What is your view on creation?
- Thread starter Bill The Baptist
- Start date
- Status
Jonathan David Foster
Puritan Board Freshman
I find it kind of weird that so many people on PB are young earthers. When I attended Westminster Seminary, I don't recall any members of the faculty holding the literal 24 hr day position. The framework view was predominant. I wonder who is more out of step with the mainstream of conservative Reformed folks today. PB or WTS? At any rate, Meredith Kline's classic WTS journal article "Because It Had Not Rained" is a must read, even if you disagree:
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/kline_notrained_wtj.pdf
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/kline_notrained_wtj.pdf
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
SinnerSavedByChrist
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks for clarifying, I am still muddle-headed but that's my fault. I'm glad to hear you affirm the plain reading of the text.
Why I seem so belligerent about defending the precise reading of Genesis chapters 1-11, is that when we throw out plain exegesis and allow fanciful hermeneutical gymnastics to invade the very first page of the Scripture, then we might as well give up on reading the bible. The blasphemers rightly say that we christians "Pick and choose what we believe like it's a cafeteria".
I'm trying to understand the possibilities of interpretation you have voiced with Genesis 1:1 . I must I still don't understand your proposal about Genesis 1:1 referring to either verse 2 or 3. Everytime someone tampers with Genesis 1:1, I smell the door left ajar for all kinds of modified gap theories (Piper/Sailhamer).
http://creation.com/syntax-in-genesis-1 - comprehensive article on Genesis 1:1 + the various interpretations.
Last edited:
Felkon
Puritan Board Freshman
Brothers, how would you reconcile the use of days as a time descriptor in Genesis against what Peter teaches us in 2 Peter 3? Know that I ask genuinely.
Peter tells us: "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."
I can read the word "days" in Genesis as literal, but as for the actual time that fits into a Genesis "day", I cannot but think that it could either a 24-hour day or an undefined period of time that could span thousands of years. Ultimately, for myself, whether God made the earth in six days or across thousands (or millions of years), it was still His doing and therefore to His glory.
I welcome any further discussion or explanation on this point.
Peter tells us: "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."
I can read the word "days" in Genesis as literal, but as for the actual time that fits into a Genesis "day", I cannot but think that it could either a 24-hour day or an undefined period of time that could span thousands of years. Ultimately, for myself, whether God made the earth in six days or across thousands (or millions of years), it was still His doing and therefore to His glory.
I welcome any further discussion or explanation on this point.
Berean
Puritanboard Commissioner
I see that 6 members now state that, "God created the world in the distant past using evolution." I don't believe we've heard from any of them, other than checking a box. I'd be interested in how they arrived at that conclusion, as well as how they justify it in light of Scripture.
GloriousBoaz
Puritan Board Freshman
The passage in Peter is clearly metaphorical and poetic, if you do a search 1000 in the scriptures is usually used to mean everything. Like "God owns the cattle on 1000 hills" there are numerous examples of 1000 being used metaphorically in that manner so therefore Peter is says "one day is like infinity and infinity is like a day for God" because God is utterly transcendent.
Also to use the passage in Peter to make a day for God an indeterminable amount of time you refute yourself, or rather the passage self refutes you because is says "a day is like 1000 yrs" then turns around and says "1000 yrs are like a day" undoing its previous poetic stanza.
Bear with me its 2:30 in the morning and I can't sleep and I'm not bothering to check my facts, its all off the top of my head fyi, hope it helps, but I don't think there are any other passages in scripture other than Peter here to try to make the days longer than a 24 hour period, so its not a good idea to build an entire doctrine off of one shaky verse. Also last thought all the places "Yom" is used in connection with a number it is always used as a literal 24 hour period. Here's the math on that The Hebrew Yom: Taking One Day at a Time | Creation Today
I like Norm would love to hear from some of the theistic evolutionists.
Also to use the passage in Peter to make a day for God an indeterminable amount of time you refute yourself, or rather the passage self refutes you because is says "a day is like 1000 yrs" then turns around and says "1000 yrs are like a day" undoing its previous poetic stanza.
Bear with me its 2:30 in the morning and I can't sleep and I'm not bothering to check my facts, its all off the top of my head fyi, hope it helps, but I don't think there are any other passages in scripture other than Peter here to try to make the days longer than a 24 hour period, so its not a good idea to build an entire doctrine off of one shaky verse. Also last thought all the places "Yom" is used in connection with a number it is always used as a literal 24 hour period. Here's the math on that The Hebrew Yom: Taking One Day at a Time | Creation Today
I like Norm would love to hear from some of the theistic evolutionists.
SinnerSavedByChrist
Puritan Board Freshman
Hey brother Felipe,
Although I don't see any other legitimate interpretation of Genesis 1-2 except for creation in 6 normal days, I agree that ultimately if one believes that Adam was the first Man and Eve the first Woman, that there was a literal Garden of Eden, that there was NO sin or death before the Fall, then we can have fellowship.
Specifically addressing your question:
2 Peter 3:8 "one day is like a thousand years
Why 6-day creation is so important:
Genesis: Bible authors believed it to be history
New Testament doctrines and the creation basis
Genesis the seedbed of all Christian doctrine
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
I'm kind of taken aback that theistic evolutionists have joined the PB.
Leaving aside evolution of animal kinds itself, which is an error, the teaching of the evolution of Man is an egregious error.
The passage in Peter would be poorly used by day-age creationists. It is not addressing whether or not we can interpret "day" as used anywhere in the Bible as meaning a long time, nor whether God would have called a long time period "day" when speaking to us in His Word.
It's talking about how God "experiences" time, He being outside time and transcendent to time.
This doesn't teach us anything to the purpose of how we should understand " day" in Genesis 1 In my humble opinion.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
The reason why I marked "unsure" is my issue with reading Genesis 1 in light of Genesis 2 and the seeming disparity, which makes me think, at the very least, that the 6 days in Genesis 1 are arranged in thematic order, not chronological order (much like the Gospel of John). I don't think that this position compromises inerrancy.
THE W
Puritan Board Freshman
The passage in 2 Peter 3 is talking about the patience and longsuffering of the LORD in bringing about his promises and judgment and that he doesn't operate within our prescribed timeframe.
Genesis 1 and 2 shouldn't be seen as two separate creation accounts. Genesis 1 is the chronological order of the creation of the universe and the earth while genesis 2 zooms in on day 6 dealing with the creation of man in the garden of Eden.
Genesis 1 and 2 shouldn't be seen as two separate creation accounts. Genesis 1 is the chronological order of the creation of the universe and the earth while genesis 2 zooms in on day 6 dealing with the creation of man in the garden of Eden.
The problem is that Genesis 2 seems to include the creation of some things on day 6 (if it is day 6) that belong to day 4. As I said, the reasons for my holding the historical interpretation of Genesis 1 lightly are exegetical. The main narrative starts in Genesis 2 with Genesis 1 as a literary/theological prologue.
THE W
Puritan Board Freshman
It is day 6. The confusion is with verse 5. It says no shrub was on the earth because of no water and no one to work the ground. This is referring to the garden, not the entire earth which is why someone to work the ground was needed.
There were already plants on the earth, just none in the garden.
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
I once read an article on how the Genesis version of creation was written in a way, using words and phrases etc that clearly showed it was written as literal history. The way words were used and so on. I read it on the Creation website creation.com if you put into the search engine "the numbering pattern in genesis" the article will show in the search results. Don't get worried that "the numbering pattern" is like a weird theory or Davinci code type thing, its not. I once told someone else to have a look and they didn't, thinking it was some Biblical conspiracy thing. They have some good sound stuff on that site in regards to the 6 day creation. Also much on how our earth is young from well known and respected scientists from all fields. Felipe, there is a free website where you can download Bible commentaries like Mathew Henry, Gill and others. They are a good help in understanding what some parts of scripture really mean. Such as the one you quoted. The site is called e-sword and has some great stuff there. Though in the graphics viewer one is some imagery of, supposed images of Christ, which are not good, but the commentaries and bible downloads are.
The Reformed Church US published a good position paper on this topic that I appreciated. The Aquila Report posted the Intro with a link to the paper. It does a decent job in answering a lot of the questions raised here.
http://theaquilareport.com/a-rationale-for-the-rcus-position-paper-on-days-of-creation/#!
http://theaquilareport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/RCUS-Position-Creation-Days-1999.pdf
http://theaquilareport.com/a-rationale-for-the-rcus-position-paper-on-days-of-creation/#!
http://theaquilareport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/RCUS-Position-Creation-Days-1999.pdf
GloriousBoaz
Puritan Board Freshman
Jason Lisle says: "Some evolutionists might argue that they can account for uniformity just as the Christian does—by appealing to a god who upholds the universe in a law-like fashion.13 But rather than believing in Genesis creation, they believe that this god created over millions of years of evolution. However, theistic evolution will not resolve the problem. A theistic evolutionist does not believe that Genesis is literally true. But if Genesis is not literally true, then there is no reason to believe that Genesis 8:22 is literally true. This verse is where God promises that we can count on a certain degree of uniformity in the future. Without biblical creation, the rational basis for uniformity is lost.
It’s not just any god that is required in order to make sense of uniformity; it is the Christian God as revealed in the Bible. Only a God who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all powerful, omnipresent, and who has revealed Himself to mankind can guarantee that there will be uniformity throughout space and time. Therefore, only biblical creationists can account for the uniformity in nature.
A “day-age” creationist might also try to use this argument. But it also fails for the same reason. Day-age creationists do not believe that Genesis really means what it says (that God literally created in six ordinary days). So, how could we trust that Genesis 8:22 really means what it says? And if Genesis 8:22 does not mean what it says, then there is no reason to believe in uniformity. Therefore, the day-age creationist has the same problem as the evolutionist. Neither can account for science and technology within his own worldview. "
Evolution: The Anti-science - Answers in Genesis
It’s not just any god that is required in order to make sense of uniformity; it is the Christian God as revealed in the Bible. Only a God who is beyond time, consistent, faithful, all powerful, omnipresent, and who has revealed Himself to mankind can guarantee that there will be uniformity throughout space and time. Therefore, only biblical creationists can account for the uniformity in nature.
A “day-age” creationist might also try to use this argument. But it also fails for the same reason. Day-age creationists do not believe that Genesis really means what it says (that God literally created in six ordinary days). So, how could we trust that Genesis 8:22 really means what it says? And if Genesis 8:22 does not mean what it says, then there is no reason to believe in uniformity. Therefore, the day-age creationist has the same problem as the evolutionist. Neither can account for science and technology within his own worldview. "
Evolution: The Anti-science - Answers in Genesis
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
I have always read "morning and then evening" as being 1 day. An example given us by God to show the time frame it was created in. If it were anything different I would see something different than that be written. As God is not bound by time then the telling of it being morning and evening is for our purpose to understand the time frame of creation. As I understand, the Jews also believe it is a literal 6 day's. Too often we are told things take hundreds of thousands or millions of years to create, like limestone formations and things like that. But here in Australia there is a lighthouse water wheel that is now almost completely covered in limestone, I think in under 100 years. Stallactites and stallagmites (I have spelt those wrong but cannot think right now the correct spelling) have been discovered in disused underground rail systems growing as well as in sewers that defy how long they should have taken by the standards we have been told they do. There has even been a lost paddle steamer found in the US under many sediment layers that again by the standards that are used should be many thousand of years old, going by how long they say sediment layers take to form! The world has been conditioned through schools, media, science and so on to see things as older than they really are. To take longer to form than they really do. They say oil take millions of years to form, yet here in Australia a person has found a relatively simple way to turn organic matter into useable crude in just 1 day! As each year passes the millions of year time frame is crumbling to bits as new discoveries are made. Dinosaurs were before birds as we know today we are told, yet they found a fossil with a couple of relatively in tact modern type birds still undigested in its stomache cavity area not long back. The earth is young, very young. The huge age's bit is an illusion. Notice how all the old age earth and evolutionist scientists that push it are either completely godless, many openly professing a hatred towards God, or hold onto doctrines that are not biblical? The millions of years age is held by many, many Roman Catholics also. I have seen some good things on the subject in answers in Genesis also.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
Sorry.
I don't consider myself a theistic evolutionist anymore but I was years ago when I joined PB until six months ago or so. Though I think evolution of a sort has and is happening I don't believe it explains our origins. Any theory, evolutionary or otherwise that doesn't permit the historical Adam and Eve of which I've always believed since before I was a believer, is impossible. Since I am not a 10K YO man by default that puts me in OE though I considered selecting "not sure." Where unbelievers see the observations of Darwin, Einstein, Hubble, Miller-Urey, Crick and so forth as proof of godlessness I've always gone the other direction.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Sorry.
Well creationists believe that God gave the various "kinds" a degree of ability to develop and diversify. Look at the variety of humans, cats and dogs. YEC or OEC doesn't't hold that all these varieties were there at the beginning, but there was the possibility of development placed in the creation by God, which would work itself out in His providence.
Some would prefer to call it "variation" rather than "micro-evolution" to make it clear, that got has got nothing to do with the notion of Darwinism.
Darwin of course extrapolated his theory of common descent of all creatures, from domestic breeding and minor variations. All the best lies have a modicum of truth in them as the bait or in order to muddy the waters and confuse.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
John Byl answers this here: bylogos: Genesis versus Dr. Tim Keller
I think it's details like Genesis 2:5 - such a prosaic explanation as to why agriculture had not been developed by Man, and other aspects of the earlier chapters of Genesis, if it were necessary, that give the lie to the early chapters of Genesis being mythology. Is it of the character of myth to go into such mundane explanations about such mundane first parents? I'm not here saying that you believe Genesis is myth, Philip; just raising another point.
C.S. Lewis somewhere compared the Gospels as literature with myths in order to show that e.g. characters as prosaic as Peter, James and John, and Mary, Martha and Lazarus were not characteristic of the genre of mythology.
Here's an article by Donald MacLeod on that: Is Jesus a myth?
Are there any boooks which contrast Genesis for genre with the pagan creation and flood myths?
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
In college, we used a couple of Pritchard's Near Eastern Readers for coursework and I seem to remember the parallels to OT texts. However, it's been almost 20 years though.
Stratiotes
Puritan Board Freshman
I would say six literal days.
Soli Deo Gloria
Soli Deo Gloria
Reverend Chaplain
Puritan Board Freshman
There are hermeneutics that would allow for a non-literal reading of Genesis which renders it neither wrong nor "rubbish." There are questions of genre and authorial intent that need to be dealt with before jumping to a conclusion that it MUST be literal.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
What is the genre of the early chapters of Genesis, if not plain history?
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
THE W
Puritan Board Freshman
Ok, make your case..
Sherwin L.
Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, I think any reformed believer with a historical-grammatical hermenuetical approach should find no compelling reason why Genesis wasn't written plainly and literally. We treat the patriarchs and the narratives about them as literal history-- so why would we exegete the beginning of Genesis any differently?
Besides the usual markers of historical narrative in the text itself, there are "literal" reflections on and references to the creation narrative in the rest of the Bible which compel the reader to understand the events recorded in Genesis 1 as being historical in the proper sense of the term. The fourth commandment demands a literal interpretation, not only of certain features of the creation narrative, but of the whole structure of it. The creation Psalms are often classified among the "historical Psalms" simply because they give poetic descriptions of the creation narrative. Themes in the prophets, such as the "Lord of creation" and "new creation" themes, assume the events of Genesis 1 are historical. Our Lord taught that God made them male and female in the beginning and that the Sabbath was made for man. The teaching of the apostle Paul that God commanded light to shine out of darkness requires not only historical but chronological certainty. The same applies to the teaching of the apostle Peter in showing the relationship of the earth to the waters. Biblical teachings are built on historical verities, and the creation account is the foundation of all historical events.
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well put Armourbearer. When I read Genesis I cannot for the life of me see anything but a literal 6 days! It could not be described more literally!
Webservant
Puritan Board Sophomore
I just don't know about this thread. There is so much potential for argument... I don't want to be a stir of the pot and I certainly don't want to be branded a heretic. Questions like this are interesting but then after awhile we start bickering.
I didn't answer either because there are not enough choices.
Do I believe God created the earth in 6 days? Sure - He says He did. Do I know they were consecutive, contiguous days? No, I don't, but I am sure someone here will correct me on this point.
Do I think that the earth is young? No I don't. There are too many gaps in our knowledge and we really don't know how long it was from when Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden until now. How long were they IN the garden?
Do I think evolution is a lie from the flames of hell? Nope. It leads TO the genius and mercy of God, not away from it. Tell me, do the many varieties of dogs come from randomness or design? We did that. Evolution is an act of active creation, in my opinion and it points towards intelligence. Do I believe it's a lie from hell to presume that humans can evolve? No. I can think of no better explanation for why we have races.
Listen, man and creation fell and God, in His mercy, designed our bodies (and those of the animals) to be able to survive in and adapt to harsh conditions. Do those of you who insist that the earth is 6,000 years old also believe that Adam and Eve were Caucasians? Or any the other existing races? All this being said, I believe in a literal Adam and Eve, created by God out of the dust. What they looked like is not my concern and I don't really even care.
In conclusion, this whole debate and whatever evidence we may find for or against evolution doesn't prove God is a liar. It proves that there's so much that we don't know.
I didn't answer either because there are not enough choices.
Do I believe God created the earth in 6 days? Sure - He says He did. Do I know they were consecutive, contiguous days? No, I don't, but I am sure someone here will correct me on this point.
Do I think that the earth is young? No I don't. There are too many gaps in our knowledge and we really don't know how long it was from when Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden until now. How long were they IN the garden?
Do I think evolution is a lie from the flames of hell? Nope. It leads TO the genius and mercy of God, not away from it. Tell me, do the many varieties of dogs come from randomness or design? We did that. Evolution is an act of active creation, in my opinion and it points towards intelligence. Do I believe it's a lie from hell to presume that humans can evolve? No. I can think of no better explanation for why we have races.
Listen, man and creation fell and God, in His mercy, designed our bodies (and those of the animals) to be able to survive in and adapt to harsh conditions. Do those of you who insist that the earth is 6,000 years old also believe that Adam and Eve were Caucasians? Or any the other existing races? All this being said, I believe in a literal Adam and Eve, created by God out of the dust. What they looked like is not my concern and I don't really even care.
In conclusion, this whole debate and whatever evidence we may find for or against evolution doesn't prove God is a liar. It proves that there's so much that we don't know.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Here is why I did not vote in this poll, like anyone is interested. Having read over this thread the past month and a half I have come to the following conclusions.
#1. The insistence the all the days of creation contain 24 hours is In my most humble opinion a tad dogmatic in that the people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun, and knowing that the sun moon and stars were created on the fourth day tells me that man's measurement of a day is different than what God calls a day before the sun moon and stars were created. In other words, I see no reason to be dogmatic in stating the first 3 days were 24 hours. After day 4 I have no problem in believing our measurement of a day is exactly the same amount of time The Lord wishes to convey.
#2. I see no evidence from the biblical historical account of the creation of Adam to doubt men have only been around for 6,000-20,000 years.
#3. I think the fall as described in the bible is describing man's fall and I think that outside the garden there was much death. This is historically verified in scripture in that logical inference dictates that God put out Adam and Eve to a location that was outside the garden. In other words, the garden did not fall, Adam did, and he was "sent forth" out into something that In my most humble opinion was far from perfect.
So If there was an option that......God created the creation a long long time ago in the span of six days (knowing a day could have been a "gazillion" hours before the sun was created) I would have voted for such.
Having read over this thread the past month and a half I have come to the following conclusions.#1. The insistence the all the days of creation contain 24 hours is In my most humble opinion a tad dogmatic in that the people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun, and knowing that the sun moon and stars were created on the fourth day tells me that man's measurement of a day is different than what God calls a day before the sun moon and stars were created. In other words, I see no reason to be dogmatic in stating the first 3 days were 24 hours. After day 4 I have no problem in believing our measurement of a day is exactly the same amount of time The Lord wishes to convey.
#2. I see no evidence from the biblical historical account of the creation of Adam to doubt men have only been around for 6,000-20,000 years.
#3. I think the fall as described in the bible is describing man's fall and I think that outside the garden there was much death. This is historically verified in scripture in that logical inference dictates that God put out Adam and Eve to a location that was outside the garden. In other words, the garden did not fall, Adam did, and he was "sent forth" out into something that In my most humble opinion was far from perfect.
So If there was an option that......God created the creation a long long time ago in the span of six days (knowing a day could have been a "gazillion" hours before the sun was created) I would have voted for such.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
