# Non-24 hr. creation view --> Gospel



## Romans922 (Sep 24, 2008)

How in your opinion is the Gospel at stake with a non-24 hr. creation view?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 24, 2008)

Since almost everything (sin, death, marriage, sabbath ect.) is found in Genesis 1-11, to deny it is to do great violence to the rest of the scripture. How do you reconcile death in Romans 5 if the account of the fall is not true?
Why do we have a sabbath if creation was not a literal 6 days?


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 24, 2008)

I will try to play the opposite side for a second. A person who would hold to framework or day/age or whatever, would say they weren't rejecting Genesis or the rest of Scripture.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 24, 2008)

Andrew,

I don't think the _gospel _is stake in a simple rejection of the 24-hour view of Genesis days. By "simple" I mean that it is limited to the length of days, and does not involve a rejection of creation _ex nihilo_, or a belief that Genesis is myth, Adam was not real, etc. I do think however, that a view that involves death before the Fall is extremely problematic, and can lead to a rejection of the core of the gospel.

I say this as one who is convinced of the ordinary calendar day view of Genesis.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 24, 2008)

This does not directly affect soteriology. One could believe the Framework Hypothesis without while still being a five point calvinist. 

One could argue that these folks do not take Scripture seriously, but they would merely respond that Gen 1 is a different genre and *if *it were meant to be taken historically, then by all means they *would* take it historically (but rather, it was written poetically and is not a blow by blow historical account of Creation).....

I have met one person like this. I count them as a Christian brother.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 24, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Andrew,
> 
> I don't think the _gospel _is stake in a simple rejection of the 24-hour view of Genesis days. By "simple" I mean that it is limited to the length of days, and does not involve a rejection of creation _ex nihilo_, or a belief that Genesis is myth, Adam was not real, etc. I do think however, that a view that involves death before the Fall is extremely problematic, and can lead to a rejection of the core of the gospel.
> 
> I say this as one who is convinced of the ordinary calendar day view of Genesis.



What creation view involves death before the Fall? (I'm ignorant).


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 24, 2008)

Romans922 said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew,
> ...



Any form of pre-Fall evolution. There are also some who believe that there was animal death before the Fall. Anyone who sees fossil evidence as proof of an extended period of time _before_ the Fall has this problem. (fossils = dead animals = death before the Fall = death *not* as a result of sin)


----------



## Leslie (Sep 24, 2008)

One also needs to distinguish between the biocreation and the rest. One view which is attractive to me holds that Genesis 1:1-2 is not a summary of what follows but preceeds what follows. In other words the substance of the galaxies was created at some remote period, perhaps billions of "years" ago and then, within six 24-hour periods, from the point of view of some hypothetical person located on this planet (maybe Moses had a vision?), the light, earth, seas, and all of life came into being. This accounts for the light years between our location and some of the stars while taking the creation account literally and providing for a young earth as regards the biosphere. The historical basis of the sabbath, the fall, and the rest are intact.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Sep 24, 2008)

Leslie said:


> One also needs to distinguish between the biocreation and the rest. One view which is attractive to me holds that Genesis 1:1-2 is not a summary of what follows but preceeds what follows. In other words the substance of the galaxies was created at some remote period, perhaps billions of "years" ago and then, within six 24-hour periods, from the point of view of some hypothetical person located on this planet (maybe Moses had a vision?), the light, earth, seas, and all of life came into being. This accounts for the light years between our location and some of the stars while taking the creation account literally and providing for a young earth as regards the biosphere. The historical basis of the sabbath, the fall, and the rest are intact.



Are you referring to theory developed by Dr. Russell Humphreys? Starlight Wars: Starlight and Time withstands attacks


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Sep 24, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> This does not directly affect soteriology. One could believe the Framework Hypothesis without while still being a five point calvinist.
> 
> One could argue that these folks do not take Scripture seriously, but they would merely respond that Gen 1 is a different genre and *if *it were meant to be taken historically, then by all means they *would* take it historically (but rather, it was written poetically and is not a blow by blow historical account of Creation).....
> 
> I have met one person like this. I count them as a Christian brother.



I would also consider them brethren. The question of their salvation is not in question. However, they consistency leaves much to be desired. If a leader began to teach the false views in our church I would petition to have them removed immediately. 

But to the point, the poetical argument is inconsistent with moving from Genesis 1-11 to chapter 12 and onward. There is a seamless movement between these chapters and I have not found folks speaking of Abraham as poetical. 

Furthermore, the contant use of the Genesis 1-11 passages in the NT consistently treat it as historical narrative. 

RB


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 24, 2008)

These are well worth the time to listen to in my opinion:

SermonAudio.com - Sermons by Ken Ham

especially this one:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11606144316


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Sep 24, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Andrew,
> 
> I don't think the _gospel _is stake in a simple rejection of the 24-hour view of Genesis days. By "simple" I mean that it is limited to the length of days, and does not involve a rejection of creation _ex nihilo_, or a belief that Genesis is myth, Adam was not real, etc. I do think however, that a view that involves death before the Fall is extremely problematic, and can lead to a rejection of the core of the gospel.
> 
> I say this as one who is convinced of the ordinary calendar day view of Genesis.





I'm an "Old Earth" creationist, but do not believe man evolved or died prior to the Fall, I believe that he was created _ex nihilo_, etc. I believe exactly the same as a YECer does on all the essentials, but believe Genesis 1 did not occur in 24 hour periods. God could have created the Earth in any time He wanted, but chose to do it in a gradual progression...at least from a human perspective. I've always wondered why those who hold to a 24-hr view do so with such vehemence - there has always been debate on the issue. And it changes nothing of our understanding of God, His creation, the nature of man, salvation, etc.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 24, 2008)

If we are to exclude folks based upon variances on this view, what is the best way to do it?


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 24, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew,
> ...



It does change our understanding of God, but not in a salvific way in my opinion. A non-calendar day view, for example, cannot make real sense out of the 4th commandment and Exodus 20. It also speaks to the power of God, and the nature of His Word.

But a non-calendar day view does not _have _to affect the essentials of the faith.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Sep 24, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...



I see your point, but I would disagree. Whether God created the earth in a calendar week or a metaphorical week is irrelevant to our understanding of the 4th Commandment. Regardless of the length of days, God revealed His creation of the universe in the context of a 7-day week. So that doesn't really change anything about God or the Sabbath. A week is a week, whether literal or figurative, and a figurative week doesn't undermine God or Exodus 20.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Sep 24, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> If we are to exclude folks based upon variances on this view, what is the best way to do it?



Exclude from what?


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 24, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > ColdSilverMoon said:
> ...



Exodus 20:11 clearly links not only the fact, but the time duration of the Sabbath rest to God's rest:

[bible]Exodus 20:11[/bible]

If the seventh "day" is 1000 years, then there is no reason for the Biblical Sabbath to be a day, as opposed to an age, or a state of mind.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Sep 24, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Exodus 20:11 clearly links not only the fact, but the time duration of the Sabbath rest to God's rest:
> 
> [bible]Exodus 20:11[/bible]
> 
> If the seventh "day" is 1000 years, then there is no reason for the Biblical Sabbath to be a day, as opposed to an age, or a state of mind.



But you could also say that Exodus 20:11 links an allegorical week in the song of Genesis 1 to a physical week in the law of the 4th Commandment. So the figurative 7th day is now the literal Sabbath. God gave us the creation account in a way that we could understand it by linking it to something we all comprehend: the days in a week. So if the 7th day is figurative, it does not negate Exodus 20:11 because it is linked to something concrete.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 24, 2008)

Reformed Baptist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > If we are to exclude folks based upon variances on this view, what is the best way to do it?
> ...



My question too?


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Sep 24, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...




Huh?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 24, 2008)

If Genesis 1 is figurative, what about Jonah in the belly of the fish? Or what about Christ in the Tomb? Is it 3 days or 3000 years? in my opinion, when you go down the figurative road you open up all kinds of avenues for unbelief.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 24, 2008)

Reformed Baptist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Reformed Baptist said:
> ...



In response to your assertion that leaders believing this ought to be removed. 

Removed from what? Pastorate? Church membershp? Communion?

Who should be removed?

Laypeople should not be received into membership if they hold this? Pastors not ordained? 

I am trying to probe what actions you are advocating and to what extent you would fight this error?


----------



## TimV (Sep 24, 2008)

> Any form of pre-Fall evolution. There are also some who believe that there was animal death before the Fall. Anyone who sees fossil evidence as proof of an extended period of time before the Fall has this problem. (fossils = dead animals = death before the Fall = death not as a result of sin)



I've never thought of this, but can see how this would be very important, and a convenient litmus test one could apply to differing views of Genesis when looking for a lowest common denominator of orthodox thought on the matter of Creation.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Sep 24, 2008)

Blueridge Believer said:


> If Genesis 1 is figurative, what about Jonah in the belly of the fish? Or what about Christ in the Tomb? Is it 3 days or 3000 years? in my opinion, when you go down the figurative road you open up all kinds of avenues for unbelief.



It all depends on context. The Gospel narratives are exact historical accounts and are to be understood as such (particularly the Synoptic Gospels). The three days between Christ's death and Resurrection literal days in an exact historical account, and so we understand them as such. Same with the Jonah account.

But in the book of Psalms, or Song of Solomon, or portions of the OT prophets, the literary structure and intent is clearly allegorical/figurative. It doesn't make the content of those books and verses any less true, it simply means that the truths they contain are presented in a non-literal way. Genesis 1 is structured as a song, unlike the rest of Genesis (mostly) and the historical books of the Old Testament. So while I believe God created all of existence out of nothing, created man in His own image, etc, etc, I believe the general timeline is allegorical.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 24, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Exodus 20:11 clearly links not only the fact, but the time duration of the Sabbath rest to God's rest:
> ...



Humm? This sounds like a big attempt to try to explain something that isn't true. If God were to do something that confusing (with the figurative, non-figurative days), then I believe He might have explained it better when He gave the ten commandments.

Basically what I am saying is I believe what you are doing is eisegesis. You want to believe one thing (A), and so you have to change other places of Scripture (B, C, D, etc.) which disagrees with your view A to something totally different than what it says. 

When Israel read what Moses wrote in Genesis and Exodus, what did they think day meant? That one was figurative, one was literal? No, they thought of the day (24 hours = day). 


So this doesn't affect the Gospel, what about eschatology (Hebrews 3-4?)?


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 24, 2008)

Reformed Baptist said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> > One also needs to distinguish between the biocreation and the rest. One view which is attractive to me holds that Genesis 1:1-2 is not a summary of what follows but preceeds what follows. In other words the substance of the galaxies was created at some remote period, perhaps billions of "years" ago and then, within six 24-hour periods, from the point of view of some hypothetical person located on this planet (maybe Moses had a vision?), the light, earth, seas, and all of life came into being. This accounts for the light years between our location and some of the stars while taking the creation account literally and providing for a young earth as regards the biosphere. The historical basis of the sabbath, the fall, and the rest are intact.
> ...



This does not sound exactly like Russ Humphreys' gravitational time dilation.* As a non-physics person (where are you Dr. Pedlar?) GTD says that in the curvature of the space/time continuum, time could appear to be one thing on earth and quite another in space. This assumes a series of original conditions not assumed by the Big Bang people. There have been some peer reviewed critiques of Russ, asking whether his numbers pencil out, but on the face of it, _some_ other physicists have said that his case is at least worthy of examining.

My problem with anything other than the normal interpretation of Genesis is not that it is heretical (who am I to throw stones at a Reformed icon like Kline?). In fact, I held to an old-earth non-evolutionary interpretation for most of my adult life. It was only in the last few years that the issue became a topic of serious reconsideration for me.

Frankly, I do not think that an upholder of the Framework (or Day Age, or . . . ) views necessarily have any problem reconciling their views with a high view of scripture. However, (here comes the "once burned, twice shy" rant) my mainline church experience caused me to observe a dangerous trend. As Grudem has fairly well established beyond doubt, denominations that adopt revisionistic views of Genesis with respect to male-female roles (i.e., egalitarian interpretations), have ALL ended up embracing a tolerant view of homosexuality within a very few decades. 

I happen to think that Ken Ham is correct is saying that adopting a non-straight-forward (i.e., revisionist) interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is a contributing (if not proximate) cause for the new views on any number of other doctrines throughout scripture. In other words, when we first begin to ask "has God really said" about a seemingly clear teaching of the Bible, it has a nasty downstream habit of corrupting all manner of other doctrines that have their seedplot in Genesis as well. Even the doctrine of redemption (e.g., Gen 3:15) can be endangered by this enterprise.

R.C. Sproul carefully articulates that he held the Day Age view for most of his ministry. However, Kelly was the one who convinced him that it was unteneable (Douglas F. Kelly, _Creation and Change: Genesis 1.1-2.4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms _; Fearn-Tain: Mentor, 1997). A few years ago R.C. came out with his support for the YEC view, withdrawing his endorsement of Hugh Ross' book on the subject from a Day Age point of view.

So, does holding to Kline's view make you a heretic? Of course not! Most of those who adhere to it are Westminster (east or west) grads! However, does such an approach to scripture unintentionally contribute to the effacement of biblical authority in our culture? I think it does (to some degree at least).


* Russell Humphreys' cosmology has sometimes been called a "White Hole Cosmology." He argues that the gravitational well is quite shallow today such that what little time dilation there is is more than offset by the expansion of space. The time dilation would have been significantly greater in the past when the universe was smaller. He does, to my limited understanding also presume that the earth is towards the center (not the periphery as in some Big Bang models) of the universe. The notion of gravitational time dilations is partly based upon Einsteinian relativity theory which predicted it and expermiments have confirmed it. The idea of using it as a cosmological construct is mostly Dr. Humphreys' doing.


----------



## Webservant (Sep 24, 2008)

Fascinating subject. 

I have not heard anyone talk about whether the 6 days were consecutive. Is it heretical to question just that part of it?

In any case, my thinking on this whole issue has been that we are fish pontificating on the world outside of the fishbowl. Our entire understanding is filtered through not just what we are physically capable of observing, but how we perceive it. 

If our universe was designed in any other way, things wouldn't work the way they do. It is this attribute that we perceive as age and evidence of random evolution.


----------



## Marrow Man (Sep 24, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Genesis 1 is structured as a song, unlike the rest of Genesis (mostly) and the historical books of the Old Testament. So while I believe God created all of existence out of nothing, created man in His own image, etc, etc, I believe the general timeline is allegorical.



Because it has certain literary elements does not mean it is intended to be interpreted as a song (or poetry). Hebrew poetry is structured in a very distinct matter, and those elements are missing from Genesis 1 (with the possible exception of v. 27). For example, Edward Young writes:

"Genesis one is not poetry or saga or myth, but straightforward, trustworthy history, and, inasmuch as it is a divine revelation, accurately records those matters of which it speaks. That Genesis one is historical may be seen from these considerations: 1) It sustains an intimate relationship with the remainder of the book. The remainder of the book ... presupposes the Creation Account, and the Creation Account prepares for what follows. ... 2) _The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking_. There are poetic accounts of the creation and these form a striking contrast to Genesis one. 3) The New Testament regards certain events mentioned in Genesis one as actually having taken place. We may safely allow the New Testament to be our interpreter of this mighty first chapter of the Bible." (_Studies in Genesis One_, p. 105, emphasis added)


----------



## py3ak (Sep 24, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> * Russell Humphreys' cosmology has sometimes been called a "White Hole Cosmology." He argues that the gravitational well is quite shallow today such that what little time dilation there is is more than offset by the expansion of space. The time dilation would have been significantly greater in the past when the universe was smaller. He does, to my limited understanding also presume that the earth is towards the center (not the periphery as in some Big Bang models) of the universe. Such a cosmological construct is partly based on Einsteinian relativity theory.



So Humphrey's view has the additional virtue of almost being geocentrist?


----------



## Solus Christus (Sep 24, 2008)

The problem I've never understood from an Old Earth Creationist view is how one interprets the repeated phrase "And there was evening and there was morning, the xth day". This is exactly a single day cycle. There is no reason to think "day" is some kind of metaphor for "a really, really, long time" unless one wants to harmonize what science says, namely, the Earth and universe is millions and billions of years old. And since it has been shown that things like carbon-dating is unreliable I'd rather trust God. 

Ps 118:8 It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 25, 2008)

Romans922 said:


> How in your opinion is the Gospel at stake with a non-24 hr. creation view?



Andrew,

The gospel is God's power unto salvation; it is theological, it is historical, it is eschatological, it is practical, etc.

German Higher Criticism and the old pagan systems of though in the Roman world caused "scholars" now and then to be afraid of reading the Bible as it is written. 

The Bible doesn't need to bow before any pseudo-science ("that which is falsely called Gnosis" or "scientia" in Latin). Old pseudo-science caused some ancient interpreters to alter their reading of Genesis (e.g. Philo, Augustine, etc.). Science proves nothing; it is an educated guess at best. Therefore, only a fool would take what he may know certainly (God created the world in the space of six days, and rested on the seventh), and compare it with what cannot be know (man's depraved speculation about rocks, or the age of the univers). Gordon Clark has written an excellent book proving as much called "The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God".

Anywho, epistemologically, this way of reading the bible in the light of depraved speculations does destroy the gospel, if said beastly method is applied to the particular historical facts about the life of Jesus. Something which German Rationalists were willing to do, but (thank God) some "Reformed" folk are as-of-yet unwilling to do. It's a matter of time, however, and we can trace the development of full fledged apostasy with such depraved speculations being accepted at, say, Princeton. Nothing in the narrative requires a non-calendar "evening and morning". A day may be as a thousand years, but it is not a thousand years. 

Godspeed,


----------



## Tim (Sep 25, 2008)

We are off topic. The OP asked if the gospel is affected by one's view of "day".


----------



## nicnap (Sep 25, 2008)

Leslie said:


> One also needs to distinguish between the biocreation and the rest. One view which is attractive to me holds that Genesis 1:1-2 is not a summary of what follows but preceeds what follows. In other words the substance of the galaxies was created at some remote period, perhaps billions of "years" ago and then, within six 24-hour periods, from the point of view of some hypothetical person located on this planet (maybe Moses had a vision?), the light, earth, seas, and all of life came into being. This accounts for the light years between our location and some of the stars while taking the creation account literally and providing for a young earth as regards the biosphere. The historical basis of the sabbath, the fall, and the rest are intact.



Or, it could be (which I find more likely), that God creates things mature, fully functioning, with and appearance of history that they never had. The trees that Adam ate from...they were mature and appeared to have history. Adam was not an infant, but mature and fully functioning and appeared to have a history. So, the stars, likewise, have an appearance of history...that they are showing light to us now doesn't mean it took millions of years, but that God created them with an appearance of history also. 

Just a thought, humbly submitted. (This is submitted before reading the rest of the thread--so if this addressed by someone else, sorry.)


----------

