# The Creation Week



## Wanderer

Does anyone know what the PCA position is on the creation weeks and what is allowable in PCA churches?


I'm asking this question, because I heard a PCA pastor say that it is now permissible for a PCA TE to believe and or teach that the creation took longer than a literal six days. And that he believes the days in Genesis are not literal.

He said that this was a recent change within the PCA.

Is this true?

I pray not. 

Can some please help me refute this or prove that this is within our churches standards of teaching?


----------



## Zenas

My old RUF minister takes the same exception. Apparently those who hold to the position seem to be typically graduating from Covenant Seminary.


----------



## TimV

Mac, go here

PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America

and go down to Creation for the PCA position paper on the subject.


----------



## lynnie

Tim Keller is an 800 lb gorilla in the PCA and he is rather "liberal" on this.

When Tim Keller professes a position ( in this case a non literal 6 day creation) the PCA has to allow it or lose Tim Keller.


----------



## kevin.carroll

Sadly, it's an acceptable exception. Check out the link to the position papers above. Personally, I don't know how you can argue for the Sabbath without a literal week, but hey...


----------



## Zenas

When someone says they don't follow 6-day Creation, what exactly are they saying they espouse? 

God created the world over millions of years? Thousands of years? Ten days as opposed to 6? 

Are they agreeing with evolutionary theory?

?


----------



## Theognome

Or Framework...? Sheesh!

Theognome


----------



## cih1355

Zenas said:


> When someone says they don't follow 6-day Creation, what exactly are they saying they espouse?
> 
> God created the world over millions of years? Thousands of years? Ten days as opposed to 6?
> 
> Are they agreeing with evolutionary theory?
> 
> ?



They believe that God took a long period of time to create the world such as millions and millions of years. Just because someone believes that God took millions and millions of years to create the world does not mean that he believes in the theory of evolution.


----------



## Zenas

Thus why I asked.


----------



## Kevin

I don't believe it, but it is a legit view.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

Zenas said:


> Apparently those who hold to the position seem to be typically graduating from Covenant Seminary.



And your proof for this is...? Whilst doing your research you may also want to look at graduates of other seminaries, then compare the figures. Let's not forget also that more than a century ago faithful reformed pastors/theologians were holding similar views.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Zenas said:


> When someone says they don't follow 6-day Creation, what exactly are they saying they espouse?
> 
> God created the world over millions of years? Thousands of years? Ten days as opposed to 6?
> 
> Are they agreeing with evolutionary theory?
> 
> ?



What are they saying? How about that the Bible doesn't say, never intended to say, and that the argument wasn't a problem until people started thinking that the only way to fight evolution was from a young earth perspective?

I personally don't hold to a six 24 hour day creation (it was not included in the WCF because there was controversy even back then ... there was talk of it being stated as 6 normals days of 24 hours, but that language was defeated). Augustine thought creation occurred in an instant. If you read Genesis, you don't have the sun to rule the day or the moon to rule the night (they were given to mark times, days seasons) until the 4th day.

While I understand that some want to hold to a young earth, six day creation, the internal testimony of the account does not seem to allow that days 1 through 3 are ordinary days. To say they are takes bringing to the text what the text does not say and takes the ordinary meaning of the text and throws it out the window. If the only reason to do so is to trash evolution, let me assure you, even if the universe were trillions of years old, the origin of life would still be an insurmountable obstacle to evolution (you have to have a cell for evolution to even get started ... it requires a self replicating life unit to get started, and that is so unlikely that no sane person when they looked at it would believe it possible).

That there has been a long history of controversy over the meaning of the first 6 days that long precedes the Darwinian error (I don't give it the credibility of a theory) then the two subjects are completely disjoint and unrelated.

One item that those that hold to the Genesis account not being literally six days comes from the idea that God *never* lies. He does not do so in the Bible, nor does he do so in general revelation. While it certainly is possible for God to have created the universe as an already existing universe with the light from a supernova of a star that never existed, it seems like to have done so would at least be deceptive. If my kids pulled some kind of stunt to convince people that something was true that never existed through planting false evidence, I'd probably tan their hide for being deceptive -- for bearing false witness to events. Do we really want to have it that God would be planting false evidence within the universe? Think about that one long and hard before you answer. Coming up with "tricks" to prove it possible (like changing the nature of light) seem just as bad for then we have a God of chaos, not of order.

The internal testimony of scripture, the testimony of the stars in the sky, what we see around us all point to something other than a six day creation. I tend to lean toward the framework in which the text appears to be two sets of three, in which prior to the work of the six days, we have formless and void. The first three days are formed, the next three days are filled. It makes perfect sense, needs no weird explanation of the first three days when days had not yet been created as 24 hour entities, and puts the Bible squarely in the genre of theological history, not scientific journal. Science rightly looks at "how did God create" and theology rightly looks at our duty toward God and who he is. While the Bible is incapable of error, it speaks differently than what science does and is not interested in the questions for which we might want to get answers. God condescended to us in revealing himself to us for his purposes, not to satisfy our curiosity. We have his works (the universe) and his word (the Bible) and we should ever expect there can be no contradiction between them -- God cannot lie -- and so we should always look at both to know what we can about our sovereign and king.


----------



## brianeschen

Brian Withnell said:


> I personally don't hold to a six 24 hour day creation (it was not included in the WCF because there was controversy even back then ... there was talk of it being stated as 6 normals days of 24 hours, but that language was defeated).


From the Shorter Catechism:


> Question 9. What is the work of creation?
> Answer. The work of creation is God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of *six days*, and all very good.



From the Larger Catechism:


> Question 15: What is the work of creation?
> Answer: The work of creation is that wherein God did in the beginning, by the word of his power, make of nothing the world, and all things therein, for himself, within the space of *six days*, and all very good.



I have heard the argument from men in my presbytery that the Westminster Standards are ambiguous on this . . . that you don't even need to take an exception to our standards. I can't see how that can be argued without assaulting the English language.


----------



## rgray

kevin.carroll said:


> Sadly, it's an acceptable exception. Check out the link to the position papers above. Personally, I don't know how you can argue for the Sabbath without a literal week, but hey...



I must say that I grew up heavily influenced by Kline, (my Grandfather's colleague, and I'm friends with his grandchildren), and while I'm not wholly convinced by his position, I appreciate some of the fruit of his study.

1) Since God at least describes creation in the week format, it means that he intends us to understand it as such, even if he is describing an event that can hardly be expressed in human terms. I think Kline would argue that the very structure of the passage leads to the Sabbath Day (the King-rest day in which all creation acknowledges the Creator) Far from negating it, the account in fact establishes it.

2) How come none of us have a problem with language of accommodation, or visionary language, poetic language, or figurative language in general, yet get hung up that God might possibly be describing an incredible event -- far beyond our imagination -- in a way that we can grasp it. 

3) Not only grasp it, but also learn about who God is from the very structure of it. That He alone is the creator of all things, That he is the king over his creation. That he created all things by the power of his Word. That He sustains all things and created them orderly. That he created man unique, and in His image, as the crown of his creation. And that it was all very good. All glory be to Him!

I'm not saying that it's not 6 literal days, just that we shouldn't assume someone is "liberal" for holding this. (or even that is some sort of compromise to be esteemed in liberal circles or derived out of a liberal "framework" of thinking) And personally knowing the late Dr. Kline and his family, I must tell you that he is one of the most Godly, brilliant scholars I have met, and someone who understands the ancient near east languages quite a bit more than any of us on this board.

Despite what I just said the strongest argument against framework theory is that the simplest way to read the text is that a day in the Hebrew here means a literal 24 hour period.


----------



## Wanderer

*Long Day View*

I find the view that it took longer than 6 days for creation to be serious error. And this is why:

1. To make things simple, lets say the days are 1000 years. Scripture tells us that 1000 years is to one day for God. So let's say each day is 1000 years. We all know that the bible tells us that Adam was created on day six. Then God rested on day seven. So if the days are equal distance in time to one another, then Adam before the fall would have to be older than a 1000 years. We all know that Adam was 930 years old when he died. So one must ask, even if someone believes the days are 1000 years, do they believe in a literal Adam. And if they don't believe in a literal Adam, do they believe in original sin. And if they don't believe in original sin, then why did Christ have to die for us. I say unbelief in a literal creation week put's ones whole theology on unstable ground. 

2. In Genesis, it seems that God goes out of his way to define the space of what a day is. When you read Genesis, God specifically states there was evening and there was morning. Notice he dose no say that there were morning(s). God define the day within the same passage to show that it was a literal day. I find it interesting that people do not focus on this fact. Our our eyes so blind that we can't see that God is defining exactly what he means in Genesis when he is speaking of a space in time, defining what a day is in Genesis? Why do we need to go any further? People who are proposing that the day is a period of hundreds, or thousands, or millions of years are clearly demonstrating that they have a presupposition not to believe the bible for what it says. What does this say about their faith?

3. The long day theory has no basis in the historical understanding of Genesis, it is a modern theory that goes hand and hand with evolution. 

4. People that hold to the long day theory have a lack of belief in the power of Christ. For we all know that Christ uphold all things by the power of his word. God does not need a million years to make anything. He is not subject to time, and works outside of time. He simple give the command that something should be, and it is. God if he so chose to creation within a micro second could have done it. But he decided to take a week to create the world in order to give us further teaching so that we might understand Him. Don't be fooled that God needs millions of years to do anything.

I could go on with reason, after reason why those who hold a long days view are in error. And the WCF is clear on the issue, that the days of creation were six liter days. It is a shame that our denomination has been invaded by so many that hold to the long day view, and that there are so many that are not willing or unable to adequately demonstrate that the long day view is clearly in error.

Oh, well. As you all can see, I have very strong opinions on this matter. I have a very high view of scripture, and a low view of those who want to contradict scripture. I'm sure someone out there is going to chastise me for what I have written on this. I've just exposed myself yet again. But I say, let God be true, but every man a liar.


----------



## Brian Withnell

brianeschen said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't hold to a six 24 hour day creation (it was not included in the WCF because there was controversy even back then ... there was talk of it being stated as 6 normals days of 24 hours, but that language was defeated).
> 
> 
> 
> From the Shorter Catechism:
> 
> 
> 
> Question 9. What is the work of creation?
> Answer. The work of creation is God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of *six days*, and all very good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the Larger Catechism:
> 
> 
> 
> Question 15: What is the work of creation?
> Answer: The work of creation is that wherein God did in the beginning, by the word of his power, make of nothing the world, and all things therein, for himself, within the space of *six days*, and all very good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have heard the argument from men in my presbytery that the Westminster Standards are ambiguous on this . . . that you don't even need to take an exception to our standards. I can't see how that can be argued without assaulting the English language.
Click to expand...


It is argued by looking at the history and the notes of the divines at the time. The proposal of "six ordinary day" and "six 24 hour days" were both defeated. It takes no assault on the English language to understand if you have the context, know the context and use the context. There were both those that held to 24 hour days, and those that didn't. Because there was controversy in between them, it was left out. I would suggest you read the report the to the General Assembly on the subject. The divines also left out any reference to post-millennial or a-millennial views (or pre-millennial for that matter) because if there was controversy in what the Bible says. The fact that some of the divines were for 24 hour days, and other against means that it says neither. They were that smart to not divide on the issue.

Trying to argue that "six days" when the proposal of "six 24 hour days" was defeated means 24 hour days seems like trying to do an end run around the confession and the divines intent to leave it ambiguous.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Wanderer said:


> I find the view that it took longer than 6 days for creation to be serious error. And this is why:
> 
> 1. To make things simple, lets say the days are 1000 years. Scripture tells us that 1000 years is to one day for God. So let's say each day is 1000 years. We all know that the bible tells us that Adam was created on day six. Then God rested on day seven. So if the days are equal distance in time to one another, then Adam before the fall would have to be older than a 1000 years. We all know that Adam was 930 years old when he died. So one must ask, even if someone believes the days are 1000 years, do they believe in a literal Adam. And if they don't believe in a literal Adam, do they believe in original sin. And if they don't believe in original sin, then why did Christ have to die for us. I say unbelief in a literal creation week put's ones whole theology on unstable ground.
> 
> 2. In Genesis, it seems that God goes out of his way to define the space of what a day is. When you read Genesis, God specifically states there was evening and there was morning. Notice he dose no say that there were morning(s). God define the day within the same passage to show that it was a literal day. I find it interesting that people do not focus on this fact. Our our eyes so blind that we can't see that God is defining exactly what he means in Genesis when he is speaking of a space in time, defining what a day is in Genesis? Why do we need to go any further? People who are proposing that the day is a period of hundreds, or thousands, or millions of years are clearly demonstrating that they have a presupposition not to believe the bible for what it says. What does this say about their faith?
> 
> 3. The long day theory has no basis in the historical understanding of Genesis, it is a modern theory that goes hand and hand with evolution.
> 
> 4. People that hold to the long day theory have a lack of belief in the power of Christ. For we all know that Christ uphold all things by the power of his word. God does not need a million years to make anything. He is not subject to time, and works outside of time. He simple give the command that something should be, and it is. God if he so chose to creation within a micro second could have done it. But he decided to take a week to create the world in order to give us further teaching so that we might understand Him. Don't be fooled that God needs millions of years to do anything.
> 
> I could go on with reason, after reason why those who hold a long days view are in error. And the WCF is clear on the issue, that the days of creation were six liter days. It is a shame that our denomination has been invaded by so many that hold to the long day view, and that there are so many that are not willing or unable to adequately demonstrate that the long day view is clearly in error.
> 
> Oh, well. As you all can see, I have very strong opinions on this matter. I have a very high view of scripture, and a low view of those who want to contradict scripture. I'm sure someone out there is going to chastise me for what I have written on this. I've just exposed myself yet again. But I say, let God be true, but every man a liar.



Mac, my friend, I hate to say it but I think you're pretty much dead wrong on every one of your points. This has been discussed in multiple threads in the past, but here are a few quick thoughts:

1. Not many people believe the "days" of Genesis 1 are literally a thousand years. The point is that God is outside the bounds of time, so from His perspective there are no "days." Even so, Adam being 930 years old is not a problem because he did not age prior to the Fall, and was created as an adult. So his age must be counted from the Fall onward, not starting on Day 6 as you claim.

2. Genesis 1 is a song according to most scholars, so "morning" and "evening" don't necessarily have to correspond to a literal rising and setting of the sun. Even if they do, the sun wasn't created on Day 1, so there was no Earth spinning on its axis or revolving around the sun. So even if you take "morning" and "evening" literally, it doesn't necessitate a belief in 24 hr days.

3. Read Augustine, written in the 4th century AD, along with some of the Puritan writers. The non-literal 24 hr day has existed since the earliest days of the church.

4. Absolutely untrue, and frankly offensive. Belief that God created the world _ex nihilo_ through Christ affirms His power. God could have created the world in any manner of time, as you say, but believing the Genesis account does not teach 24 hr days in no way undermines the power of Christ.

5. The WCF is not clear on the issue by design. It does not say "created in the space of six 24 hr days," rather simply "in the space of 6 days." The idea of putting 24 hr day was voted on and rejected by the Divines. 

I have a high view of Scripture as well, but that does not necessitate belief that creation occurred in 6 literal 24 hr days. Your pre-supposition is that anyone who believes otherwise is bowing to atheistic evolution, but this is not always the case. I reject on evolution based on the flaws evolution of alone, though I do believe the Earth is older than 10,000 years old, or at least appears older than 10,000 yeard old. Likewise, I'm not convinced the Genesis 1 account requires us to believe a literal week - there are actually just as many problems with this view as there any other view. Finally, no one can demonstrate the "long day view is clearly in error" because it isn't clearly in error. It may be wrong, but it is just as likely that the literal 24-hr view is wrong as well.

I appreciate your high view of Scripture and wanting to preserve the orthodox view of things. But believing in a non-literal view of the creation week, while perhaps the minority view here, is as old as the church itself, does in no way undermine the Scripture, the nature of God, or the Gospel, and is with good reason a valid belief within the PCA.


----------



## Kevin

Mac, no member of a denomination that holds to the WCF & also holds to some sort of framework view has "invaded" anything.

The historical record is clear that the 24 hr day view was rejected at the assembly. So anyone who agrees with the "space of 6 days" wording is within the bounds of the confession.

(BTW I hold to the 6 24 hr day view myself)


----------



## Zenas

Ask a question, get an argument.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Wanderer said:


> I find the view that it took longer than 6 days for creation to be serious error. And this is why:
> 
> 1. To make things simple, lets say the days are 1000 years. Scripture tells us that 1000 years is to one day for God. So let's say each day is 1000 years. ...
> ...
> Oh, well. As you all can see, I have very strong opinions on this matter. I have a very high view of scripture, and a low view of those who want to contradict scripture. I'm sure someone out there is going to chastise me for what I have written on this. I've just exposed myself yet again. But I say, let God be true, but every man a liar.



If anyone looks at the 4th day, it is obvious that God did not intend the days to be periods of time.


> Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;


The period of time "day" did not exist prior to the 4th day, and if you give even ordinary intellect to the author, you would give internal consistency to the account within a single page how much more that it is God that is speaking? Here you have God the author, and you want to have conflict within the passage on what would even make sense? Gen 2:4 states in the "day" God created the heavens and the earth. Seems like God went out of his way to point out that he did not mean literal 24 hour days or periods of time at all (periods of time were what was created on the 4th day).

I would state that it adds nothing to say "I have a high view of scripture" to my argument, as I would presume all of us do. I know I do, and I see the interpretation of it differently than some others.

What I find is that I would look at the internal evidence of the passage and clearly see it is not talking of six ordinary days, then it must be talking about something else. If it is talking about something else, then it behooves us to figure out what it is saying. While lots of people that want to say it is six ordinary days use that as a club, the passage has a framework to it ... each of the first three days corresponds to the next three days, and in each of the first three there is created in the next three it is filled. Light on the first day, the light bearers on the 4th, heavens separated from sea on day two, fish and birds on day 5, dry land appears on day 3, animals and man on day 6. It would seem that the meaning is much more than a chronology ... and I find no reason to even think it is six 24 hour periods from reading the text. The text itself is the biggest reason to reject 24 hour days.

One thing that could very easily be offensive is pulling out "high view of scripture" as if there was a difference in how highly we value and esteem the Bible. If the implication is that those that don't hold to a particular interpretation of scripture have a lower view, it is not only insulting to those that have just as high a view of scripture (or even higher). It is also a logic fallacy to use it in argument ... implying anyone that disagrees has a lower view of scripture is name calling/ad hominem. I hope that is not what was intended ... here I doubt if anyone has a low view of scripture. Even if someone did, it does nothing to an argument for the source of it ... as a means of illustration, the response of the pharisees to the man born blind (John 9) was to accuse him of being born in sin so they don't have to listen. We must be careful not to evaluate an argument based on who it is that brings the argument, but the merits of it by itself.


----------



## Zenas

I have a question:

If the three days prior to Day for were not days because there was no Sun, why? This seems built on the idea that the length of a day is restrained by the Sun. Why is the Sun not restrained by the length of a day?


----------



## Wanderer

Brian Withnell said:


> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't hold to a six 24 hour day creation (it was not included in the WCF because there was controversy even back then ... there was talk of it being stated as 6 normals days of 24 hours, but that language was defeated).
> 
> 
> 
> From the Shorter Catechism:
> 
> 
> From the Larger Catechism:
> 
> 
> 
> Question 15: What is the work of creation?
> Answer: The work of creation is that wherein God did in the beginning, by the word of his power, make of nothing the world, and all things therein, for himself, within the space of *six days*, and all very good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have heard the argument from men in my presbytery that the Westminster Standards are ambiguous on this . . . that you don't even need to take an exception to our standards. I can't see how that can be argued without assaulting the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is argued by looking at the history and the notes of the divines at the time. The proposal of "six ordinary day" and "six 24 hour days" were both defeated. It takes no assault on the English language to understand if you have the context, know the context and use the context. There were both those that held to 24 hour days, and those that didn't. Because there was controversy in between them, it was left out. I would suggest you read the report the to the General Assembly on the subject. The divines also left out any reference to post-millennial or a-millennial views (or pre-millennial for that matter) because if there was controversy in what the Bible says. The fact that some of the divines were for 24 hour days, and other against means that it says neither. They were that smart to not divide on the issue.
> 
> Trying to argue that "six days" when the proposal of "six 24 hour days" was defeated means 24 hour days seems like trying to do an end run around the confession and the divines intent to leave it ambiguous.
Click to expand...



Hmm. If people have references to defeats of the 24 hour day interpretation, can they please give proper references, and preferably links to those references. How can we discern if a reference is correct if the reference is made vague.


----------



## sastark

Zenas said:


> Ask a question, get an argument.



Welcome to the PB.


----------



## cih1355

Zenas said:


> I have a question:
> 
> If the three days prior to Day for were not days because there was no Sun, why? This seems built on the idea that the length of a day is restrained by the Sun. Why is the Sun not restrained by the length of a day?



If some people say that the three days prior to Day Four were not really days because there was no sun, then my response is that there doesn't have to be a sun in order for there to be a day. The light was in existence before there was a sun and that light shined upon the earth.


----------



## Zenas

I'm just wondering why the definition of day is constrained to solar movement. As the text plainly says, days existed before solar movement, so I'm wondering why they are subjugating the definition to the Sun, and determining that the days were then not days. 

If God meant "day" after the Sun's creation to mean a 24-hour period, why did the 24-hour period not pre-exist the Sun, and God design the Sun to operate on that 24 hour period? If God had already created time, then God could certainly measure it.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Wanderer said:


> Hmm. If people have references to defeats of the 24 hour day interpretation, can they please give proper references, and preferably links to those references. How can we discern if a reference is correct if the reference is made vague.



While it is not as explicit as the OPC report, you might want to look at the PCA report here which is from your own denomination. The OPC report is not online from what I can see. I'm still looking (the internet is large, and I am small). The PCA report gives several sides, but still sees it is open to debate by those that argue from scripture and hold scripture in the highest regard. If I can come up with a link to the OPC report, I will.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 12:49:46 EST-----



Zenas said:


> I'm just wondering why the definition of day is constrained to solar movement. As the text plainly says, days existed before solar movement, so I'm wondering why they are subjugating the definition to the Sun, and determining that the days were then not days.
> 
> If God meant "day" after the Sun's creation to mean a 24-hour period, why did the 24-hour period not pre-exist the Sun, and God design the Sun to operate on that 24 hour period? If God had already created time, then God could certainly measure it.



It isn't constrained by it if you don't want a plain reading of the text. If you want a plain reading of the text, then you would know something is different about the first three days at a minimum. Either that, or what is in view is that "in six days" doesn't refer explicitly to time, is figurative, or at least the last three are different.

What is important in the text is that God created, that he in using the figure of six days established a rule for sabbath rest, and that we are created (not creator, but creature). Those are clear from the text. That is also clear in the confession.


----------



## Dearly Bought

OPC's Report of the Committee to Study the Views of Creation.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 01:04:35 EST-----



Brian Withnell said:


> It is argued by looking at the history and the notes of the divines at the time. The proposal of "six ordinary day" and "six 24 hour days" were both defeated. It takes no assault on the English language to understand if you have the context, know the context and use the context. There were both those that held to 24 hour days, and those that didn't. Because there was controversy in between them, it was left out. I would suggest you read the report the to the General Assembly on the subject. The divines also left out any reference to post-millennial or a-millennial views (or pre-millennial for that matter) because if there was controversy in what the Bible says. The fact that some of the divines were for 24 hour days, and other against means that it says neither. They were that smart to not divide on the issue.
> 
> Trying to argue that "six days" when the proposal of "six 24 hour days" was defeated means 24 hour days seems like trying to do an end run around the confession and the divines intent to leave it ambiguous.



I have not located any reference in either the PCA or OPC reports to a defeated proposal for "six ordinary days" or "six 24 hours days" at the Westminster Assembly. The OPC report takes note that the phrase "consisting of 24 hours" was debated and defeated _in regards to question of the Sabbath_, but not as part of the Creation section.

Would you please indicate the source for your claims on this matter?


----------



## kevin.carroll

I am always amazed at how much difficulty people have with the sun not being created till day Four. God created the light on Day One, created a light/dark cycle, and named it day and night. He's God. He can do those things ya know.

"Despite what I just said the strongest argument against framework theory is that the simplest way to read the text is that a day in the Hebrew here means a literal 24 hour period."

Indeed. I once debated with Miles Van Pelt over this. He was calling Gen 1-2 semi-poetry (a nebulous thing) and tried to prove it with Hebrew grammar. He showed me a chart of all of the Qal Imperfects with waw conversives (THE MARK of Hebrew prose) and said, "See?" I said, "Yes, I see a lot of prose markers." He replied, "Yes, but there are so MANY here, it has to mean something!" I said, "I agree. It means it's prose, not poetry."


----------



## brianeschen

Brian Withnell said:


> It is argued by looking at the history and the notes of the divines at the time. The proposal of "six ordinary day" and "six 24 hour days" were both defeated. It takes no assault on the English language to understand if you have the context, know the context and use the context. There were both those that held to 24 hour days, and those that didn't. Because there was controversy in between them, it was left out. I would suggest you read the report the to the General Assembly on the subject. The divines also left out any reference to post-millennial or a-millennial views (or pre-millennial for that matter) because if there was controversy in what the Bible says. The fact that some of the divines were for 24 hour days, and other against means that it says neither. They were that smart to not divide on the issue.
> 
> Trying to argue that "six days" when the proposal of "six 24 hour days" was defeated means 24 hour days seems like trying to do an end run around the confession and the divines intent to leave it ambiguous.


I'm not convinced. When someone says in English, "in the space of six days," what other conclusion do English speaking people come to? Were the Westminster divines expecting members of their congregations to study the minutes of the Westminster Assembly? If they meant to be ambiguous, they did not succeed.



Brian Withnell said:


> It isn't constrained by it if you don't want a plain reading of the text. If you want a plain reading of the text, then you would know something is different about the first three days at a minimum. Either that, or what is in view is that "in six days" doesn't refer explicitly to time, is figurative, or at least the last three are different.


You have to assume that the time frame in the first three days is different, but there is no good reason for that.


----------



## Prufrock

Brian Withnell (or anyone else),

Can you please provide some documentation that the Assembly rejected such a wording?

If you can, I am most interested in the _circumstances_ regrading which they considered and rejected that wording.


----------



## Zenas

Brian Withnell said:


> If you want a plain reading of the text, then you would know something is different about the first three days at a minimum. Either that, or what is in view is that "in six days" doesn't refer explicitly to time, is figurative, or at least the last three are different.



I don't feel like you adequately answered my concern, but merely acknowledged something we both agree upon: that the 1st-3rd days were different. the crux of the disagreement is in what way were they different. You seem to claim that a lack of sun means the days were not 24 hour periods, something inherent to your conclusion that the first three days are figurative and not the second three. 

My concern still stands, and it seems you've merely restated the issue. Why is the passage of time governed by the rotation of the Sun. Even now, in places in the Universe that have no Sun or other star rotation, time passes by in a normal fashion. How is it not that God determined a 24 hour period to be a day, prior to the Sun's creation, and then set the Sun into motion accordingly? This is what your view naturally contests, and I'm interested in the answer. 



> What is important in the text is that God created, that he in using the figure of six days established a rule for sabbath rest, and that we are created (not creator, but creature). Those are clear from the text. That is also clear in the confession.



How is a Sabbath rest clear from a text which, under your view the first three days are not days? What is there to be gained form the superfluous time designation that you attribute to the text that causes this current disagreement? Why did God say "day" when God did not mean day? You speak as if the issues are so clear, but they are quite muddied.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 02:26:44 EST-----



brianeschen said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't constrained by it if you don't want a plain reading of the text. If you want a plain reading of the text, then you would know something is different about the first three days at a minimum. Either that, or what is in view is that "in six days" doesn't refer explicitly to time, is figurative, or at least the last three are different.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to assume that the time frame in the first three days is different, but there is no good reason for that.
Click to expand...


This is what I'm trying to get him to answer, why is he assuming the time difference in the first three days?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Zenas said:


> My concern still stands, and it seems you've merely restated the issue. Why is the passage of time governed by the rotation of the Sun. Even now, in places in the Universe that have no Sun or other star rotation, time passes by in a normal fashion. How is it not that God determined a 24 hour period to be a day, prior to the Sun's creation, and then set the Sun into motion accordingly? This is what your view naturally contests, and I'm interested in the answer.
> 
> ...
> 
> How is a Sabbath rest clear from a text which, under your view the first three days are not days? What is there to be gained form the superfluous time designation that you attribute to the text that causes this current disagreement? Why did God say "day" when God did not mean day? You speak as if the issues are so clear, but they are quite muddied.



Andrew - passage of time isn't governed by the rotation of the Earth - it's merely a regular event that we use to define other lengths of time relative to it. Surely "time" passes everywhere in normal fashion. But what is time? Does time even exist? These are obviously bigger questions than we need to discuss here, but the point is that in the first 3 days there was no sun, so no means of measuring time, so no reason to assume the first 3 days were _necessarily_ 24 hours, although they _could_ have been. So yeah, God could have determined a "day" would be 24 hours and then created Earth, but that's not only a strong assumption in itself, but unnecessarily boxes God within human notions of time. 

If the first creation week is figurative, it does not somehow harm the 4th Commandment or the concept of Sabbath rest. A figurative 7-day week can just as easily be applied to a literal 7-day week in terms of the Law, Sabbath rest, etc.


----------



## LawrenceU

Do the times that God says 'evening and morning' have any bearing on the definition of the first three days? Why would he include such an easily understood concept of evening and morning defining the day as his audience would understand it if it would lead to confusion?


----------



## Zenas

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> My concern still stands, and it seems you've merely restated the issue. Why is the passage of time governed by the rotation of the Sun. Even now, in places in the Universe that have no Sun or other star rotation, time passes by in a normal fashion. How is it not that God determined a 24 hour period to be a day, prior to the Sun's creation, and then set the Sun into motion accordingly? This is what your view naturally contests, and I'm interested in the answer.
> 
> ...
> 
> How is a Sabbath rest clear from a text which, under your view the first three days are not days? What is there to be gained form the superfluous time designation that you attribute to the text that causes this current disagreement? Why did God say "day" when God did not mean day? You speak as if the issues are so clear, but they are quite muddied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew - passage of time isn't governed by the rotation of the Earth - it's merely a regular event that we use to define other lengths of time relative to it. Surely "time" passes everywhere in normal fashion. But what is time? Does time even exist? These are obviously bigger questions than we need to discuss here, but the point is that in the first 3 days there was no sun, so no means of measuring time, so no reason to assume the first 3 days were _necessarily_ 24 hours, although they _could_ have been. So yeah, God could have determined a "day" would be 24 hours and then created Earth, but that's not only a strong assumption in itself, but unnecessarily boxes God within human notions of time.
> 
> If the first creation week is figurative, it does not somehow harm the 4th Commandment or the concept of Sabbath rest. A figurative 7-day week can just as easily be applied to a literal 7-day week in terms of the Law, Sabbath rest, etc.
Click to expand...


So God cannot measure time without the Sun. Thank-you.


----------



## Tripel

Zenas said:


> So God cannot measure time without the Sun. Thank-you.



How did you get that from what he said? 

Sounds like you're twisting Mason's argument.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Zenas said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> My concern still stands, and it seems you've merely restated the issue. Why is the passage of time governed by the rotation of the Sun. Even now, in places in the Universe that have no Sun or other star rotation, time passes by in a normal fashion. How is it not that God determined a 24 hour period to be a day, prior to the Sun's creation, and then set the Sun into motion accordingly? This is what your view naturally contests, and I'm interested in the answer.
> 
> ...
> 
> How is a Sabbath rest clear from a text which, under your view the first three days are not days? What is there to be gained form the superfluous time designation that you attribute to the text that causes this current disagreement? Why did God say "day" when God did not mean day? You speak as if the issues are so clear, but they are quite muddied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew - passage of time isn't governed by the rotation of the Earth - it's merely a regular event that we use to define other lengths of time relative to it. Surely "time" passes everywhere in normal fashion. But what is time? Does time even exist? These are obviously bigger questions than we need to discuss here, but the point is that in the first 3 days there was no sun, so no means of measuring time, so no reason to assume the first 3 days were _necessarily_ 24 hours, although they _could_ have been. So yeah, God could have determined a "day" would be 24 hours and then created Earth, but that's not only a strong assumption in itself, but unnecessarily boxes God within human notions of time.
> 
> If the first creation week is figurative, it does not somehow harm the 4th Commandment or the concept of Sabbath rest. A figurative 7-day week can just as easily be applied to a literal 7-day week in terms of the Law, Sabbath rest, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So God cannot measure time without the Sun. Thank-you.
Click to expand...


Come on, Andrew, that's absurd! Nowhere in my post did I even imply that. For starters, God doesn't measure time at all (being infinite) - only humans do. Second, I said clearly:



> God could have determined a "day" would be 24 hours and then created Earth



My point is that assuming the first days to be literal 24 hour days isn't necessarily valid because there was no (human) means to measure time intervals. Maybe they were 24 hours, maybe not. Regardless, it's an assumption on some level.


----------



## sastark

ColdSilverMoon said:


> These are obviously bigger questions than we need to discuss here, but the point is that in the first 3 days there was no sun, so no means of measuring time, so no reason to assume the first 3 days were _necessarily_ 24 hours, although they _could_ have been.



According to Gen 1, a "day" in creation week (both days 1-3 and days 4-6) were made up of an evening and a morning. That seems to indicate that there was a means of measuring time, even before the creation of the sun.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

sastark said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are obviously bigger questions than we need to discuss here, but the point is that in the first 3 days there was no sun, so no means of measuring time, so no reason to assume the first 3 days were _necessarily_ 24 hours, although they _could_ have been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Gen 1, a "day" in creation week (both days 1-3 and days 4-6) were made up of an evening and a morning. That seems to indicate that there was a means of measuring time, even before the creation of the sun.
Click to expand...


Maybe, or it could just be figurative language. Besides, "morning and evening" implies a 12-hr day rather than 24-hr day...


----------



## LawrenceU

LawrenceU said:


> Do the times that God says 'evening and morning' have any bearing on the definition of the first three days? Why would he include such an easily understood concept of evening and morning defining the day as his audience would understand it if it would lead to confusion?



Anyone?


----------



## Zenas

God is outside of time, but God certainly observes time. 

He talks about time frequently: Israel couldn't enter the Holy Land yet because the iniquity of the inhabitants was not yet complete, Christ came in the fullness of time, Christ will not come back until an appointed time in the future. 

That should be sufficient to show God certainly is aware of time and its measurements. 

24 hour periods are based on the movements of the Sun. Apparently, after the sun was created, days were measured in 24 hours periods. In the first 3 days, God made no effort to differentiate a difference in the passage of time than the last three. I therefore conclude that the first three days were normal days based on the last three days. 

Others contend that such a conclusion isn't warranted, and that the first three days were longer periods because the Sun didn't exist and therefore days didn't exist. However, God ordered us to circle the Sun at a set pace, bringing forth the 24 hour period. 

Due to the fact that the last three days are unquestionably 24 hour periods, God made no effort to differentiate the period of time between the two sets, and God is all powerful, it's warranted to infer that the first three were the same period of time than the last three.

Others argue that the non-existence of the Sun warrants skepticism of the passage of time on those first three days, however I contend that God is not constrained by our means of time measurement to measure time Himself. 

We use the Sun to determine the length of day, per God's arrangement. God can determine the amount of time without using a marker like the Sun, and he did create a morning and evening on those two days. 

Others argue that the non-existence of a marker like the Sun negates the possibility that the amount of time passing is different, vastly so. I contend that time passes normally regardless of any external markers we use to mark the passage of such, and God is free to determine amounts of time using His own means. 

No one has yet explained why the Sun determines the length of a day and not God. It is my contention that God pre-determined the length of a day, and then set the Earth in motion around the Sun accordingly. While people have emphatically contradicted me, I haven't seen Scriptural support for their position. 

Lastly Mason, I apologize if you felt I was being absurd, but that's what I drew from your post. If it I mis characterized you, then please forgive me.


----------



## LawrenceU

> No one has yet explained why the Sun determines the length of a day and not God. It is my contention that God pre-determined the length of a day, and then set the Earth in motion around the Sun accordingly. While people have emphatically contradicted me, I haven't seen Scriptural support for their position.



Well stated, Andrew.


----------



## Prufrock

LawrenceU said:


> Do the times that God says 'evening and morning' have any bearing on the definition of the first three days? Why would he include such an easily understood concept of evening and morning defining the day as his audience would understand it if it would lead to confusion?



If someone begins with a different hermeneutic which sees the section as poetic and literary, and thus using non-literal language, then the "evening and morning" are simply poetic devices and don't have to have literal grounding.

Thus, one could argue that if it's being read in such a way that it's even possible for it to cause confusion, then it is being read improperly, as it is not designed to give an actual chronological, scientific account.

[In case anyone is curious, however, I do believe in a 6 day creation: I'm not defending the other reading.]


----------



## Brian Withnell

Zenas said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want a plain reading of the text, then you would know something is different about the first three days at a minimum. Either that, or what is in view is that "in six days" doesn't refer explicitly to time, is figurative, or at least the last three are different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't feel like you adequately answered my concern, but merely acknowledged something we both agree upon: that the 1st-3rd days were different. the crux of the disagreement is in what way were they different. You seem to claim that a lack of sun means the days were not 24 hour periods, something inherent to your conclusion that the first three days are figurative and not the second three.
> 
> My concern still stands, and it seems you've merely restated the issue. Why is the passage of time governed by the rotation of the Sun. Even now, in places in the Universe that have no Sun or other star rotation, time passes by in a normal fashion. How is it not that God determined a 24 hour period to be a day, prior to the Sun's creation, and then set the Sun into motion accordingly? This is what your view naturally contests, and I'm interested in the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is important in the text is that God created, that he in using the figure of six days established a rule for sabbath rest, and that we are created (not creator, but creature). Those are clear from the text. That is also clear in the confession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is a Sabbath rest clear from a text which, under your view the first three days are not days? What is there to be gained form the superfluous time designation that you attribute to the text that causes this current disagreement? Why did God say "day" when God did not mean day? You speak as if the issues are so clear, but they are quite muddied.
> 
> -----Added 2/26/2009 at 02:26:44 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't constrained by it if you don't want a plain reading of the text. If you want a plain reading of the text, then you would know something is different about the first three days at a minimum. Either that, or what is in view is that "in six days" doesn't refer explicitly to time, is figurative, or at least the last three are different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to assume that the time frame in the first three days is different, but there is no good reason for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I'm trying to get him to answer, why is he assuming the time difference in the first three days?
Click to expand...


The real question is why is this such an issue? The word used (yom is the closest transliteration) can mean other than a 24 hour day. That the text gives meaning to time in the 4th day, it would seem that someone wanting to insist it means nothing other than 24 hours would have some axe to grind.

I did find the OPC report (got it from my pastor). I can see more reason to view the six days as figurative than I can see for them to be literal. Given the 4th day events, it would seem the weight of proof would be on those that would want to say it is literal. While it is theoretically possible, theoretic possibility in this case takes what is a convoluted twist of logic to say that before days existed, God did the creative work in 24 hour periods before 24 hour periods had any meaning (it would have been before the passage of days and months and seasons existed). Sorry, but if there were no days, marked by anything in the universe, I'd think it rather absurd that what could have been instantaneous would be drawn out to match a yet non-existent unit of measure.

The framework theory has so much more going for it in viewing the creation that it makes sense, while the 6x24 has nothing going for it. What was God trying to communicate in the story ... a scientific chronology or something else? If someone wants to argue 24x6, they would first have to prove the framework not correct from my point of view. Then they would have to not just say the first three days could possibly be 24 hours, but would have to explain why they would have to be 24 hours. When I look at the passages, I clearly see that it would take inconsistency of thought to think in terms of days as 24 hour units for the first three days. While it is possible, the Genesis 2:4 lends to an argument (the use of the word in a completely different manner, just a few paragraphs away) that the writer at the time he was writing had "yom" in mind differently than just a 24 hour day.

Is it possible that the days were 24 hours? Yes. Is it what I think likely? Not from what I see in Genesis 1 and 2. If the context would plainly point to something other than 24 hour days, then it would take proof that it isn't 24 hour days.


----------



## dbroyles

I agree with Kevin and Andrew here. Real, concrete things are happening in Genesis 1. God creates and fills up His creation, all in 6 days. These are not figurative days as in "that great and terrible Day of the Lord", which I understand to mean "the particular moment that the Lord triumphs". Figurative "days" in Scripture could be longer or even shorter than 24 hours. It could even be without reference to elapsed time. What's happening in Genesis 1 is couched in plain "morning and evening, the first day" language. There is no reason that I can see from the text to take it another way than a literal 24-hour, 6-day period of time.

I would also be interested in excerpts from the minutes, debates, memoires, and publications by the Divines on the subject. I would be very surprised if the Divines intended to be ambiguous with the line "in the space of six days".

You might want to get "Did God Create in Six Days?" from Tolle Lege press. Very good, scolarly, readable. Both sides are represented.


----------



## LawrenceU

Thanks, Paul. As I see it that is the only manner in which that dilemma can be solved. And, I view it as a very weak position to hold. Not impugning anyone here, but normally the people I've seen that hold to the poetic view of the creation account consistently are also liberal theologically and redactionistic in their approach to Scripture.


----------



## Prufrock

Prufrock said:


> Brian Withnell (or anyone else),
> 
> Can you please provide some documentation that the Assembly rejected such a wording?
> 
> If you can, I am most interested in the _circumstances_ regrading which they considered and rejected that wording.



_Bump._


----------



## Zenas

Brian Withnell said:


> The real question is why is this such an issue? The word used (yom is the closest transliteration) can mean other than a 24 hour day. That the text gives meaning to time in the 4th day, it would seem that someone wanting to insist it means nothing other than 24 hours would have some axe to grind.



Please don't imply I have something against you. I'm examining the consistency of your position. Since this position speaks directly to our understanding of where we come from, I'd say it was important to have a consistent position. 



> I can see more reason to view the six days as figurative than I can see for them to be literal. Given the 4th day events, it would seem the weight of proof would be on those that would want to say it is literal. While it is theoretically possible, theoretic possibility in this case takes what is a convoluted twist of logic to say that before days existed, God did the creative work in 24 hour periods before 24 hour periods had any meaning (it would have been before the passage of days and months and seasons existed).



Could you please expound on this more, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. 



> Sorry, but if there were no days, marked by anything in the universe, I'd think it rather absurd that what could have been instantaneous would be drawn out to match a yet non-existent unit of measure.



So the Sun determines the length of a day, and not God? Being that God set the Sun and Earth into motion, God called the three period of time that were governed by his construct "a day", and they were 24 hour periods, when he calls the preceeding periods of time "a day", I take Him at His word. This is what a plain reading of the text yields. 

If you would like to insert something different, please feel free to provide Scriptural support for the position. Please show how the first three periods are different amounts of time (time is not determined by relative markers since God created the construct itself) than the last three periods and why, based on the context of the last three days, the first three days are somehow different. The absence of the Sun, obviously, doesn't alter the passage of time. If the Sun exploded today, time would still flow on. 




> Is it possible that the days were 24 hours? Yes. Is it what I think likely? Not from what I see in Genesis 1 and 2. If the context would plainly point to something other than 24 hour days, then it would take proof that it isn't 24 hour days.



You're the one arguing the word used is being used differently than the same word a few sentences and ideas later.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Reposted from above:



Dearly Bought said:


> OPC's Report of the Committee to Study the Views of Creation.
> 
> -----Added 2/26/2009 at 01:04:35 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is argued by looking at the history and the notes of the divines at the time. The proposal of "six ordinary day" and "six 24 hour days" were both defeated. It takes no assault on the English language to understand if you have the context, know the context and use the context. There were both those that held to 24 hour days, and those that didn't. Because there was controversy in between them, it was left out. I would suggest you read the report the to the General Assembly on the subject. The divines also left out any reference to post-millennial or a-millennial views (or pre-millennial for that matter) because if there was controversy in what the Bible says. The fact that some of the divines were for 24 hour days, and other against means that it says neither. They were that smart to not divide on the issue.
> 
> Trying to argue that "six days" when the proposal of "six 24 hour days" was defeated means 24 hour days seems like trying to do an end run around the confession and the divines intent to leave it ambiguous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not located any reference in either the PCA or OPC reports to a defeated proposal for "six ordinary days" or "six 24 hours days" at the Westminster Assembly. The OPC report takes note that the phrase "consisting of 24 hours" was debated and defeated _in regards to question of the Sabbath_, but not as part of the Creation section.
> 
> Would you please indicate the source for your claims on this matter?
Click to expand...


Response?


----------



## sastark

ColdSilverMoon said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are obviously bigger questions than we need to discuss here, but the point is that in the first 3 days there was no sun, so no means of measuring time, so no reason to assume the first 3 days were _necessarily_ 24 hours, although they _could_ have been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Gen 1, a "day" in creation week (both days 1-3 and days 4-6) were made up of an evening and a morning. That seems to indicate that there was a means of measuring time, even before the creation of the sun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, or it could just be figurative language. Besides, "morning and evening" implies a 12-hr day rather than 24-hr day...
Click to expand...



It implies equal periods of darkness and light. But, I suppose if you would like to argue for a 3 and a half day creation week, we could examine that. I mean, if it is just figurative language, after all...


----------



## Nate

Zenas said:


> Why is the passage of time governed by the rotation of the Sun.





> 24 hour periods are based on the movements of the Sun.





> However, God ordered us to circle the Sun at a set pace, bringing forth the 24 hour period.




Zenas,
I happen to agree with the endpoints of your arguments, but you seem to be using 3 different modes of solar motion in relation to our current 24 hour measurements. Is this just a minor typing mistake, or is there something of substance here that is critical to your argument that I'm missing? I'm just trying to follow the flow of your posts...


----------



## Zenas

Mis-type. God set the Earth in motion around the Sun. I caught myself in the last couple of posts and corrected it. Apologies.


----------



## NDHSR

It implies equal periods of darkness and light. But, I suppose if you would like to argue for a 3 and a half day creation week, we could examine that. I mean, if it is just figurative language, after all...

[/QUOTE]


Just out of curiousity, how do you come to the conclusion it implies EQUAL periods of darkness and light?


----------



## Zenas

That's exactly his point. How does one come to the conclusion that 3 days are long and three days are short?


----------



## Brian Withnell

Prufrock said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell (or anyone else),
> 
> Can you please provide some documentation that the Assembly rejected such a wording?
> 
> If you can, I am most interested in the _circumstances_ regrading which they considered and rejected that wording.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Bump._
Click to expand...


Posted a link to the OPC report in one of my replies. I haven't searched it to find the line ... I'll also post the link (on my website) here. 

While I believe the information is from that source (the more brief and less complete report from Westminster Seminary is here).


----------



## sastark

NDHSR said:


> It implies equal periods of darkness and light. But, I suppose if you would like to argue for a 3 and a half day creation week, we could examine that. I mean, if it is just figurative language, after all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiousity, how do you come to the conclusion it implies EQUAL periods of darkness and light?
Click to expand...


Because God was speaking from the Equator.



In all seriousness, because I see no reason for any other interpretation. Do you? (honestly asked)


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Prufrock said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell (or anyone else),
> 
> Can you please provide some documentation that the Assembly rejected such a wording?
> 
> If you can, I am most interested in the _circumstances_ regrading which they considered and rejected that wording.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Bump._
Click to expand...


Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly, ed. Alex F. Mitchell and John Struthers, 1874, reprint by Still Waters Revival Books, Edmonton, Alberta, 1991 B p. 216 for Session 615, April 6, 1646.

I can't find a copy on-line, but maybe someone else could help with that...


----------



## NDHSR

sastark said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Gen 1, a "day" in creation week (both days 1-3 and days 4-6) were made up of an evening and a morning. That seems to indicate that there was a means of measuring time, even before the creation of the sun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, or it could just be figurative language. Besides, "morning and evening" implies a 12-hr day rather than 24-hr day...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It implies equal periods of darkness and light. But, I suppose if you would like to argue for a 3 and a half day creation week, we could examine that. I mean, if it is just figurative language, after all...
Click to expand...




Zenas said:


> That's exactly his point. How does one come to the conclusion that 3 days are long and three days are short?




I found his point to mean that darkness and light we equal parts of a 24 hour period resulting in exaclty 12 hours of light and 12 hours of darkness. So I was wondering where that conclusion came from.


----------



## Zenas

The 2nd three days of Creation, I assume. That's what the context points to.


----------



## LadyFlynt

lynnie said:


> Tim Keller is an 800 lb gorilla in the PCA and he is rather "liberal" on this.
> 
> When Tim Keller professes a position ( in this case a non literal 6 day creation) the PCA has to allow it or lose Tim Keller.


And the same gent that wrote for paedo communion


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Zenas said:


> God is outside of time, but God certainly observes time.
> 
> He talks about time frequently: Israel couldn't enter the Holy Land yet because the iniquity of the inhabitants was not yet complete, Christ came in the fullness of time, Christ will not come back until an appointed time in the future.
> 
> That should be sufficient to show God certainly is aware of time and its measurements.
> 
> ...
> 
> No one has yet explained why the Sun determines the length of a day and not God. It is my contention that God pre-determined the length of a day, and then set the Earth in motion around the Sun accordingly. While people have emphatically contradicted me, I haven't seen Scriptural support for their position.
> 
> Lastly Mason, I apologize if you felt I was being absurd, but that's what I drew from your post. If it I mis characterized you, then please forgive me.



No offense taken, and no need to apologize. But I haven't seen anyone make the argument that the Earth's rotation (relative to sunlight) determines the length of a day. Rather, the argument is that in order to best interpret Genesis 1, it doesn't make logical sense to assume that the first 3 days were necessarily 24 hr days, since the event _humans_ use to measure time was not in existence. No one is saying God is bound by any time period or natural event, but because the sun wasn't created until Day 4, it makes much more sense to read Genesis 1, particularly the first 3 days, as figurative. 

And you're correct, that God observes time, but that time is from a human reckoning. God Himself does not "measure" time.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 05:10:52 EST-----



LadyFlynt said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Keller is an 800 lb gorilla in the PCA and he is rather "liberal" on this.
> 
> When Tim Keller professes a position ( in this case a non literal 6 day creation) the PCA has to allow it or lose Tim Keller.
> 
> 
> 
> And the same gent that wrote for paedo communion
Click to expand...


I don't think this is true. I've never heard Keller speak about it, never seen anything he's written about it, and it certainly isn't practiced at his church. What's your source for this statement?


----------



## Prufrock

The OPC report makes mention from the minutes of the "24 hour" language being raised and dismissed only with reference to the Sabbath, not creation -- and the reason, which the report itself admits, is probably to allow Lightfoot's interpretation of an eternal Sabbath. This is an entirely different circumstance than in the issue surrounding the days of creation.

Thus, when the report says that 1.) Because of the Sabbath question, it is clear that the Divines had 24 language at their disposal; and, 2.) They chose not to employ it with regards to creation -- I'm not persuaded that this means anything at all: it certainly does _not_ mean that they therefore also considered the 24 hour wording when they wrote of creation and consciously rejected it.

I don't have access to the Minutes at the moment, but I would really like someone to provide a reference that they actually brought up and subsequently dismissed 24-hour language _when discussing creation_, not the Sabbath. I don't doubt it possible that they did; but the provided report's conclusion doesn't quite seem to hold; and if the Assembly did, indeed, do this, then the OPC report could have been quite simplified.


----------



## Dearly Bought

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly, ed. Alex F. Mitchell and John Struthers, 1874, reprint by Still Waters Revival Books, Edmonton, Alberta, 1991 B p. 216 for Session 615, April 6, 1646.
> 
> I can't find a copy on-line, but maybe someone else could help with that...



As I've already posted twice in this thread, I'm waiting for substantiation of these claims. According to the OPC report, page 216 of the Minutes edited by Mitchell and Struthers apparently records a debate over the phrase "consisting of 24 hours" _in regards to the question of the Sabbath_, not in reference to the phrase "in the space of six days" in WCF IV.i.

On Edit: Paul, you beat me to it.


----------



## Zenas

ColdSilverMoon said:


> No offense taken, and no need to apologize. But I haven't seen anyone make the argument that the Earth's rotation (relative to sunlight) determines the length of a day. Rather, the argument is that in order to best interpret Genesis 1, it doesn't make logical sense to assume that the first 3 days were necessarily 24 hr days, since the event _humans_ use to measure time was not in existence. No one is saying God is bound by any time period or natural event, but because the sun wasn't created until Day 4, it makes much more sense to read Genesis 1, particularly the first 3 days, as figurative.



It makes logical sense to me that if God established 24 hour days in the last three days, and called them days, then God established 24 hour days in the first three days, before He created the Sun. It seems to me He set the Earth in motion around the Sun according to a pre-determined amount of time. Taking this as true, then the first three days were 24 hour days. 

I restate, no one has given me a roadmap otherwise. I have done my best, at length, to map out my position and why I think the first three days are 24 hours, i.e. because of the use of the same word before and after the advent of the Sun. No one has given me an alternate roadmap but, again, have simply flatly contradicted me and demand I defend my position. I believe someone offered the possibility the the author went all "willy-nilly" with the use of the word "Yom", but then didn't really go any further. I fail to see how "Yom" is used in one sense, then another, and then another, with no indication otherwise. 

I think that we should interpret Scripture in the context of itself, something which I appear to be arguing for against some other literary theory. 

Now that I have, if someone will please map it out with Scripture, and show me why we should not transport the time period from the 2nd three days to the first three days. 



> And you're correct, that God observes time, but that time is from a human reckoning. God Himself does not "measure" time.



How does god not measure time? It seems very apparent to me that He does, as the above passages seem to indicate. He has a specific time for each part of His plan.


----------



## Prufrock

This might just be ignorance on my part, but I think some of the argumentation raised in the OPC report completely backfires. Let me explain:

It seems that the conscious _rejection_ of 24 hour language with respect to the Sabbath can serve just as easily to confirm the 24 hour creation days. I don't think anyone here is going to read WCF XXI.8 in such a way that the Sabbath is _not_ a 24 hour day: thus, if 24 hour language was rejected as being necessary to communicate what clearly represents a specific day with respect to the Sabbath, why should such language need to be included to specify 24 hour days with respect to creation?


----------



## LadyFlynt

ColdSilverMoon said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Keller is an 800 lb gorilla in the PCA and he is rather "liberal" on this.
> 
> When Tim Keller professes a position ( in this case a non literal 6 day creation) the PCA has to allow it or lose Tim Keller.
> 
> 
> 
> And the same gent that wrote for paedo communion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think this is true. I've never heard Keller speak about it, never seen anything he's written about it, and it certainly isn't practiced at his church. What's your source for this statement?
Click to expand...



My apologies...I seem to get him mixed up with Tim Gallant


----------



## Albatross

Zenas said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No offense taken, and no need to apologize. But I haven't seen anyone make the argument that the Earth's rotation (relative to sunlight) determines the length of a day. Rather, the argument is that in order to best interpret Genesis 1, it doesn't make logical sense to assume that the first 3 days were necessarily 24 hr days, since the event _humans_ use to measure time was not in existence. No one is saying God is bound by any time period or natural event, but because the sun wasn't created until Day 4, it makes much more sense to read Genesis 1, particularly the first 3 days, as figurative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes logical sense to me that if God established 24 hour days in the last three days, and called them days, then God established 24 hour days in the first three days, before He created the Sun. It seems to me He set the Earth in motion around the Sun according to a pre-determined amount of time. Taking this as true, then the first three days were 24 hour days.
> 
> I restate, no one has given me a roadmap otherwise. I have done my best, at length, to map out my position and why I think the first three days are 24 hours, i.e. because of the use of the same word before and after the advent of the Sun. No one has given me an alternate roadmap but, again, have simply flatly contradicted me and demand I defend my position. I believe someone offered the possibility the the author went all "willy-nilly" with the use of the word "Yom", but then didn't really go any further. I fail to see how "Yom" is used in one sense, then another, and then another, with no indication otherwise.
> 
> I think that we should interpret Scripture in the context of itself, something which I appear to be arguing for against some other literary theory.
> 
> Now that I have, if someone will please map it out with Scripture, and show me why we should not transport the time period from the 2nd three days to the first three days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're correct, that God observes time, but that time is from a human reckoning. God Himself does not "measure" time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does god not measure time? It seems very apparent to me that He does, as the above passages seem to indicate. He has a specific time for each part of His plan.
Click to expand...


Is it that no one has given you a roadmap or that no one has given you a roadmap that is sufficient for your to change your mind? I see a difference in the two.


----------



## Zenas

Albatross said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No offense taken, and no need to apologize. But I haven't seen anyone make the argument that the Earth's rotation (relative to sunlight) determines the length of a day. Rather, the argument is that in order to best interpret Genesis 1, it doesn't make logical sense to assume that the first 3 days were necessarily 24 hr days, since the event _humans_ use to measure time was not in existence. No one is saying God is bound by any time period or natural event, but because the sun wasn't created until Day 4, it makes much more sense to read Genesis 1, particularly the first 3 days, as figurative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes logical sense to me that if God established 24 hour days in the last three days, and called them days, then God established 24 hour days in the first three days, before He created the Sun. It seems to me He set the Earth in motion around the Sun according to a pre-determined amount of time. Taking this as true, then the first three days were 24 hour days.
> 
> I restate, no one has given me a roadmap otherwise. I have done my best, at length, to map out my position and why I think the first three days are 24 hours, i.e. because of the use of the same word before and after the advent of the Sun. No one has given me an alternate roadmap but, again, have simply flatly contradicted me and demand I defend my position. I believe someone offered the possibility the the author went all "willy-nilly" with the use of the word "Yom", but then didn't really go any further. I fail to see how "Yom" is used in one sense, then another, and then another, with no indication otherwise.
> 
> I think that we should interpret Scripture in the context of itself, something which I appear to be arguing for against some other literary theory.
> 
> Now that I have, if someone will please map it out with Scripture, and show me why we should not transport the time period from the 2nd three days to the first three days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're correct, that God observes time, but that time is from a human reckoning. God Himself does not "measure" time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does god not measure time? It seems very apparent to me that He does, as the above passages seem to indicate. He has a specific time for each part of His plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it that no one has given you a roadmap or that no one has given you a roadmap that is sufficient for your to change your mind? I see a difference in the two.
Click to expand...


I said what I said and I meant it.


----------



## Prufrock

*_bump_*

Anyone with an actual reference to the Assembly bringing up and then actually setting aside the wording of 24 hours _with respect to creation days_, and especially which includes their reasoning for setting it aside?

If this is true, I'd really like to have the reference for it, and the reasons for it. As much as I appreciate my own denomination, I think the finding on the point of authorial intent that their report reached is not supported by the confession given the data which they provide, so I'd like to hear if there is more data which simply wasn't included in the report. Set me straight.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Prufrock said:


> The OPC report makes mention from the minutes of the "24 hour" language being raised and dismissed only with reference to the Sabbath, not creation -- and the reason, which the report itself admits, is probably to allow Lightfoot's interpretation of an eternal Sabbath. This is an entirely different circumstance than in the issue surrounding the days of creation.
> 
> Thus, when the report says that 1.) Because of the Sabbath question, it is clear that the Divines had 24 language at their disposal; and, 2.) They chose not to employ it with regards to creation -- I'm not persuaded that this means anything at all: it certainly does _not_ mean that they therefore also considered the 24 hour wording when they wrote of creation and consciously rejected it.
> 
> I don't have access to the Minutes at the moment, but I would really like someone to provide a reference that they actually brought up and subsequently dismissed 24-hour language _when discussing creation_, not the Sabbath. I don't doubt it possible that they did; but the provided report's conclusion doesn't quite seem to hold; and if the Assembly did, indeed, do this, then the OPC report could have been quite simplified.



I also went back and re-read the report. I may have goofed on the original statement being in the report, or got it from a different source (I'll have to check, and I have not found an online reference for the minutes of the assembly ... which makes things exceeding slow). The reasoning of the OPC report though would seem sound. For those in the OPC, the original confession would not be as salient as the 1936 adoption by the denomination and what the thought at that time allowed. (Which might be why I've always viewed it as permissive given the OPC history on the subject.)

What is salient to the point is that the "in the space of six days" was not to show that it took 6 periods of 24 hours, but that it was not instantaneous ... that is in the report.

But more important than the confession is the scripture. I still see no argument for the days to be forced to 24 hours from the text, which given the 3x3 structure and time as we know it being created in the 4th day, would seem to have to be proven rather than the other way around.

I'm not willing to posit the conjecture that the "days" of 1 - 3 are the same as the "days" of 4 - 6 simply because a word that can (and does) mean something other than 24 hours in the same context (the 2:4 creation in a single day) is all the sudden fixed. If it isn't positively fixed, fixing it, is conjecture ("it doesn't say it, but I think it has to be ....")

I fully accept that the alternative is possible, I just find it unlikely. I could be wrong ... the text is not sufficiently clear that I would call someone out who believed in 24 hour days, but I certainly believe that is not what the Bible teaches.

I'll continue seeking the reference I had previously about the language rejection. It seems the committee did not see it, so I'm inclined that my original source might have either been in error (more likely) or the OPC committee missed it (not likely).


----------



## Prufrock

Brian Withnell said:


> For those in the OPC, the original confession would not be as salient as the 1936 adoption by the denomination and what the thought at that time allowed. (Which might be why I've always viewed it as permissive given the OPC history on the subject.)



Indeed. Within the OPC structure, if such is how it is understood and adopted, then such is the constitutional understanding.



Brian Withnell said:


> What is salient to the point is that the "in the space of six days" was not to show that it took 6 periods of 24 hours, but that it was not instantaneous ... that is in the report.



The latter part is certainly granted. But I disagree that the confutation of the instantaneous creation leaves the "six days" open to another interpretation (unless, of course, I'm reasonably shown this to be the case from the minutes).



Brian Withnell said:


> The reasoning of the OPC report though would seem sound.



See above posts: I still have my reservations of the reasoning.

Either way, as you state, the confessional debate is certainly a different one than the exegetical debate. Confessionally speaking, I have no problems with the issue not being stated either way (such as in the Belgic); nevertheless, it seems to me a very unnatural reading of the WCF which allows anything other than six "24 hour" days. I understand the scriptural debates, where the potential poetic genre of the narrative could cause a case to be made for the lack of literal-ness; but with respect to the confession, where precision and accuracy of speech in non-figurative form are the intention, I have a hard time granting any other reading.

Thanks for checking on this stuff, brother.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Prufrock said:


> *_bump_*
> 
> Anyone with an actual reference to the Assembly bringing up and then actually setting aside the wording of 24 hours _with respect to creation days_, and especially which includes their reasoning for setting it aside?
> 
> If this is true, I'd really like to have the reference for it, and the reasons for it. As much as I appreciate my own denomination, I think the finding on the point of authorial intent that their report reached is not supported by the confession given the data which they provide, so I'd like to hear if there is more data which simply wasn't included in the report. Set me straight.



Paul, the OPC says it was with regard to the Sabbath, but the PCA report says it was with regard to the length of days in the Genesis 1 week. Which is right? I dunno, as I haven't read the minutes. Just out of curiosity, have you, or are you simply by going by what the OPC report says?


----------



## Wanderer

*How are we do understand Scriptures and/or the WCF*

When I read the scriptures or the WCF, I interpet the words as they lay and how they would have been understood by all that would have heard them when they were first spoken.

_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, in the space of six days; and all very good._


I find it very difficult to believe that when this was originally written, that the common man thought it could mean anything different to what they believed at the time to be six 24 hour periods. I really can't imagine someone teaching their children back then that, no John and Sally, we are not talking about six literal days. We are talking about six periods of time. If we are to believe this is what the WCF means, then my next question is how are we going to interpret Chapter 24 of the WCF? 

Does the WCF really mean that it is unlawful for one to divorce for reason other than willful desertion or adultery? I have witnessed others read into Chapter 24 that one can divorce for constructive desertion, which is a very subjective thing to judge.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the manner that the WCF was written, wasn't it written so that would be a very objective document? To say that the authors of the document put in a phrase "a space of six days", and for them to mean either six 24 hour periods or six long periods of time based on the readers choosing seems a bit double minded to me. If they were not sure or agreed upon what the period of creation was, wouldn't it been better for them to just state so.

But I think they were sure and agreed upon in the end to how long creation took, though there might have been some goings on back and forth before they finished the document. But in the end, they settled upon what they wrote down, so I believe we should take that as their final word on the subject. Unless some of them followed up with statements giving an exception to chapter 4.....


----------



## Prufrock

ColdSilverMoon said:


> ...but the PCA report says it was with regard to the length of days in the Genesis 1 week.



This isn't a challenge, but an honest question: Where? I don't see this in the report.


----------



## Zenas

Brian Withnell said:


> But more important than the confession is the scripture. I still see no argument for the days to be forced to 24 hours from the text, which given the 3x3 structure and time as we know it being created in the 4th day, would seem to have to be proven rather than the other way around.



Please interact with my argument and explain why we should not view the first three days in light of the second three days which we know to be 24 hour periods.


----------



## Brian Withnell

One more thing. While I do believe the position I hold is consistent with the Westminster standards (certainly it is as far as the OPC is concerned) what is more salient to the issue is that I believe my position is consistent with the scripture.

We can argue back and forth on what the standards were, and the intent of the divines, but ultimately what matters is what the scriptures say. The OPC and the PCA have both allowed the idea of a both a literal and a non-literal 24 hour day (and not as an exception to the standards, but within the bounds of the standards). The only reason I could see this is that the literal view has enough support that it should be accepted as plausible and within the bounds of what men, true to the scriptures, could arrive at without violence to the message of the gospel. (Of course, those that come from a literal view might want to phrase that the other way around.)

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:58:31 EST-----



Zenas said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> But more important than the confession is the scripture. I still see no argument for the days to be forced to 24 hours from the text, which given the 3x3 structure and time as we know it being created in the 4th day, would seem to have to be proven rather than the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please interact with my argument and explain why we should not view the first three days in light of the second three days which we know to be 24 hour periods.
Click to expand...


Have you stopped beating your wife?

There is no reason to suppose the second three days are not different from the first three days and figurative to boot. I do not know days 4 through 6 are 24 hour days, I only know that the passage makes no sense for the first three to be 24 hour days if they are before the measurement of time began. In fact, because I suspect the first three are not literal, I highly suspect the following three are not literal as well.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Do the words "morning" and "evening" mean nothing? Do they change meanings and usage between Days 1-3 and 4-6? I am looking at the Hebrew Text right now and there is absolutely nothing in the text that would intimate any difference whatsoever in how one literarily would read "morning" and "evening" in the context of Days 1-3 and 4-6.


----------



## Prufrock

Brian Withnell said:


> We can argue back and forth on what the standards were, and the intent of the divines, but ultimately what matters is what the scriptures say. The OPC and the PCA have both allowed the idea of a both a literal and a non-literal 24 hour day (and not as an exception to the standards, but within the bounds of the standards).



Indeed.

I simply disagree with that interpretation of scripture, and the confession. And as stated before (and now in your post), within our church [OPC], the constitutional documents [the standards _as interpreted_] allow for this scriptural understanding. I know many more godly and learned men than I who agree with you; and I'm fine with that.

Grace and peace, brother.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 10:10:53 EST-----

Side note: I think the confessional debate will always mirror the scriptural debate.

If you can give a non-literal reading of Genesis, then, since the WCF uses the same language, you can read the confession the same; if you won't read Genesis metaphorically, then, again, the confession using the same language, you're not going to read the confession metaphorically either.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Prufrock said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but the PCA report says it was with regard to the length of days in the Genesis 1 week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't a challenge, but an honest question: Where? I don't see this in the report.
Click to expand...

 
From the PCA paper:



> Lightfoot and Walker also expressed even more specific views on the days of creation; they wrote that creation must have occurred on the equinox, but Lightfoot claimed on the autumnal equinox, while Walker said on the vernal equinox. Lightfoot also asserted that the first day was 36 hours long and that the fall of Adam and Eve occurred on the sixth day, Adam having been created around 9 a.m. and Eve having been tempted around 12 noon. Such specific speculation was not incorporated into the confessional documents. Nor was the expression “in the space of six 24-hour days,” a specific qualifier that was proposed with regard to the Sabbath, but rejected by the Assembly.
> 
> Two differing interpretations of the Assembly’s meaning are currently being articulated by historians of Westminster. One view says that the Assembly shows the same reticence as Calvin and the caution of Perkins with his use of “six distinct days” or “six distinct spaces of time” and that, therefore, the Confession supports an understanding of the creative days of Genesis as representing a real ordered sequence, over against instantaneous creation, but the question remains whether the phrase “in the space of six days” is necessarily to be understood as six 24-hour days. The other view is that the Confession’s phrase “in the space of six days” actually means six normal calendar days. This view grants that the Assembly meant to rule out the Augustinian instantaneous view, but not merely to do that. Those who hold this position note that there is no evidence that any member of the Assembly held to a view other than the 24-hour view of the Genesis days and that the only primary evidence that we currently possess from the writings of the Divines or from the Irish Articles indicates that the phrase was an affirmation of the Calendar Day view.


----------



## Zenas

Brian Withnell said:


> One more thing. While I do believe the position I hold is consistent with the Westminster standards (certainly it is as far as the OPC is concerned) what is more salient to the issue is that I believe my position is consistent with the scripture.
> 
> We can argue back and forth on what the standards were, and the intent of the divines, but ultimately what matters is what the scriptures say. The OPC and the PCA have both allowed the idea of a both a literal and a non-literal 24 hour day (and not as an exception to the standards, but within the bounds of the standards). The only reason I could see this is that the literal view has enough support that it should be accepted as plausible and within the bounds of what men, true to the scriptures, could arrive at without violence to the message of the gospel. (Of course, those that come from a literal view might want to phrase that the other way around.)
> 
> -----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:58:31 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> But more important than the confession is the scripture. I still see no argument for the days to be forced to 24 hours from the text, which given the 3x3 structure and time as we know it being created in the 4th day, would seem to have to be proven rather than the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please interact with my argument and explain why we should not view the first three days in light of the second three days which we know to be 24 hour periods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
> 
> There is no reason to suppose the second three days are not different from the first three days and figurative to boot. I do not know days 4 through 6 are 24 hour days, I only know that the passage makes no sense for the first three to be 24 hour days if they are before the measurement of time began. In fact, because I suspect the first three are not literal, I highly suspect the following three are not literal as well.
Click to expand...


I apologize. I didn't realize you had abandoned a literal understanding of "day" with regard to the last three days, despite the presence of the natural marker's advent, i.e. the Sun. Apparently I misunderstood you at some point. 

The first three days are not before the measurement of time began unless you assume God did not begin measuring time until He created the Sun. 

As I have stated repeatedly, to the point of ad nasuem, a plain reading of the second 3 days lends itself to the understanding that they were 24 hour days. Your "figurative" stance turns the Genesis account on its head and I really don't understand what warrant you have under the framework of your rank skepticism to not throw the entire account out as history and refer to it as all "figurative". I'm not trying to use hyperbole either, I really do think you're being inconsistent by claiming "day" is all figurative yet, somehow, the rest of the account is all literal (unless I've misunderstood again and am attributing more orthodoxy than warranted). 

If the second three days are 24 hour periods and the same language is used to describe the first three days, I have no reason to call God a liar or think Him unclear. 

I have explained that time passes and can be theoretically measured, especially by the Creator of the Universe, absent a relative marker like the Sun. As I said before, if the Sun exploded tomorrow, time would continue to chug along and, if you had a watch on hand, you could measure it accordingly. 

I theorize then, based on the context, that God meant what He said when He said "day" for the first three days, and constructed the rotation of the Earth revolving around the Sun accordingly. 

You have yet to offer a competing theory with any substance past a bald statement. It is clear to me and anyone else reading that you're refusing to add some meat to the bare bones you offered. Neither myself nor those reading are satisfied by the proverbial "wishbone" you're offering. I do hope those who hold to your view give this some more serious thought, as it seems your mere opinion that it is Scriptural is all you have to offer in defense. 

I apologize that I have to be so frank, but I know no other way to convey to you the frustration present when someone consistently ignores or refuses to interact with any substance. I find it a tad insulting friend. 

If you feel the need to proceed, then do so, but I'm done restating myself. May you have a fruitful discussion.


----------



## Prufrock

Mason,

That doesn't mean say raised these views as proposed wordings for the confession (which were then subsequently rejected); that simply means these are the views expressed in their private writings. Entirely different. Note again that the PCA paper mentions the Assembly's proposal of 24 hour language _only with respect to the Sabbath_.

Anyway, I'm jumping out of this one: I simply don't think the case is strong that the Assembly intentionally left open the meaning of "day" with respect to creation. I do, however, respect that bodies such as the PCA and OPC have adopted such as their reading of the confession, and thus certainly am not saying that those within such bodies are in any way violating their confessional documents (lest any think this).


----------



## Brian Withnell

LawrenceU said:


> Thanks, Paul. As I see it that is the only manner in which that dilemma can be solved. And, I view it as a very weak position to hold. Not impugning anyone here, but normally the people I've seen that hold to the poetic view of the creation account consistently are also liberal theologically and redactionistic in their approach to Scripture.



I'm glad you put "normally" in the description. 

I find problems with a literal, scientific chronology from the text itself. If those problems with the text were not there, I would not be in a framework position. The problems to me are elegantly answered by a framework view. I won't reiterate the OPC report, but the structure, and the 4th day are sufficient problems with a literal chronology that I have always had the nagging feeling that I was missing the interpretation by conjecture that the first three days were somehow 24 hour days before the clock started.

I can still remember how I thought, but I just don't see a good reason to hold to it any more -- sure, there are liberals that want to make everything they see figurative, but that isn't what is in front of me when I pick up Genesis.

I do appreciate that you at least see there are those that by close examination, without thought of changing what scripture says or wavering in absolute trust in what the scriptures teach, they could come to a different conclusion. While I would argue the literal view is weak, I understand you would take the opposite position.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Why do we need the sun for chronological purposes?


----------



## MW

Please note the section this thread is posted in -- the Confession of Faith. It would be appropriate to argue the exegetical basis of a position in the exegetical forum. All questions as to the authorial intent of a confession belong here. Also, anyone defending a position which requires a revision of creedal standards should check with board admins as to the propriety of doing so.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Zenas said:


> I apologize. I didn't realize you had abandoned a literal understanding of "day" with regard to the last three days, despite the presence of the natural marker's advent, i.e. the Sun. Apparently I misunderstood you at some point.
> 
> The first three days are not before the measurement of time began unless you assume God did not begin measuring time until He created the Sun.
> 
> As I have stated repeatedly, to the point of ad nasuem, a plain reading of the second 3 days lends itself to the understanding that they were 24 hour days. Your "figurative" stance turns the Genesis account on its head and I really don't understand what warrant you have under the framework of your rank skepticism to not throw the entire account out as history and refer to it as all "figurative". I'm not trying to use hyperbole either, I really do think you're being inconsistent by claiming "day" is all figurative yet, somehow, the rest of the account is all literal (unless I've misunderstood again and am attributing more orthodoxy than warranted).
> 
> If the second three days are 24 hour periods and the same language is used to describe the first three days, I have no reason to call God a liar or think Him unclear.
> 
> I have explained that time passes and can be theoretically measured, especially by the Creator of the Universe, absent a relative marker like the Sun. As I said before, if the Sun exploded tomorrow, time would continue to chug along and, if you had a watch on hand, you could measure it accordingly.
> 
> I theorize then, based on the context, that God meant what He said when He said "day" for the first three days, and constructed the rotation of the Earth revolving around the Sun accordingly.
> 
> You have yet to offer a competing theory with any substance past a bald statement. It is clear to me and anyone else reading that you're refusing to add some meat to the bare bones you offered. Neither myself nor those reading are satisfied by the proverbial "wishbone" you're offering. I do hope those who hold to your view give this some more serious thought, as it seems your mere opinion that it is Scriptural is all you have to offer in defense.
> 
> I apologize that I have to be so frank, but I know no other way to convey to you the frustration present when someone consistently ignores or refuses to interact with any substance. I find it a tad insulting friend.
> 
> If you feel the need to proceed, then do so, but I'm done restating myself. May you have a fruitful discussion.



I'm sorry if what I've said is not as clear as what I thought I was. Forgive me brother, I did not mean to frustrate or insult.

I think the issue is that what I say is possible, is not necessarily what I believe to be actual.

My personal belief is that Gen. 1 is a non-chronological, poetic description of a fact that would not necessarily be able to be conveyed to man, either then or now. The framework interpretation (which is what I think most likely the best we now have as an understanding of the passage) does not put any of the days as actual. The statement of the first three days as not seeming to make sense as 24 hours was stated as minimalistic ... at least those three were not 24 hours with what I thought was clear implication (but evidently I was wrong ... I am sorry about that) that the entire 6 days were figurative. One of the best descriptions I've seen of the framework and the defense of it as a literary form (rather than literal) is in the OPC report. The structure the repetition of 1x1x2 in both sets of three days seems like it points to poetic rather than literal interpretation. The 4th day problem dissolves if it is poetic language.

That is not to say that God could not have orchestrated creation to fit literary form, but that is as much conjecture as anything else I've seen. Prior to the framework interpretation being posited, I always suspected I was forcing my own human failings upon the text by saying that God could easily create in the first three days in 24 hour blocks of time, then create the reason for 24 hour blocks. But it always seemed a cop-out. It felt like I was caving in to conjecture and attempting to force what the text did say into something *I* could relate rather than figuring out what the text really meant. Looking at the text itself with a framework viewpoint was one of the biggest "ah ha!" moments in seeing what I believe God was saying. The framework doesn't require a rocket scientist to see it fits the scripture very elegantly, does nothing to the honor or sovereignty of God in creation, shows how the passage could have meaning beyond bare relating of facts. (Why would God even care to put a chronology into the scripture? From what I've seen, he isn't into answering the questions we would want to ask, but answering the questions he thinks we should ask.)

While I know all the arguments for a literal interpretation of six days of 24 hours each (I used to think that was the only way to read Genesis as infallible) I find that some of the arguments are somewhat contrived. If I am forced to make a conjecture as to the meaning of a passage then I feel very ill at ease. I don't like conjecture, and saying the first three days were 24 hours feels very much like a conjecture to me. This may sound crazy, but I view conjecture as more in line with the liberal line of interpretation than solid reformed interpretation. If I could (as I did) at 18 see the problems with a literal 24 hour day, then I have to figure people much smarter than I would have a solution. During the entire time I did not know of a framework view, I held what I thought was blindly to the view that God was playing "hocus pocus" with time in creation. It didn't feel right, it seemed like the view I was holding (6x24) made God deceptive.

If the framework interpretation is correct, then all the pieces fit perfectly: God answers the questions he is more likely to answer than the questions we are more likely to ask; the creation account makes plain sense, especially with the markers of time created on the fouth day; there is no need to explain that God in creation was purposely doing things that would confuse us. While the arguments above are the ones I find compelling, it also allows a view of the universe that matches what we plainly see (we don't have to explain away a difference between special revelation and general revelation). Frankly, I see no downside to the framework as a means of looking at the infallible word of God and seeing God sovereign hand in creating the universe. I do see problems that seem to put God at odds with his character with a 6x24 literal account.

I understand the caution of those that question "at what point does figurative end and literal begin" and fully appreciate the gravity of the situation. We have to have a literal Adam, or federal headship goes out the window. While the question is valid, and the consequence of taking too much figuratively is the loss of the gospel, taking what God states figuratively as literal is equally wrong.

Could I be wrong? Of course. I am a created being, and I cannot know the mind of God more than what he has revealed and what my meager intellect can contain. My powers of logic and reasoning are far from perfect. Could I be right? I believe the answer to that is yes (or I would change my mind). But considering that I believe I could be right, and that from good and sound reasoning from the text of scripture, I would require that someone show the framework wrong in order to be persuaded.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

It is a false statement to say Gen 1 is poetic. It bears *ZERO *markings of Hebrew Poetry. The Hebrew cannot be said to be poetic.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> It is a false statement to say Gen 1 is poetic. It bears *ZERO *markings of Hebrew Poetry. The Hebrew cannot be said to be poetic.



While I might appreciate that you don't think it poetic, it is also true the committee on creation for the OPC not only states that there is poetic structure in the Hebrew, but they described it as such and used the parallel structure of the paired days (1, 1, 2 in both) to emphasize what they concluded. Are you saying they falsified the report, or that you have read the report, examined the Hebrew as they did and concluded that even though they were honest, they just didn't understand?

I see that you are a candidate under care, so it might be possible that you already have taken a large number of courses on Hebrew (I have not) and might very well be in a position to be a scholar on the subject ... I do not know ... but I have to ask if you feel you know the Hebrew well enough to challenge those that were on the committee that included ordained men that are in fact Hebrew scholars.

You might want to look at the OPC report (I gave a link to it earlier) lines 1927 through 1951. I'll quote just a portion here:


> 1930 ... For example, each day of creation
> 1931 is carefully crafted and generally follows the same pattern:
> 1932
> 1933 FIAT: And God said, "Let there be light."
> 1934 FULFILLMENT: And there was light.
> 1935 SURVEILLANCE: And God saw that the light was good.
> 1936 CONCLUSION: And there was evening and there was morning, day one.
> 1937
> 1938 It is the repetition of this four-fold pattern that gives the account a kind of rhythmic or strophic quality
> 1939 unlike any other historical account in Scripture. "Its structure is strophic and throughout the strophes
> 1940 many refrains echo and re-echo"



It seems there are those that have a valid claim to the Hebrew having strophic qualities. To say it has zero marks of Hebrew poetry seems to be incorrect (at least from what the report says).


----------

