# Evolution and Creation



## Breadloaf (Jul 23, 2004)

There are a few different views on creation and evolution
-Bread


----------



## sastark (Jul 23, 2004)

*Literal View*

Six regular days of light and dark.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 23, 2004)

I would follow the WCF:

It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,[1] for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,[2] in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, [b:54eff57935][color=red:54eff57935]in the space of six days[/color:54eff57935][/b:54eff57935]; and all very good.[3]

1. Rom 11:36; I Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2; John 1:2-3; Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4
2. Rom 1:20; Jer. 10:12; Psa. 33:5; 104:24
3. Gen 1:1-31; Psa. 33:6; Heb. 11:3; Col. 1:16; Acts 17:24; Exod. 20:11


----------



## LauridsenL (Jul 23, 2004)

I didn't vote because I don't think the choices accurately reflect my tentative view -- which I've discussed at some length in another thread. (Short version: I'm intrigued by a theory that the creation was both literally 144 hours AND a much longer period of time at one and the same time.) Bottom line -- I'm 100% convinced that Genesis is 100% inerrant --I'm less certain that our traditional exegesis of it is 100% accurate.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 23, 2004)

Moving to Creation Forum.

Where does Framework fit? (Not that I am a Framework guy, but it needs to be an option)


----------



## humble_soul (Jul 23, 2004)

Six literal days is the only thing I read from the Bible.

However, I'm not sure that we know exactly long the days were at that point in time. The Bible is clear on morning and evening, so six rotations of the earth, but could the earth's rotation time be different than today? 

Because of these questions, I can't say I believe in "young earth" for certain. It could very well be, and I'm open to that. Yet I won't dismiss the possibility the earth could be older.

The earth was created, and we are clearly using morning/evenings as the basis for time keeping, that means we must use the earth itself as the reference frame for time.

The earth could have rotated faster, or slower. Creation could have happened in 6 seconds, or 6 years. I am only certain that we had six days/nights.

Does the amount of time God took to create things matter? I'm not sure. It would be interesting to know, but I am kind of nervous about speculating on this topic.

God did what he pleased during creation. I think of Job, where god says:

Job 38:4-6

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding, 
Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it? 
"On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,


----------



## terry72 (Jul 27, 2004)

[quote:7fa159251c](Short version: I'm intrigued by a theory that the creation was both literally 144 hours AND a much longer period of time at one and the same time.)[/quote:7fa159251c]

Lee,
I would really be interested in seeing this explained...... uzzled: 

It seems to violate the law of non-contradiction as you worded it....

blessings,
Terry


----------



## JohnV (Jul 27, 2004)

I voted "literal -young earth". I do so inspite of the lack of inclusion of "Framework" and "Analogous Day" theories. The fact that human theories are human theories, and that the six-day one is not a human theory, does it for me. No other concept can be placed into the Confessions; and Webmaster is right to appeal to them.


----------



## crhoades (Jul 27, 2004)

It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,[1] for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,[2] in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, [b:000f9fa754]in the space of six days[/b:000f9fa754]; and all very good.[3] 

A few questions:
1. Can one hold to the confession language "in the space of six days" and still define the days as long periods of time? (day is not defined 'explicitly' as 24 hour day.
2. I guess #1 brings up authorial/original intent or the plainest/clearest sense. Then we would have to determine by reading the minutes etc. of the assembly to determine the context of this portion of the confession.
3. Is #2 a fair method? Would that not automatically lean toward the literal rendering because the longer periods of time was not a current thought?

I know much has been debated about this recently in the OPC/PCA and I definitely want to stand true to the word of God. 6 days? Yes. Evolution? No. How long were the days? Not sure. That's where I'm at now. I received a B.S. in Chemistry & Biology in undergrad and at one time did a lot of reading in the creation debate. I've probably forgotten more than I read in the first place. Links to good debates resources would be most helpful.


----------



## pastorway (Jul 27, 2004)

God wrote with His own finger on the Tablet of Stone:

[quote:313ffce370]For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. 
[i:313ffce370]Exodus 20:11[/i:313ffce370][/quote:313ffce370]

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 27, 2004)

[quote:026ad93f21="crhoades"]It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,[1] for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,[2] in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, [b:026ad93f21]in the space of six days[/b:026ad93f21]; and all very good.[3] 

A few questions:
1. Can one hold to the confession language "in the space of six days" and still define the days as long periods of time? (day is not defined 'explicitly' as 24 hour day.
2. I guess #1 brings up authorial/original intent or the plainest/clearest sense. Then we would have to determine by reading the minutes etc. of the assembly to determine the context of this portion of the confession.
3. Is #2 a fair method? Would that not automatically lean toward the literal rendering because the longer periods of time was not a current thought?

I know much has been debated about this recently in the OPC/PCA and I definitely want to stand true to the word of God. 6 days? Yes. Evolution? No. How long were the days? Not sure. That's where I'm at now. I received a B.S. in Chemistry & Biology in undergrad and at one time did a lot of reading in the creation debate. I've probably forgotten more than I read in the first place. Links to good debates resources would be most helpful.[/quote:026ad93f21]

The best resource from a Confessional viewpoint:

http://capo.org/creationstudies.html


----------



## JohnV (Jul 27, 2004)

Chris:
From a Confessional point of view, no other than six days is allowed. It is the only one that conforms only to the Word, and not man's theoretical tenets. In other words, if it may be possible, theoretically, that there are other theories, they may never be included in the Confessions, as they are completely on the basis of man's limited knowledge, and only conform to Scripture in a sense of the open-endedness of the words used, as perceived by man. But that is no basis for articulating it into the Confessions. We must never put words in God's mouth. The six-day view is the only one that doesn't put words in God's mouth; the only one that can be Confessionally included into the doctrines of the Church, even if there were a possibility that another theory was plausible. 

So the question for me is whether the creation account is a Confessional matter. I believe it is; therefore the only possible answer is a six regular day account. Any other I may not put into my credo.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 27, 2004)

There were other views around during the writing of the WCF but the Divines rejected all other views. "In the space of six days" is a direct quote from Ussher and Calvin, both of whom held to a 6 natural day view. Plus, all the writings of the Divines we can find so far, teach the 6 natural day view (as Fred's link points out). There is no evidence anywhere that the Divines held any other view. So, the historical Confessional view and the consistent hermenuetic of Scripture leave us no options but the traditional 6-natural day view. :wr50: 

Matt, any quotes from the minutes on this subject?


----------



## Ianterrell (Jul 28, 2004)

Literal Six Days!!!

Not sure I would call the earth "young" though. I think that's just the result of modern scientists fantasies that we have to describe the earth that is 7000 or so years old, as young. That's pretty old to me! And biologically everything fits neatly into those years too. :yes:


----------

