into it, and then only grew until death entered through the one man.

Works for me. Happy to discuss, prepared to consider alternative interpretations.

Searched ESV text for "in the beginning". *Searching on the Hebrew word gives more results, because "in the beginning" isn't the only translation of the word. These search results will suffice for now.*
Showing 10 of 10 results.

Genesis 1:1 (Genesis 1) The Creation of the World
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Ezra 4:6 (Ezra 4)
And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.

Proverbs 20:21 (Proverbs 20) *(included for completeness of the search results, not really relevant to this discussion)*
An inheritance gained hastily in the beginning will not be blessed in the end.

Jeremiah 26:1 (Jeremiah 26) Jeremiah Threatened with Death
In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came from the Lord:

Jeremiah 27:1 (Jeremiah 27) The Yoke of Nebuchadnezzar
In the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the Lord.

Jeremiah 49:34 (Jeremiah 49) Judgment on Elam
The word of the Lord that came to Jeremiah the prophet concerning Elam, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah.

*I know, these are from the NT, but it's interesting isn't it, how the sense applies here also ...?*

John 1:1 (John 1) The Word Became Flesh
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:2 (John 1)
He was in the beginning with God.

Philippians 4:15 (Philippians 4)
And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only.

Hebrews 1:10 (Hebrews 1)
And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;


----------



## Free Christian

I am a 100% 6 day believer. I cannot see the Bible say anything but 6 days. I also read a book on 50 scientists saying why they believe in the 6 day creation. Was a great read.


----------



## sevenzedek

I voted for the world being created in six literal days because God said, "And the evening and morning were the first day." Also, to account for the apparent age of the earth, how old was the man Adam on the first day? Adam and the world were created with an apparent age. There may be ways one may look at the Hebrew word for day that lead one to think the day spoken of is an age instead, but the day is spoken of in the context of one morning and one evening. In order for the day to be an age it must consist of many evenings and mornings, but the words say there was only one evening and morning. We use the word day in various ways such as "in our day" and "one day" and "this day," but the context of our words communicates what we mean.

It does not seem likely that God would create the universe and allow it to exist with the ordinary operations of matter for many, many, many years and then create light on the first day. For my part, the evening and the morning of the first day includes verses one and two. However, I do see room for varying views concerning the period of time before verse three, but not so far as to allow the existence of life in the age of dinosaurs before verse three. How would they live and eat without light? Besides, I don't not know it to be necessary to look further into revelation than what revealed. What seems to matter most is that God called light out of darkness and established a pattern for us by creating the world in six days; and so were we saved, amen.


----------



## sevenzedek

And I just thought of this: God told us he _made_ the world in six days (Exo. 20:11).


----------



## Peairtach

sevenzedek said:


> And I just thought of this: God told us he _made_ the world in six days (Exo. 20:11).



Yes. This would seem to go against a gap between the creation of the Heavens and Earth, and the forming and filling of the Heavens and Earth on the Six Days, but I'm not sure whether Genesis 1 should be interpreted by Exodus 20, leading to the elimination of a gap, or whether Exodus 20 should be interpreted by the greater detail of Genesis 1, leaving the possibility of a gap, during which there was a rebellion in the Heaven of Heavens and the downfall of Satan and his angels.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Peairtach said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many creationists and biblical scholars agree that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard some theories which imply gap in the early genealogies but it doesn't make sense to me. In the Gospel of Luke, Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way up to Adam, it would seem odd that Luke would have taken the time to trace literal genealogies up to Noah but then only include the "generalized" genealogies prior to the flood up the Adam. Why not generalized the genealogies prior also and only include David, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Shem and Noah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In comparison of the various biblical genealogies there have been found gaps in the genealogies after the time of the Patriarchs also.
> 
> The genealogies aren't "literal" if complete, or "metaphorical" if they have gaps, or untruthful if they have gaps. Are we presuming that a genealogy is untruthful if it has gaps? Is this just a presumption on our part? Do we always presume that when we are presented with a genealogy, it will have no gaps? I know that my family tree going back to 1682 has gaps in the main line.
> 
> What did Israelites expect from familiy trees? Did they always expect gap free family trees, or condensed family trees especially if a very long period of time was covered, or just the main people to be mentioned?
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...



I haven't research this subject in details so I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject but could you explain quickly how we can prove there are gaps in the genealogies? From my simple understanding the genealogies given in the bible seem to reflect pretty accurately the time line we can find from many secular historical account (at least after the flood). Even if we allow a few gaps it would certainly not amount to tens or hundreds of thousands years. If the genealogies since the flood seem pretty literal, why would we assume there are huge gaps in the genealogies given in the bible prior to the flood?


----------



## Peairtach

Fogetaboutit said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many creationists and biblical scholars agree that there are gaps in the biblical genealogies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard some theories which imply gap in the early genealogies but it doesn't make sense to me. In the Gospel of Luke, Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way up to Adam, it would seem odd that Luke would have taken the time to trace literal genealogies up to Noah but then only include the "generalized" genealogies prior to the flood up the Adam. Why not generalized the genealogies prior also and only include David, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Shem and Noah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In comparison of the various biblical genealogies there have been found gaps in the genealogies after the time of the Patriarchs also.
> 
> The genealogies aren't "literal" if complete, or "metaphorical" if they have gaps, or untruthful if they have gaps. Are we presuming that a genealogy is untruthful if it has gaps? Is this just a presumption on our part? Do we always presume that when we are presented with a genealogy, it will have no gaps? I know that my family tree going back to 1682 has gaps in the main line.
> 
> What did Israelites expect from familiy trees? Did they always expect gap free family trees, or condensed family trees especially if a very long period of time was covered, or just the main people to be mentioned?
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't research this subject in details so I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject but could you explain quickly how we can prove there are gaps in the genealogies? From my simple understanding the genealogies given in the bible seem to reflect pretty accurately the time line we can find from many secular historical account (at least after the flood). Even if we allow a few gaps it would certainly not amount to tens or hundreds of thousands years. If the genealogies since the flood seem pretty literal, why would we assume there are huge gaps in the genealogies given in the bible prior to the flood?
Click to expand...


Yes, I would have to study it further myself. A comparison of the biblical genealogies show that they allow for gaps. How big the gaps are or how many or how many more years they would add to the 6,000 of Ussher would be a Q, I haven't looked at. Creationist A.J. Monty White gave a maximum of 100, 000 years, but how he came up with that figure, I don't know.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Romans922

1) Saying 6/24 hr days is incorrect as a day isnt literally 24 hours itself. This is why we have leap years... Not to mention Scripture's definition is morning and evening. So from the pulpit I say 6 literal days.

2) After preaching through Genesis and studying the genealogies I am fully convinced of a young earth and that Lightfoot's dating is at least very close (4,004 BC).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I thought this recent article written by G. I. Williamson was outstanding. A Defense of Six-Day Creation



> "I’m well aware of the fact that our tolerance of “day-age,” “analogical,” and “framework” views is seen by some as a very good thing. It shows that we are not stick-in-the-mud fundamentalists. And for this reason we can still be people who are respected by intellectuals and scientific people. We can even join with them in ridiculing people like Ken Ham for their attempts to uphold and defend a literal reading of the Genesis account of creation. I am willing to admit that at one time I felt attracted to this viewpoint. I also wanted to be respected. And there certainly have been aspects of fundamentalism that I disagree with.
> 
> 
> But when it comes to such a fundamental of the faith as the doctrine of creation, I am not ashamed to say that I have reached the point where, on this doctrine, I am more in harmony with them than with much of the material written by those who reject six-day creation.
> 
> 
> This is what troubles me. There seems to be more of a consensus in denial than in affirmation. There is much more said about what did not happen, than upon what did happen. I’ve read material over and over again, defending the day-age view of creation. I’ve also done the same with respect to arguments for the analogical view and the framework view. And I cannot say that I have ever been able to clearly understand any of these three concepts. The one thing that seems clear in all three of these views is their rejection of the view that prevailed throughout the history of the church until the rise of the theory of evolution. I therefore want to state why I no longer believe that these negative views should ever have been tolerated in the first place."
> G. I. Williamson



.... Click the link above to read the Ole Scholar's thoughts.

I also found this to be very good. 
Creation and Charity: A Six Day Creationist Proposes a Third Way | Cosmic Christianity


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist

wish2bflying said:


> "In the beginning" - the Hebrew for this can be used for an undetermined, or unspecified period of time. My understanding is then "in an unspecified period of time, God created the heavens and the earth" and then at a time of His choosing (unspecified period of time later), God carried out the work of Creation in six literal days.



Hi Michael  oops found you online! 

I disagree with how our pastor explained "in the beginning" in his sermon at http://eastgatebiblechurch.sermon.tv/9037197. (But agreed with his defense of 6/24 using Exodus 20:11. There are a lot more scriptural proofs (Both the OT and NT) for why it is a _literal reading_ and not anything fantastical like "Day-age", "Analogical" or "Framework". It's not "An unspecified amount of time". Genesis 1-2 tells us exactly how long God took: 6 literal days, morning and evening. 

Jesus himself believed in a young creation. Luke 11:50-51. The Apostles did too. The Jews were told to keep a 24hour Sabbath, after six 24 hour days of working _precisely_ because God told them: "FOR I CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH IN SIX DAYS". Not billions, millions, not hundreds of thousands of years, but *Six days.*

EDIT: _To clear up confusions about when I said "Owen explained in the beginning" - I was not referring to John Owen at all!!! (He is too verbose for my small brain to read. Another 20 years time then I would perhaps begin to read Owen...)_


----------



## Afterthought

Peairtach said:


> Yes. This would seem to go against a gap between the creation of the Heavens and Earth, and the forming and filling of the Heavens and Earth on the Six Days, but I'm not sure whether Genesis 1 should be interpreted by Exodus 20, leading to the elimination of a gap, *or whether Exodus 20 should be interpreted by the greater detail of Genesis 1,* leaving the possibility of a gap, during which there was a rebellion in the Heaven of Heavens and the downfall of Satan and his angels.


How would that look, since Exodus 20 includes heaven and earth within the six days of Creation?


----------



## THE W

assuming there are gaps in the genealogy, where is the exegesis that substantiates these gaps being 10,000 to 100,000 years?


----------



## GloriousBoaz

> We can even join with them in ridiculing people like Ken Ham for their attempts to uphold and defend a literal reading of the Genesis account of creation.



Am I reading this wrong is this a blast at Answers in Genesis?



> he one thing that seems clear in all three of these views is their rejection of the view that prevailed throughout the history of the church until the rise of the theory of evolution.



Now that is a great quote!



> Jesus himself believed in a young creation. Luke 11:50-51.



Oh yeah! I was going to add this too


> A very important question we must ask is, “What was Jesus’ view of the days of creation? Did He say that He created in six literal days?”
> 
> When confronted with such a question, most Christians would automatically go to the New Testament to read the recorded words of Jesus to see if such a statement occurs.
> 
> Now, when we search the New Testament Scriptures, we certainly find many interesting statements Jesus made that relate to this issue. Mark 10:6 says, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” From this passage, we see that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,” not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence. Jesus made a similar statement in Mark 13:19 indicating that man’s sufferings started very near the beginning of creation. The parallel phrases of “from the foundation of the world” and “from the blood of Abel” in Luke 11:50–51 also indicate that Jesus placed Abel very close to the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning. His Jewish listeners would have assumed this meaning in Jesus’ words, for the first-century Jewish historian Josephus indicates that the Jews of his day believed that both the first day of creation and Adam’s creation were about 5,000 years before Christ.1


 Oh that's a quote from Ken Ham lol yesss! found here:

Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days? - Answers in Genesis


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist

VictorBravo said:


> SinnerSavedByChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with how Owen explained "in the beginning".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you reference the explanation you disagree with? Are you talking about his dealings with "Mr.B" in _Vindiciae Evangelicae_, where he says the following?
Click to expand...

Sorry Victor, wish2bflying is from the same local church and I wrote colloquially, referring to Owen Nugent, our pastor (who himself believes in 6/24 creation, but is sympathetic towards analogical/framework...) I've edited my post with the sermon referenced


----------



## VictorBravo

SinnerSavedByChrist said:


> Sorry Victor, wish2bflying is from the same local church and I wrote colloquially, referring to Owen Nugent,



Aha! Thanks for clarification. I was worried about some obscure Owen controversy I hadn't heard about.


----------



## Free Christian

I know a lot of people who believe the earth is older than it is because of the way the earth looks with its mountains and valleys, canyons and so on. And because they are or were told that these things took millions of years to be made, going by the standard of things now. But I am a hobby gold prospector and see evidences of the global flood catastrophe in many of the places I search. Ancient, by Bible standards of thousands of years old not millions, old elevated river beds now high up on hillsides, fragmented with sections on one hill and then on another, showing that once a mighty water system ran in a certain direction but that there is no such river system there now. Great river wash deposits at the base of mountains. Things like that. I believe that with the great flood in the days of Noah there were huge upheavals and reshaping that went on with it and because of it there appears, or it give's the appearance of, greater age. That many of these things, the mountains and canyons, were formed during and by the flood and the upheavals and so on. Fossils are found on mountains, even fossil shells deep underground in our opal fields. To me, all evidence of global flood activity with the laying down of huge amounts of sediment and upheavals giving us the world we see today. All caused by and during the flood. That's how I see the world looking the way it does today.


----------



## KevinInReno

I support #1 as probable, but not certain. (and most definitely disagree with #3) 

I do think there is a poetic wordplay to Genesis 1 and a potential that the day's are used in a way that emphasizes a period of time rather then a literal day.

I would state however I don't trust Science dating the earth at all - it has a clear agenda. 

I would still believe in essentially what scientists would describe as a young earth (if a rewording of #2 was provided), but does the day HAVE to be 24 hours for me... No, and I give no quarter to ideas along the lines of #3.


----------



## wish2bflying

SinnerSavedByChrist said:


> I disagree ...



Hi Michael. I believe in a young six day creation. My proposal is neither "Day-age", "Analogical" or "Framework". It fits none of those flawed propositions. It is, simply:

*God did this:*
[1:1]*In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 

*Either here ...*
[2]*The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

*... or here, an unspecified period of time later, God carried out His work of Creation in six literal days, carrying on thusly:*
[3]*And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. [4]*And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. [5]*God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
(Genesis 1:1-5 ESV) ... etc.


I believe in a young creation. I believe God could have done everything including Gen 1:1 in the six literal days, but I also believe it could be read the other way and not be unbiblical, or in conflict with anything else in the Bible, and believing it would not be heretical or worth separating over.

I also wholeheartedly accept and believe that Adam and Eve were created as fully formed adults with the appearance of age, and God is well within his power and right to have created everything with the appearance of age, and for that to not be considered deceptive (an accusation I've heard many times).

My main point is to anyone who wants to point to the apparent age of the rocks and the expansion of the universe as EVIDENCE AGAINST Creation. My assertion is that it is evidence FOR the validity of the Bible and the creation account, not evidence AGAINST, when one considers "in the beginning" in this way. It is simply drawing the objector BACK to the Bible to shut their mouths rather than turning to the knowledge of men and arguing about scientific dating methods being flawed, etc.

As always though, the presupposition should be that God is God, and He does what He pleases, and we believe His Word. The objector who denies God through his reliance on his own flawed reasoning will come up with other reasons for denying the God he knows in his heart to be true.

I hope this has helped to clarify what I was trying to say.


----------



## JimmyH

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I thought this recent article written by G. I. Williamson was outstanding. A Defense of Six-Day Creation


The article by G. I. Williamson is indeed outstanding. Thanks so much for posting the link.


----------



## Dieter Schneider

I'd recommend D Kelly's Creation and Change: Genesis 11-2.4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms


----------



## Jonathan David Foster

I find it kind of weird that so many people on PB are young earthers. When I attended Westminster Seminary, I don't recall any members of the faculty holding the literal 24 hr day position. The framework view was predominant. I wonder who is more out of step with the mainstream of conservative Reformed folks today. PB or WTS? At any rate, Meredith Kline's classic WTS journal article "Because It Had Not Rained" is a must read, even if you disagree:

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/kline_notrained_wtj.pdf


----------



## Romans922

What Westminster Seminary do you refer to?
There are more than one. 



Jonathan David Foster said:


> I find it kind of weird that so many people on PB are young earthers. When I attended Westminster Seminary, I don't recall any members of the faculty holding the literal 24 hr day position. The framework view was predominant. I wonder who is more out of step with the mainstream of conservative Reformed folks today. PB or WTS? At any rate, Meredith Kline's classic WTS journal article "Because It Had Not Rained" is a must read, even if you disagree:
> 
> http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/kline_notrained_wtj.pdf


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist

wish2bflying said:


> SinnerSavedByChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree ...
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Michael. I believe in a young six day creation. My proposal is neither "Day-age", "Analogical" or "Framework". It fits none of those flawed propositions. It is, simply:
> 
> ....
> 
> I hope this has helped to clarify what I was trying to say.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying, I am still muddle-headed but that's my fault. I'm glad to hear you affirm the plain reading of the text. 

Why I seem so belligerent about defending the precise reading of Genesis chapters 1-11, is that when we throw out plain exegesis and allow fanciful hermeneutical gymnastics to invade the very first page of the Scripture, then we might as well give up on reading the bible. The blasphemers rightly say that we christians "Pick and choose what we believe like it's a cafeteria". 

I'm trying to understand the possibilities of interpretation you have voiced with Genesis 1:1 . I must I still don't understand your proposal about Genesis 1:1 referring to either verse 2 or 3. Everytime someone tampers with Genesis 1:1, I smell the door left ajar for all kinds of modified gap theories (Piper/Sailhamer).

http://creation.com/syntax-in-genesis-1 - comprehensive article on Genesis 1:1 + the various interpretations.


----------



## Felkon

Brothers, how would you reconcile the use of _days_ as a time descriptor in Genesis against what Peter teaches us in 2 Peter 3? Know that I ask genuinely.

Peter tells us: "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."

I can read the word "days" in Genesis as literal, but as for the actual time that fits into a Genesis "day", I cannot but think that it could either a 24-hour day or an undefined period of time that could span thousands of years. Ultimately, for myself, whether God made the earth in six days or across thousands (or millions of years), it was still His doing and therefore to His glory.

I welcome any further discussion or explanation on this point.


----------



## Berean

I see that 6 members now state that, "God created the world in the distant past using evolution." I don't believe we've heard from any of them, other than checking a box. I'd be interested in how they arrived at that conclusion, as well as how they justify it in light of Scripture.


----------



## GloriousBoaz

The passage in Peter is clearly metaphorical and poetic, if you do a search 1000 in the scriptures is usually used to mean everything. Like "God owns the cattle on 1000 hills" there are numerous examples of 1000 being used metaphorically in that manner so therefore Peter is says "one day is like infinity and infinity is like a day for God" because God is utterly transcendent. 

Also to use the passage in Peter to make a day for God an indeterminable amount of time you refute yourself, or rather the passage self refutes you because is says "a day is like 1000 yrs" then turns around and says "1000 yrs are like a day" undoing its previous poetic stanza. 

Bear with me its 2:30 in the morning and I can't sleep and I'm not bothering to check my facts, its all off the top of my head fyi, hope it helps, but I don't think there are any other passages in scripture other than Peter here to try to make the days longer than a 24 hour period, so its not a good idea to build an entire doctrine off of one shaky verse. Also last thought all the places "Yom" is used in connection with a number it is always used as a literal 24 hour period. Here's the math on that The Hebrew Yom: Taking One Day at a Time | Creation Today

I like Norm would love to hear from some of the theistic evolutionists.


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist

Felkon said:


> Brothers, how would you reconcile the use of _days_ as a time descriptor in Genesis against what Peter teaches us in 2 Peter 3? Know that I ask genuinely.
> 
> Peter tells us: "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."
> 
> I can read the word "days" in Genesis as literal, but as for the actual time that fits into a Genesis "day", I cannot but think that it could either a 24-hour day or an undefined period of time that could span thousands of years. Ultimately, for myself, whether God made the earth in six days or across thousands (or millions of years), it was still His doing and therefore to His glory.
> 
> I welcome any further discussion or explanation on this point.


Hey brother Felipe, 

Although I don't see any other legitimate interpretation of Genesis 1-2 except for creation in 6 normal days, I agree that ultimately if one believes that Adam was the first Man and Eve the first Woman, that there was a literal Garden of Eden, that there was NO sin or death before the Fall, then we can have fellowship. 

Specifically addressing your question:
2 Peter 3:8 "one day is like a thousand years

Why 6-day creation is so important:
Genesis: Bible authors believed it to be history
New Testament doctrines and the creation basis
Genesis the seedbed of all Christian doctrine


----------



## Peairtach

> I like Norm would love to hear from some of the theistic evolutionists.



I'm kind of taken aback that theistic evolutionists have joined the PB. 

Leaving aside evolution of animal kinds itself, which is an error, the teaching of the evolution of Man is an egregious error.

The passage in Peter would be poorly used by day-age creationists. It is not addressing whether or not we can interpret "day" as used anywhere in the Bible as meaning a long time, nor whether God would have called a long time period "day" when speaking to us in His Word.

It's talking about how God "experiences" time, He being outside time and transcendent to time.

This doesn't teach us anything to the purpose of how we should understand " day" in Genesis 1 In my humble opinion.




Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Philip

The reason why I marked "unsure" is my issue with reading Genesis 1 in light of Genesis 2 and the seeming disparity, which makes me think, at the very least, that the 6 days in Genesis 1 are arranged in thematic order, not chronological order (much like the Gospel of John). I don't think that this position compromises inerrancy.


----------



## THE W

The passage in 2 Peter 3 is talking about the patience and longsuffering of the LORD in bringing about his promises and judgment and that he doesn't operate within our prescribed timeframe. 

Genesis 1 and 2 shouldn't be seen as two separate creation accounts. Genesis 1 is the chronological order of the creation of the universe and the earth while genesis 2 zooms in on day 6 dealing with the creation of man in the garden of Eden.


----------



## Philip

THE W said:


> Genesis 1 and 2 shouldn't be seen as two separate creation accounts. Genesis 1 is the chronological order of the creation of the universe and the earth while genesis 2 zooms in on day 6 dealing with the creation of man in the garden of Eden.



The problem is that Genesis 2 seems to include the creation of some things on day 6 (if it is day 6) that belong to day 4. As I said, the reasons for my holding the historical interpretation of Genesis 1 lightly are exegetical. The main narrative starts in Genesis 2 with Genesis 1 as a literary/theological prologue.


----------



## THE W

Philip said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 1 and 2 shouldn't be seen as two separate creation accounts. Genesis 1 is the chronological order of the creation of the universe and the earth while genesis 2 zooms in on day 6 dealing with the creation of man in the garden of Eden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that Genesis 2 seems to include the creation of some things on day 6 (if it is day 6) that belong to day 4. As I said, the reasons for my holding the historical interpretation of Genesis 1 lightly are exegetical. The main narrative starts in Genesis 2 with Genesis 1 as a literary/theological prologue.
Click to expand...


It is day 6. The confusion is with verse 5. It says no shrub was on the earth because of no water and no one to work the ground. This is referring to the garden, not the entire earth which is why someone to work the ground was needed. 

There were already plants on the earth, just none in the garden.


----------



## Free Christian

I once read an article on how the Genesis version of creation was written in a way, using words and phrases etc that clearly showed it was written as literal history. The way words were used and so on. I read it on the Creation website creation.com if you put into the search engine "the numbering pattern in genesis" the article will show in the search results. Don't get worried that "the numbering pattern" is like a weird theory or Davinci code type thing, its not. I once told someone else to have a look and they didn't, thinking it was some Biblical conspiracy thing. They have some good sound stuff on that site in regards to the 6 day creation. Also much on how our earth is young from well known and respected scientists from all fields. Felipe, there is a free website where you can download Bible commentaries like Mathew Henry, Gill and others. They are a good help in understanding what some parts of scripture really mean. Such as the one you quoted. The site is called e-sword and has some great stuff there. Though in the graphics viewer one is some imagery of, supposed images of Christ, which are not good, but the commentaries and bible downloads are.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The Reformed Church US published a good position paper on this topic that I appreciated. The Aquila Report posted the Intro with a link to the paper. It does a decent job in answering a lot of the questions raised here. 

http://theaquilareport.com/a-rationale-for-the-rcus-position-paper-on-days-of-creation/#!

http://theaquilareport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/RCUS-Position-Creation-Days-1999.pdf


----------



## GloriousBoaz

Jason Lisle says: "Some evolutionists might argue that they can account for uniformity just as the Christian does—by appealing to a god who upholds the universe in a law-like fashion.13 But rather than believing in Genesis creation, they believe that this god created over millions of years of evolution. However, theistic evolution will not resolve the problem. A theistic evolutionist does not believe that Genesis is literally true. But if Genesis is not literally true, then there is no reason to believe that Genesis 8:22 is literally true. This verse is where God promises that we can count on a certain degree of uniformity in the future. Without biblical creation, the rational basis for uniformity is lost.

It’s not just any god that is required in order to make sense of uniformity; it is the Christian God as revealed in the Bible. Only a God who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all powerful, omnipresent, and who has revealed Himself to mankind can guarantee that there will be uniformity throughout space and time. Therefore, only biblical creationists can account for the uniformity in nature.

A “day-age” creationist might also try to use this argument. But it also fails for the same reason. Day-age creationists do not believe that Genesis really means what it says (that God literally created in six ordinary days). So, how could we trust that Genesis 8:22 really means what it says? And if Genesis 8:22 does not mean what it says, then there is no reason to believe in uniformity. Therefore, the day-age creationist has the same problem as the evolutionist. Neither can account for science and technology within his own worldview. "
Evolution: The Anti-science - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Free Christian

I have always read "morning and then evening" as being 1 day. An example given us by God to show the time frame it was created in. If it were anything different I would see something different than that be written. As God is not bound by time then the telling of it being morning and evening is for our purpose to understand the time frame of creation. As I understand, the Jews also believe it is a literal 6 day's. Too often we are told things take hundreds of thousands or millions of years to create, like limestone formations and things like that. But here in Australia there is a lighthouse water wheel that is now almost completely covered in limestone, I think in under 100 years. Stallactites and stallagmites (I have spelt those wrong but cannot think right now the correct spelling) have been discovered in disused underground rail systems growing as well as in sewers that defy how long they should have taken by the standards we have been told they do. There has even been a lost paddle steamer found in the US under many sediment layers that again by the standards that are used should be many thousand of years old, going by how long they say sediment layers take to form! The world has been conditioned through schools, media, science and so on to see things as older than they really are. To take longer to form than they really do. They say oil take millions of years to form, yet here in Australia a person has found a relatively simple way to turn organic matter into useable crude in just 1 day! As each year passes the millions of year time frame is crumbling to bits as new discoveries are made. Dinosaurs were before birds as we know today we are told, yet they found a fossil with a couple of relatively in tact modern type birds still undigested in its stomache cavity area not long back. The earth is young, very young. The huge age's bit is an illusion. Notice how all the old age earth and evolutionist scientists that push it are either completely godless, many openly professing a hatred towards God, or hold onto doctrines that are not biblical? The millions of years age is held by many, many Roman Catholics also. I have seen some good things on the subject in answers in Genesis also.


----------



## ZackF

Peairtach said:


> I like Norm would love to hear from some of the theistic evolutionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm kind of taken aback that theistic evolutionists have joined the PB.
Click to expand...


Sorry.  I don't consider myself a theistic evolutionist anymore but I was years ago when I joined PB until six months ago or so. Though I think evolution of a sort has and is happening I don't believe it explains our origins. Any theory, evolutionary or otherwise that doesn't permit the historical Adam and Eve of which I've always believed since before I was a believer, is impossible. Since I am not a 10K YO man by default that puts me in OE though I considered selecting "not sure." Where unbelievers see the observations of Darwin, Einstein, Hubble, Miller-Urey, Crick and so forth as proof of godlessness I've always gone the other direction.


----------



## Peairtach

KS_Presby said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like Norm would love to hear from some of the theistic evolutionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm kind of taken aback that theistic evolutionists have joined the PB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry.  I don't consider myself a theistic evolutionist anymore but I was years ago when I joined PB until six months ago or so. Though I think evolution of a sort has and is happening I don't believe it explains our origins. Any theory, evolutionary or otherwise that doesn't permit the historical Adam and Eve of which I've always believed since before I was a believer, is impossible. Since I am not a 10K YO man by default that puts me in OE though I considered selecting "not sure." Where unbelievers see the observations of Darwin, Einstein, Hubble, Miller-Urey, Crick and so forth as proof of godlessness I've always gone the other direction.
Click to expand...


Well creationists believe that God gave the various "kinds" a degree of ability to develop and diversify. Look at the variety of humans, cats and dogs. YEC or OEC doesn't't hold that all these varieties were there at the beginning, but there was the possibility of development placed in the creation by God, which would work itself out in His providence.

Some would prefer to call it "variation" rather than "micro-evolution" to make it clear, that got has got nothing to do with the notion of Darwinism. 

Darwin of course extrapolated his theory of common descent of all creatures, from domestic breeding and minor variations. All the best lies have a modicum of truth in them as the bait or in order to muddy the waters and confuse.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Peairtach

Philip said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 1 and 2 shouldn't be seen as two separate creation accounts. Genesis 1 is the chronological order of the creation of the universe and the earth while genesis 2 zooms in on day 6 dealing with the creation of man in the garden of Eden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that Genesis 2 seems to include the creation of some things on day 6 (if it is day 6) that belong to day 4. As I said, the reasons for my holding the historical interpretation of Genesis 1 lightly are exegetical. The main narrative starts in Genesis 2 with Genesis 1 as a literary/theological prologue.
Click to expand...


John Byl answers this here: bylogos: Genesis versus Dr. Tim Keller

I think it's details like Genesis 2:5 - such a prosaic explanation as to why agriculture had not been developed by Man, and other aspects of the earlier chapters of Genesis, if it were necessary, that give the lie to the early chapters of Genesis being mythology. Is it of the character of myth to go into such mundane explanations about such mundane first parents? I'm not here saying that you believe Genesis is myth, Philip; just raising another point.

C.S. Lewis somewhere compared the Gospels as literature with myths in order to show that e.g. characters as prosaic as Peter, James and John, and Mary, Martha and Lazarus were not characteristic of the genre of mythology.

Here's an article by Donald MacLeod on that: Is Jesus a myth?

Are there any boooks which contrast Genesis for genre with the pagan creation and flood myths?


----------



## ZackF

Peairtach said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 1 and 2 shouldn't be seen as two separate creation accounts. Genesis 1 is the chronological order of the creation of the universe and the earth while genesis 2 zooms in on day 6 dealing with the creation of man in the garden of Eden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that Genesis 2 seems to include the creation of some things on day 6 (if it is day 6) that belong to day 4. As I said, the reasons for my holding the historical interpretation of Genesis 1 lightly are exegetical. The main narrative starts in Genesis 2 with Genesis 1 as a literary/theological prologue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Byl answers this here: bylogos: Genesis versus Dr. Tim Keller
> 
> I think it's details like Genesis 2:5 - such a prosaic explanation as to why agriculture had not been developed by Man, and other aspects of the earlier chapters of Genesis, if it were necessary, that give the lie to the early chapters of Genesis being mythology. Is it of the character of myth to go into such mundane explanations about such mundane first parents? I'm not here saying that you believe Genesis is myth, Philip; just raising another point.
> 
> C.S. Lewis somewhere compared the Gospels as literature with myths in order to show that e.g. characters as prosaic as Peter, James and John, and Mary, Martha and Lazarus were not characteristic of the genre of mythology.
> 
> Here's an article by Donald MacLeod on that: Is Jesus a myth?
> 
> Are there any boooks which contrast Genesis for genre with the pagan creation and flood myths?
Click to expand...



In college, we used a couple of Pritchard's Near Eastern Readers for coursework and I seem to remember the parallels to OT texts. However, it's been almost 20 years though.


----------



## Stratiotes

I would say six literal days.

Soli Deo Gloria


----------



## Reverend Chaplain

There are hermeneutics that would allow for a non-literal reading of Genesis which renders it neither wrong nor "rubbish." There are questions of genre and authorial intent that need to be dealt with before jumping to a conclusion that it MUST be literal.


----------



## Peairtach

Reverend Chaplain said:


> There are hermeneutics that would allow for a non-literal reading of Genesis which renders it neither wrong nor "rubbish." There are questions of genre and authorial intent that need to be dealt with before jumping to a conclusion that it MUST be literal.



What is the genre of the early chapters of Genesis, if not plain history?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## THE W

Reverend Chaplain said:


> There are hermeneutics that would allow for a non-literal reading of Genesis which renders it neither wrong nor "rubbish." There are questions of genre and authorial intent that need to be dealt with before jumping to a conclusion that it MUST be literal.



Ok, make your case..


----------



## Sherwin L.

Peairtach said:


> Reverend Chaplain said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are hermeneutics that would allow for a non-literal reading of Genesis which renders it neither wrong nor "rubbish." There are questions of genre and authorial intent that need to be dealt with before jumping to a conclusion that it MUST be literal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the genre of the early chapters of Genesis, if not plain history?
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


Yes, I think any reformed believer with a historical-grammatical hermenuetical approach should find no compelling reason why Genesis wasn't written plainly and literally. We treat the patriarchs and the narratives about them as literal history-- so why would we exegete the beginning of Genesis any differently?


----------



## MW

Reverend Chaplain said:


> There are questions of genre and authorial intent that need to be dealt with before jumping to a conclusion that it MUST be literal.



Besides the usual markers of historical narrative in the text itself, there are "literal" reflections on and references to the creation narrative in the rest of the Bible which compel the reader to understand the events recorded in Genesis 1 as being historical in the proper sense of the term. The fourth commandment demands a literal interpretation, not only of certain features of the creation narrative, but of the whole structure of it. The creation Psalms are often classified among the "historical Psalms" simply because they give poetic descriptions of the creation narrative. Themes in the prophets, such as the "Lord of creation" and "new creation" themes, assume the events of Genesis 1 are historical. Our Lord taught that God made them male and female in the beginning and that the Sabbath was made for man. The teaching of the apostle Paul that God commanded light to shine out of darkness requires not only historical but chronological certainty. The same applies to the teaching of the apostle Peter in showing the relationship of the earth to the waters. Biblical teachings are built on historical verities, and the creation account is the foundation of all historical events.


----------



## Free Christian

Well put Armourbearer. When I read Genesis I cannot for the life of me see anything but a literal 6 days! It could not be described more literally!


----------



## Webservant

I just don't know about this thread. There is so much potential for argument... I don't want to be a stir of the pot and I certainly don't want to be branded a heretic. Questions like this are interesting but then after awhile we start bickering. 

I didn't answer either because there are not enough choices. 

Do I believe God created the earth in 6 days? Sure - He says He did. Do I know they were consecutive, contiguous days? No, I don't, but I am sure someone here will correct me on this point. 

Do I think that the earth is young? No I don't. There are too many gaps in our knowledge and we really don't know how long it was from when Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden until now. How long were they IN the garden?

Do I think evolution is a lie from the flames of hell? Nope. It leads TO the genius and mercy of God, not away from it. Tell me, do the many varieties of dogs come from randomness or design? We did that. Evolution is an act of active creation, in my opinion and it points towards intelligence. Do I believe it's a lie from hell to presume that humans can evolve? No. I can think of no better explanation for why we have races. 

Listen, man and creation fell and God, in His mercy, designed our bodies (and those of the animals) to be able to survive in and adapt to harsh conditions. Do those of you who insist that the earth is 6,000 years old also believe that Adam and Eve were Caucasians? Or any the other existing races? All this being said, I believe in a literal Adam and Eve, created by God out of the dust. What they looked like is not my concern and I don't really even care. 

In conclusion, this whole debate and whatever evidence we may find for or against evolution doesn't prove God is a liar. It proves that there's so much that we don't know.


----------



## earl40

Here is why I did not vote in this poll, like anyone is interested.  Having read over this thread the past month and a half I have come to the following conclusions.

#1. The insistence the all the days of creation contain 24 hours is In my most humble opinion a tad dogmatic in that the people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun, and knowing that the sun moon and stars were created on the fourth day tells me that man's measurement of a day is different than what God calls a day before the sun moon and stars were created. In other words, I see no reason to be dogmatic in stating the first 3 days were 24 hours. After day 4 I have no problem in believing our measurement of a day is exactly the same amount of time The Lord wishes to convey.

#2. I see no evidence from the biblical historical account of the creation of Adam to doubt men have only been around for 6,000-20,000 years.

#3. I think the fall as described in the bible is describing man's fall and I think that outside the garden there was much death. This is historically verified in scripture in that logical inference dictates that God put out Adam and Eve to a location that was outside the garden. In other words, the garden did not fall, Adam did, and he was "sent forth" out into something that In my most humble opinion was far from perfect.

So If there was an option that......God created the creation a long long time ago in the span of six days (knowing a day could have been a "gazillion" hours before the sun was created) I would have voted for such.


----------



## sevenzedek

Webservant said:


> I just don't know about this thread. There is so much potential for argument... I don't want to be a stir of the pot and I certainly don't want to be branded a heretic. Questions like this are interesting but then after awhile we start bickering.
> 
> I didn't answer either because there are not enough choices.
> 
> Do I believe God created the earth in 6 days? Sure - He says He did. Do I know they were consecutive, contiguous days? No, I don't, but I am sure someone here will correct me on this point.
> 
> Do I think that the earth is young? No I don't. There are too many gaps in our knowledge and we really don't know how long it was from when Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden until now. How long were they IN the garden?
> 
> Do I think evolution is a lie from the flames of hell? Nope. It leads TO the genius and mercy of God, not away from it. Tell me, do the many varieties of dogs come from randomness or design? We did that. Evolution is an act of active creation, in my opinion and it points towards intelligence. Do I believe it's a lie from hell to presume that humans can evolve? No. I can think of no better explanation for why we have races.
> 
> Listen, man and creation fell and God, in His mercy, designed our bodies (and those of the animals) to be able to survive in and adapt to harsh conditions. Do those of you who insist that the earth is 6,000 years old also believe that Adam and Eve were Caucasians? Or any the other existing races? All this being said, I believe in a literal Adam and Eve, created by God out of the dust. What they looked like is not my concern and I don't really even care.
> 
> In conclusion, this whole debate and whatever evidence we may find for or against evolution doesn't prove God is a liar. It proves that there's so much that we don't know.



Ummm... are you talking about micro-evolution or macro-evolution?


----------



## sevenzedek

earl40 said:


> #1. The insistence the all the days of creation contain 24 hours is In my most humble opinion a tad dogmatic in that the people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun, and knowing that the sun moon and stars were created on the fourth day tells me that man's measurement of a day is different than what God calls a day before the sun moon and stars were created. In other words, I see no reason to be dogmatic in stating the first 3 days were 24 hours. After day 4 I have no problem in believing our measurement of a day is exactly the same amount of time The Lord wishes to convey.



Uncertainty can also be a form of dogmatism too. Also, can one be considered "too dogmatic" when they have acceptable grounds for insistence? For my part, I would rather believe upon an obvious reading of the text rather than a philosophical import. I believe the import happens when we insert into the text that God could view a day as though it were many days to us. That is true, but is it there in the reading? God was not writing to us from his perspective. Rather, he was writing to us from our perspective and for our benefit. I think that is why he says "first day," "second day," and so forth. Since a day can be viewed as a twenty-four hour period after day 4, a day in the same context can easily be viewed as a similar twenty-four hour period of time for each day prior even though a sun never rose or set. If it were not so, why did the Lord not wish to convey so otherwise? He didn't. He said day when he could have something else. That is why I favor a twenty-four reading to be more plausible.

I do see your point about the first three days. I just find more the evidence pushes me the other way.

Why is this so important anyway? I suppose there are many implications from such a heavily argued point in the Scriptures.


----------



## ReformedChristian

6 Literal days and 24hrs I let the Biblical text speak on its own.


----------



## earl40

sevenzedek said:


> Why is this so important anyway? I suppose there are many implications from such a heavily argued point in the Scriptures.



I agree and my point I believe stands about the length of a day, without the sun, which was not created as of yet as revealed in Scripture.


----------



## One Little Nail

Apparently Genesis 1:1 happened at the beginning of the night which preceded the 23rd of October 4004BC


Bishop James Ussher Sets the Date for Creation: October 23, 4004 B.C.


----------



## sevenzedek

earl40 said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this so important anyway? I suppose there are many implications from such a heavily argued point in the Scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and my point I believe stands about the length of a day, without the sun, which was not created as of yet as revealed in Scripture.
Click to expand...


I don't mind thinking hard about matters that appear insignificant on the surface. So, I belabor the the point.

I think you _may_ have missed the issue I raised. If the word "day" equals an approximate twenty-four hour period after the fourth day, then the use of the same word, "day," before the fourth day must refer the same. To use the word "day" to describe an indefinite amount of time is inconsistent with the context if the word ever refers to an approximate twenty-four hour period in the same context. To put it another way, the use of the word puts parameters upon our understanding of its use before the fourth day. If this were not true, the another word should have been used.

If the issue is not so clearly defined regarding its use before the fourth day, then it is not really important for the days following because we segregate the context. If that is the case, then we open the door to allow the word to refer to an indefinite period of time anywhere we choose since the word becomes divorced from its context. This is where the "import" occurs.

Another thing that supports the view I am purposing is the fact that day, night, morning, and evening were all created on the first day; all intervals that speak to the same approximate twenty-four hour period of time for which I argue regarding the first three days. These intervals did not appear with the arrival of the sun.


----------



## Romans922

earl40 said:


> #1. The insistence the all the days of creation contain 24 hours is In my most humble opinion a tad dogmatic in that the people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun, and knowing that the sun moon and stars were created on the fourth day tells me that man's measurement of a day is different than what God calls a day before the sun moon and stars were created. In other words, I see no reason to be dogmatic in stating the first 3 days were 24 hours. After day 4 I have no problem in believing our measurement of a day is exactly the same amount of time The Lord wishes to convey.



So you would rather eisegete the passage because people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun? I just had (or am having now) a 25 hour day with daylight savings because of how people measure days. Take that hermeneutic and be consistent throughout all of Scripture, and you will be a blasphemer by the end of the day.

On such a debate with Scripture "In my most humble opinion" is not allowed. Prophets don't get the luxury of "In my most humble opinion". What matters is what Yahweh says. And He is clear.


----------



## earl40

Romans922 said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> #1. The insistence the all the days of creation contain 24 hours is In my most humble opinion a tad dogmatic in that the people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun, and knowing that the sun moon and stars were created on the fourth day tells me that man's measurement of a day is different than what God calls a day before the sun moon and stars were created. In other words, I see no reason to be dogmatic in stating the first 3 days were 24 hours. After day 4 I have no problem in believing our measurement of a day is exactly the same amount of time The Lord wishes to convey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would rather eisegete the passage because people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun? I just had (or am having now) a 25 hour day with daylight savings because of how people measure days. Take that hermeneutic and be consistent throughout all of Scripture, and you will be a blasphemer by the end of the day.
> 
> On such a debate with Scripture "In my most humble opinion" is not allowed. Prophets don't get the luxury of "In my most humble opinion". What matters is what Yahweh says. And He is clear.
Click to expand...


I hear you. Now show me where God said a day is approximately 24 hours long in the first 3 days of creation. The view I hold believes that a day could have been a lot longer than 12 hours for the light may not be what many think it is.


----------



## earl40

sevenzedek said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this so important anyway? I suppose there are many implications from such a heavily argued point in the Scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and my point I believe stands about the length of a day, without the sun, which was not created as of yet as revealed in Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't mind thinking hard about matters that appear insignificant on the surface. So, I belabor the the point.
> 
> I think you _may_ have missed the issue I raised. If the word "day" equals an approximate twenty-four hour period after the fourth day, then the use of the same word, "day," before the fourth day must refer the same. To use the word "day" to describe an indefinite amount of time is inconsistent with the context if the word ever refers to an approximate twenty-four hour period in the same context. To put it another way, the use of the word puts parameters upon our understanding of its use before the fourth day. If this were not true, the another word should have been used.
> 
> If the issue is not so clearly defined regarding its use before the fourth day, then it is not really important for the days following because we segregate the context. If that is the case, then we open the door to allow the word to refer to an indefinite period of time anywhere we choose since the word becomes divorced from its context. This is where the "import" occurs.
> 
> Another thing that supports the view I am purposing is the fact that day, night, morning, and evening were all created on the first day; all intervals that speak to the same approximate twenty-four hour period of time for which I argue regarding the first three days. These intervals did not appear with the arrival of the sun.
Click to expand...


As Jonah was in the belly of the whale for 72 hours?

"for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Hear we have the context of 3 days that is not 24 hours and no one is arguing for a strict time period even though the 3 days were less than 72 hours. 

Also so far as intervals with the "arrival of the sun" why not assume God is defining the time of how long a day is from that day forward as the below says.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:


----------



## sevenzedek

earl40 said:


> Also so far as intervals with the "arrival of the sun" why not assume God is defining the time of how long a day is from that day forward...



Because he already defined it beforehand:

Genesis 1:5, 8, 13
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
8 ...And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
13 ...And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

And, as I said before, the interval existed before the arrival of the sun.

If the words "there was evening and there was morning, the... day" do not define the parameters of an approximate twenty-four hour period for the first three days, the context becomes lost and the door opens for us to import meaning into the text.

This is where my quote is fulfilled:



sevenzedek said:


> If that is the case, then we open the door to allow the word to refer to an indefinite period of time anywhere we choose since the word becomes divorced from its context. This is where the "import" occurs.



Is it not possible for God to describe the first three days in terms of what it would look like when the sun would finally be created? I would say yes simply because that is what he did on the first day where he said, "There was evening and there was morning, the first day." In order for your view to be correct, what he said cannot be true; unless you mean to say that a morning and evening do not equal a day as it does for the following days. And if it doesn't, then the door remains open for the rest of the Bible too.

Another thing to bear in mind is that God not only creates _time_ in Genesis 1, he orders it there as well. If the word "day" can mean an indefinite period of time in the context of that particular chapter, the order is lost and days mean nothing anymore. God established this order before the arrival of the sun. The greater and lesser lights do not create that order. The order of days existed beforehand and the lights merely help us to identify that order.


----------



## Romans922

earl40 said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> #1. The insistence the all the days of creation contain 24 hours is In my most humble opinion a tad dogmatic in that the people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun, and knowing that the sun moon and stars were created on the fourth day tells me that man's measurement of a day is different than what God calls a day before the sun moon and stars were created. In other words, I see no reason to be dogmatic in stating the first 3 days were 24 hours. After day 4 I have no problem in believing our measurement of a day is exactly the same amount of time The Lord wishes to convey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would rather eisegete the passage because people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun? I just had (or am having now) a 25 hour day with daylight savings because of how people measure days. Take that hermeneutic and be consistent throughout all of Scripture, and you will be a blasphemer by the end of the day.
> 
> On such a debate with Scripture "In my most humble opinion" is not allowed. Prophets don't get the luxury of "In my most humble opinion". What matters is what Yahweh says. And He is 8clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear you. Now show me where God said a day is approximately 24 hours long in the first 3 days of creation. The view I hold believes that a day could have been a lot longer than 12 hours for the light may not be what many think it is.
Click to expand...


The real question is where in the text is it being shown that it was anything different than an ordinary literal day. Is there any purpose in the text to show it any differently than how someone of Israel in the time of Moses would have taken it?


----------



## sevenzedek

Romans922 said:


> The real question is where in the text is it being shown that it was anything different than an ordinary literal day.



I don't want you to feel like I am ganging up on you, Earl, but that is the question begged.


----------



## THE W

sevenzedek said:


> Genesis 1:5, 8, 13
> 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
> 8 ...And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
> 13 ...And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.



Couple this with what Jesus said in john 11:9-10


----------



## earl40

Romans922 said:


> The real question is where in the text is it being shown that it was anything different than an ordinary literal day. Is there any purpose in the text to show it any differently than how someone of Israel in the time of Moses would have taken it?



14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, *and for days *and years:


----------



## earl40

THE W said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 1:5, 8, 13
> 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
> 8 ...And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
> 13 ...And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couple this with what Jesus said in john 11:9-10
Click to expand...


As mentioned above God did indeed define 12 hours in a day from day four on.


----------



## One Little Nail

THE W said:


> Reverend Chaplain said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are hermeneutics that would allow for a non-literal reading of Genesis which renders it neither wrong nor "rubbish." There are questions of genre and authorial intent that need to be dealt with before jumping to a conclusion that it MUST be literal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, make your case..
Click to expand...


Yes you should state your case, this sounds like the echoing of Higher Criticism thought.


----------

