7 Day creation- literal or figurative?

[Hoghead1]

Scripture certainly does create the impression that you have to embrace a certain religion to be saved. I find almost all religions take that stance. However, I find this incompatible with God's love for everyone, not just the elect, or Bible-believing Christians, etc. God's agenda is to promote beauty; and as long as that is what we are doing, God is happy with us. Because I firmly believe God loves everyone, I believe in a universal salvation, so that your religion is not some necessary ticket you have to have to get into Heaven.

 

[Aman777]

Scripture certainly does create the impression that you have to embrace a certain religion to be saved. I find almost all religions take that stance. However, I find this incompatible with God's love for everyone, not just the elect, or Bible-believing Christians, etc. God's agenda is to promote beauty; and as long as that is what we are doing, God is happy with us. Because I firmly believe God loves everyone, I believe in a universal salvation, so that your religion is not some necessary ticket you have to have to get into Heaven.

False, since there is but One power of God unto Salvation. The above is another example of preaching "another" Gospel, which Scripture warns us about:

Gal 1:6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

[miamited]

Hi HH,

In this I must agree with aman. I've read the new covenant Scriptures through a number of times and they discuss at some great length our necessity of salvation, the way of salvation, who will receive salvation and not once do I find any single reference to it being about beauty or being beautiful or that God's agenda is the least concerned with some kind of beauty, either physical or of our nature. I can't imagine anyone really studying the Scriptures in an attempt to gain a certificate that would infer to others that they know all about them or all about the God of whom they speak, coming away with some idea that salvation of human kind is going to be a universal salvation.

You honestly just seem to have so many erroneous ideas concerning God and His Scriptures. I know, I know, your response is going to be, "Well, that's the way you understand things", but...

You admit in your own hand that the Scriptures do seem to infer the necessity of some kind of religion. Your carnal mind tells you that just isn't fair or just can't be and so you adjust what you believe the Scriptures say and support to what your carnal mind believes must be the 'real' truth. To draw this back to the discussion at hand, that's exactly what happens in those who refuse to acknowledge and accept the plain truth of the creation account. Our carnal minds, because we have now for a number of years been filled with this knowledge that man's science presses upon us that the creation just can't possibly be as young as the Scriptures seem to clearly infer, forces us to change what the Scriptures say to be more in line with what man says. We want to argue and quibble over what the word 'day' must mean even though 1500 years after God caused to be written 'day' in the creation account, which should have been a time when man's understanding of what a day is had surely become clear, God establishes the Sabbath on the grounds that He created all things in heaven and on the earth in six days.

But we can't believe that because of the preconditioning our minds have already received through the sciences established by men. We can't believe that because mighty men of science have 'proven' that it can't be. I would encourage you to ask any scientist how he can prove that water will stand straight up without any aid of support for an hour a height of 20 feet. This is what God's word said happened in the Exodus, although I'm assured it was more than 20 feet. Ask a scientist to prove it!

I can tell you right now that any scientist worth his salt is going to tell you that it's an impossible task, yet God's word says that He did it. So, what's your position? Did God make the water stand as a sentinel as the children passed through or is it not possible that the account is true or we just somehow don't understand what God meant when He told us, "A wall of water stood on both their right hand and on their left hand".

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[OzSpen]

I don't mind responding to you,Oz, but you need to make it clear what your relationship is with Ted. Are you going top be his mouthpiece? After all, you did butt in, which is OK, of course.
To answer your questions:
Ted's stated beliefs shouted out the inerrancy of Scripture. And I said it is a human-made theory, because that is exactly what it is. Scripture never claimed it is inerrant. Even if it did, you shu0old want to check it out, as Scripture was written by fallible human beings,

It is well known that there are about 100 major contradictions in Scripture. One example is the two contradictory creation accounts in Genesis. Another is who killed Goliath. 2 Sam. 21:19 says Elhanan did. Another is how many pilgrimages did Paul make to Jerusalem. Acts gives 5; Paul gives but three.

I brought up the dictation theory because, in point of actual fact, many do hold that God dictated Scripture word-for-word. I said that Scripture does not describe the inspirational process, simply because it does not. What does it mean to be moved by the Spirit? Does this mean you are no longer human and subject to error? Scripture does not go into these matters. 2 Tim. 3:16, which you refer to, says, "All inspired Scripture has its use for teaching,,," It says nothing abut the actual process and makes no claim for inerrancy, either.

You brought up about giving page numbers for Calvin. I do not have the time to look up page numbers.

Yes, we are dealing with "those who have exegete Scripture," and for tat very reason, we are dealing with how various human beings have interpreted Scripture. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. We should check things out. For example, all you did was cite Feinberg's theory of divine inspiration. I'd want to check out his material a lot closer before I decided whether I agree or not. Note: that is Feinberg's theory.

Point 7 overlooks the fact that while God may be perfect and always tell the truth, human beings most certainly are not perfect and do not always tell the truth.
Yes, I got the verse wrong. It should be Ps. 103: 12. That would work fro east and west, given a flat earth with four corners;, but won't work for our earth, because there is no East or West Pole. East and West bleed into one another.

The passage in Isaiah is referring to the fact that the sky looks like a dome covering the flat earth. At the top of the dome sits God.

No, I did not commit a logical fallacy by appealing to authority. You put me on the spot as to what my credentials were and I simply answered you. You say you, too, have a doctorate in theology. Interesting. Mine is from the conjoint program between the University of Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. I'm curious where yours is from. You say I'm in trouble because you have a doctorate. I don't see what trouble that would be. I always enjoy talking with educated people.

I definitely did not say creationists were flat earthers. As I recall, I brought up Robowtham in a discussion with someone who had questions abut why I said the Bible has a flat earth.

I am not imposing my views on Ted on any one else. I am simply stating my response to the topic at hand. I try and give evidence for what I say. However, I may not always satisfy the reader; so OK, ask me to give more information.

MM,

My PhD is from the University of Pretoria, South Africa. It is not a degree mill.

When I said you are in trouble because you used the logical fallacy of appealing to authority, instead of dealing with the issues I raised. Saying you have a doctorate in theology proves nothing when you fail to deal with the matters being discussed. That's what an appeal to authority fallacy does - you don't deal with the matters raised but spin off into your supposed authority because of your doctorate in theology. It so happens that you were dealing with another person who also has a doctorate. This makes it impossible to have a logical conversation when you use fallacious reasoning of a logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.

See The Nizkor Project's explanation of the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Oz

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

I believe that the Creation week consisted of 6 literal days, as the plain reading of
Scripture seems to indicate.

However, I am undecided about the extent of creation. Was the entire Universe created in six days? Just the Earth (young earth, old universe), or just the Promised Land (the view John Sailhamer promotes, known as Historical Creationism.)

I also believe the flood to be a real historical account that resulted in the annihilation of all life except those on the ark. However, I am unsure whether it was a global event or local. I honestly see both sides of the argument.

 

[Aman777]

I believe that the Creation week consisted of 6 literal days, as the plain reading of
Scripture seems to indicate.

A "plain reading" by an infidel who sees it as foolishness, is useless. A "plain reading" without Study, is following the ancient theological views of men who lived thousands of years before Science and education.

*** However, I am undecided about the extent of creation. Was the entire Universe created in six days? Just the Earth (young earth, old universe), or just the Promised Land (the view John Sailhamer promotes, known as Historical Creationism.)

The first, second and third Heavens will be created in just 6 of God's Days, each of which is some 4.5 Billion years in man's time. We currently live live at Gen 1:27 which is at the end of the present 6th Day. The Prophecy of Gen 1:28-31 is Future.

*** I also believe the flood to be a real historical account that resulted in the annihilation of all life except those on the ark. However, I am unsure whether it was a global event or local. I honestly see both sides of the argument.

It was Global for Adam's Earth which was totally destroyed in the Flood...BUT...it wasn't even a flood for the present Earth. As Adam's firmament sank into Lake Van, Turkey 11k years ago, it released the 450 ft Ark into our world. Noah and his children walked out of the mountains into the valleys of Northern Mesopotamia, the cradle of Human civilization on this Planet. That's God's Literal Truth. Amen?

 

[OzSpen]

I believe that the Creation week consisted of 6 literal days, as the plain reading of
Scripture seems to indicate.

However, I am undecided about the extent of creation. Was the entire Universe created in six days? Just the Earth (young earth, old universe), or just the Promised Land (the view John Sailhamer promotes, known as Historical Creationism.)

I also believe the flood to be a real historical account that resulted in the annihilation of all life except those on the ark. However, I am unsure whether it was a global event or local. I honestly see both sides of the argument.

One of the difficulties I run into when discussing 6 literal days of creation is in what happened on the 7th day where the same word for day, yom, is used (Gen 2:2), 'On the 7th day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done'. This may sound a strange question: For how long has God been resting on the 7th day?

Also, we find in the creation story (Gen 1 and 2) that 'day' (yom) refers to more than a 24-hour period. When speaking of whole of the 6 'days' of creation, what do we find Gen 2:4 stating? This verse speaks of 'the day' (yom) when all things were created.

While yom is most often used to refer to a 24 hour period, but this is not an absolute meaning. This idea is confirmed in passages of the OT like Psalm 90:4 (ESV), 'For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night'. So from God's perspective, a thousand years are like a day (yesterday) or a night watch (short period of time). Ps 90:4 is cited in 2 Peter 3:8, 'A day is like a thousand years'.

St Augustine of Hippo did not accept 6 literal 24-hour days of creation. See The City of God (Bk 11, ch 6) where he wrote, 'What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!'

As for a global flood or not, I accept that it was global as Scriptures state, 'And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered' (Gen 7:19 ESV). That sounds universal to me.

These are Dr Norman Geisler's arguments for a universal flood:

The Nature of the Flood
Most young-earth creationists are also flood geologists; that is, they believe that the apparent age of the earth represented in the sedimentary geological formations do not represent millions of years, but only one year of activity by a worldwide flood. A few comments are appropriate here:
(1) Again, flood geology should not be used as a test of orthodoxy, as there are other ways toexplain the data that are consistent with an evangelical interpretation of the Bible.
(2) Flood geology should be explored as a scientific theory in its own right, as well as
for its possible explanatory value of the biblical data.
(3) One can be a young earther and still reject flood geology, as some do. Hence, the two are not inseparably tied.
(4) Those who reject a universal flood (along with flood geology) do have a more difficult
time explaining all the biblical data. If the flood was only local, then
(a) why were two of each kind of animal taken into the ark?
(b) why is the language of Genesis so specifically and intensely universal (cf. 7:19–23)?
(c) why are flood deposits universal?
(d) why are flood stories universal?
(e) why does Peter say the whole earth was under water? (2 Peter 3:5–7)
(f) why does the Bible say only eight people were saved (2 Peter 2:5) if there were others
who escaped also?
(g) why were all the mountains covered? (Gen. 7:19) [Geisler 2003:472]

This topic has so many aspects that could be debated back and forth.

Oz

Works consulted
Geisler, N L 2003. Systematic Theology: God, Creation, vol 2. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

One of the difficulties I run into when discussing 6 literal days of creation is in what happened on the 7th day where the same word for day, yom, is used (Gen 2:2), 'On the 7th day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done'. This may sound a strange question: For how long has God been resting on the 7th day?

Also, we find in the creation story (Gen 1 and 2) that 'day' (yom) refers to more than a 24-hour period. When speaking of whole of the 6 'days' of creation, what do we find Gen 2:4 stating? This verse speaks of 'the day' (yom) when all things were created.

While yom is most often used to refer to a 24 hour period, but this is not an absolute meaning. This idea is confirmed in passages of the OT like Psalm 90:4 (ESV), 'For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night'. So from God's perspective, a thousand years are like a day (yesterday) or a night watch (short period of time). Ps 90:4 is cited in 2 Peter 3:8, 'A day is like a thousand years'.

St Augustine of Hippo did not accept 6 literal 24-hour days of creation. See The City of God (Bk 11, ch 6) where he wrote, 'What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!'

As for a global flood or not, I accept that it was global as Scriptures state, 'And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered' (Gen 7:19 ESV). That sounds universal to me.

These are Dr Norman Geisler's arguments for a universal flood:


This topic has so many aspects that could be debated back and forth.

Oz

Works consulted
Geisler, N L 2003. Systematic Theology: God, Creation, vol 2. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.

That's an interesting way to look at the days of creation. Why I see your point, if I recall correctly, when a number precedes yom, (especially as first, second, etc.), doesn't it always refer to a literal day? There was also evening an morning.

 

[OzSpen]

That's an interesting way to look at the days of creation. Why I see your point, if I recall correctly, when a number precedes yom, (especially as first, second, etc.), doesn't it always refer to a literal day? There was also evening an morning.

Yom as 24-hour periods when preceded by a number, is what I was taught down through the years. I have doubts about that and here are a couple starters. I don't have time to develop this as it is bed time in my part of the world.

1. Could day 3 be longer than 24 hours according to Gen 1:12 (ESV), 'The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good'?

2. If you look at day 6 of creation, it appears to be longer than 24 hours (Gen 1:24ff) because:

• God created all of the land animals (were there 100s or 1000s);
• A human being was formed from the dust of the earth (2:7) and a helper suitable for him was found (2:18), plus all of the other aspects associated with Adam & Eve.
• All of the beasts and birds were brought to Adam to be named. Robert Newman has suggested that 'if every one of the approximately 15,000 living species of such animals (not to mention those now extinct) were brought to Adam to be named, it would have taken ten hours if he spent only two seconds on each' (Newman & Eckelmann 1977:128-129). Could all of the events of the 6th day be compressed into 24 hours? I know a supernatural God can do anything he chooses in a 24-hour period, but I am left with a number of issues with trying to make the creation days fit a 24-hour a day model.

I have been helped greatly to gain a better understanding of creation through the exposition of Norman Geisler (2003).

Some commentators say that 'day' never means 'period'. However, that is not the meaning we gain when we examine Gen 2:4 where 'day' refers to the period of 'generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created' (ESV).

Oz

Works consulted
Geisler, N L 2003. Systematic Theology: God, Creation, vol 2. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.
Newman, R & Eckelmann, H J 1977. Genesis One, and the Origin of the Earth. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press (reprint 1981 Grand Rapids: Baker).

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

Yom as 24-hour periods when preceded by a number, is what I was taught down through the years. I have doubts about that and here are a couple starters. I don't have time to develop this as it is bed time in my part of the world.

1. Could day 3 be longer than 24 hours according to Gen 1:12 (ESV), 'The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good'?

2. If you look at day 6 of creation, it appears to be longer than 24 hours (Gen 1:24ff) because:

• God created all of the land animals (were there 100s or 1000s);
• A human being was formed from the dust of the earth (2:7) and a helper suitable for him was found (2:18), plus all of the other aspects associated with Adam & Eve.
• All of the beasts and birds were brought to Adam to be named. Robert Newman has suggested that 'if every one of the approximately 15,000 living species of such animals (not to mention those now extinct) were brought to Adam to be named, it would have taken ten hours if he spent only two seconds on each' (Newman & Eckelmann 1977:128-129). Could all of the events of the 6th day be compressed into 24 hours? I know a supernatural God can do anything he chooses in a 24-hour period, but I am left with a number of issues with trying to make the creation days fit a 24-hour a day model.

I have been helped greatly to gain a better understanding of creation through the exposition of Norman Geisler (2003).

Some commentators say that 'day' never means 'period'. However, that is not the meaning we gain when we examine Gen 2:4 where 'day' refers to the period of 'generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created' (ESV).

Oz

Works consulted
Geisler, N L 2003. Systematic Theology: God, Creation, vol 2. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.
Newman, R & Eckelmann, H J 1977. Genesis One, and the Origin of the Earth. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press (reprint 1981 Grand Rapids: Baker).

You could also say that there is no way that Noah could fit all the animals on the ark, but the animal species were probably not as diverse as they are today.

For example, in Adam's and Noah's times, there probably were not horned owls and snow owls, they probably just had one species of owl.

Also, Adam could have named the species collectively. So instead of having owls, cardinals, and crows, he probably just called them all birds.

 

[miamited]

Hi oz,

Just a couple of points to make. When St Augustine of Hippo wrote,

'What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!'

what does 'kind' mean? This is one of the reasons I'm hesitant to take the word of people now deceased to verify things if it is not crystal clear what they are saying.

If one asks someone today what 'kind' of day it is, they would likely get some sort of weather report. It's sunny or it's rainy or overcast or beautiful or dreary. So, saying what 'kind' of day isn't really the same as saying, 'what length these days were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!' It would certainly have been the 'kind' of day like we have never witnessed before if we saw trees just pop up out of the ground and difficult to conceive or to say. So, I'd want to ask the writer if he meant 'kind' to mean in length or just 'kind' as in weird and unexpected things to happen.

A man comes home from work and it's been a rough and frazzled day and he says to his wife, "Man, I don't even want to tell you what 'kind' of day I had today."

Second, the naming of the beasts and birds is not given in the chronological day account, but is in the second account of all that God created and none of that part breaks any of the activities into day periods. God may well have spent a week or two with Adam bringing various animals along side of him and asking, "What will you name that one?" Now, many will say that the chronological account does say that God created mankind, both male and female, and then concludes the sixth day. This is true and my only explanation, be it correct or not,is that it is an 'aside' remark.

For example, I tell you that 'God created Adam, of course He made all mankind both male and female, but He created Adam and thus ended the sixth day'. I do agree that for God to have made Adam, had him name all the creatures, decided that he needed a helper and so put him to sleep to create Eve from a part of him, in a day, is a stretch. However, I also know that He is the God of the impossible and so I don't allow my lack of understanding to dissuade me from understanding that an 'evening and morning' of a day would be any other time period than a relatively normal 24 hour day.

It's really the 'evening and morning' that clinches it for me more than the enumeration of the days. As far as I am aware, there is no other time period mentioned in all of the Scriptures or in any secular writing that defines a day as 'evening and morning' and yet means a much longer period than a normal day. As far as I know, no one has ever said or written, 'evening and morning' in some description of a decade or century or eon or age. We might say in the 'early' part of a decade, age, etc. Or we might say in the later days of an age, century, etc. But, 'thus there was evening and morning of the first century' can't be found anywhere in the world. Thus there was 'evening and morning the first day' can't be found written anywhere in the world by someone intending for the reader to understand a decade, century, age, etc., except for those who claim that it's got to be what God meant.

I just throw these out as possible explanations regarding the doubts that you bring up.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[-57]

You could also say that there is no way that Noah could fit all the animals on the ark, but the animal species were probably not as diverse as they are today.

For example, in Adam's and Noah's times, there probably were not horned owls and snow owls, they probably just had one species of owl.

Also, Adam could have named the species collectively. So instead of having owls, cardinals, and crows, he probably just called them all birds.

One thing people fail to realize is that Noah didn't bring onboard the ark..all species. Adam brought onboard the ark "kinds". Species belong to "kinds".
You may be right, when you said "there probably were not horned owls and snow owls," on the ark. It's probably impossible to know just what owl was on the ark. But from the owl "kind" ...the horned owl and the snow owl may have speciated from.

I also agree that Adam called all the different birds...birds...and didn't have to distinguish each and every bird.

 

[-57]

For example, I tell you that 'God created Adam, of course He made all mankind both male and female, but He created Adam and thus ended the sixth day'. I do agree that for God to have made Adam, had him name all the creatures, decided that he needed a helper and so put him to sleep to create Eve from a part of him, in a day, is a stretch. However, I also know that He is the God of the impossible and so I don't allow my lack of understanding to dissuade me from understanding that an 'evening and morning' of a day would be any other time period than a relatively normal 24 hour day.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Gen 1:21 tells us...male and female He created them.
It may be a stretch for some....but there is no need to change what the bible says.

 

[miamited]

Hi 57,

Absolutely! Male and female He created them. I absolutely believe that.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Foghorn]

Yes, life on earth was created, in six literal days and it didn't take all day to do it.

It cannot be proven from Genesis 1 IMO that the earth was created in a literal 6, 24 hour days.

I don't get how there is something controversial about it, with Genesis you either believe it or you don't. What it actually says isn't really all that hard to decipher.

A careful study has changed many minds from a young earth to an old earth belief.

 

[Foghorn]

Double post

 

[Foghorn]

If not literal days, it would seem God was trying to confuse us with Scripture?

Then I would have to ask, why does the earth and universe show sure signs of being much older then 6-10 thousand years?
If as some say, God created it to look old, I ask, isn't that kinda confusing and unlike God, why would He create something to look old when it's young?

Consider, there is no evening and morning the 7th day, but God rested from creation. Perhaps we are in the 7th day?

Consider a literal 24 hour day of creation on the 6th day, God created all animals and then Adam, brought all the animals to Adam to name, then finally after naming all the animals Adam because lonely and God put him to sleep and took part of his side and created Eve. This truly is a lot to do in 24 hours.

A literal 6 day with 24 hour periods seems illogical. And why would God be subject to time?

 

[Johnnz]

The days are a literary device to convey what the author was intending to convey, the ordering of the earth by its Creator for it to sustain human life. There are 3 days of creation of each sphere, followed by 3 days of filling - day 1 with day 4, day 2 with day 5, day three with day six. It's about God ordering our world for our life on it, as His regents and priests in His temple. Issues of how long it took were not in mind. Genesis 2 is about relationships, not a varied account of what we see in Genesis 1.

For a young earth position virtually all of science including its methodology must be brushed aside. I defy any Christian using their computer or smart phone to participate here to argue consistently against science as practised.

John
NZ

 

[Aman777]

The days are a literary device to convey what the author was intending to convey, the ordering of the earth by its Creator for it to sustain human life. There are 3 days of creation of each sphere, followed by 3 days of filling - day 1 with day 4, day 2 with day 5, day three with day six. It's about God ordering our world for our life on it, as His regents and priests in His temple. Issues of how long it took were not in mind. Genesis 2 is about relationships, not a varied account of what we see in Genesis 1.

For a young earth position virtually all of science including its methodology must be brushed aside. I defy any Christian using their computer or smart phone to participate here to argue consistently against science as practised.

John
NZ

God's Days (Heb-yowm) are periods of Labor and are showing the beginning and the end of God's 6 Creative Projects, which have nothing to do with man's time. The 6th Creative Day continues today since God is STILL creating sinners in Christ Spiritually. We live at Gen 1:27 and we will NOT advance to the Prophecy of Gen 1:28-31 until Jesus returns and changes ALL living creatures into vegetarians. Gen 1:30 and Isa 11:7

The 7th Day is future and has no evening, no ending, since it's Eternity. That is God's Literal Truth Scripturally. Amen?

 

[Johnnz]

I don't subscribe to that view one little bit.

John
NZ