6000 Years Since Creation?

[Big Drew]

I was just reading in another thread and someone said that if they were looking for a new church one question they would ask the pastor would be their view on the age of the earth...the poster also said their answer should be 6000 years.

I got to thinking about this...is it really necessary to believe the universe is only 6000 years old to be a conservative Christian? Does being a conservative Christian mean that the creation account has to be literal days?

Would one not holding to the literal 6 day Creation account be considered liberal solely on this? Keep in mind they're not advocating evolution, they simply believe that a day may have not actually been a 24 hour day like we observe.

 

[Mess]

Based on my personal perception, yes I would deem this important. And I feel urged to ask you this, why would there be the need for say one day being a million years if there was no evolution? Doesn't make sense to me really. In my opinion it all comes down to weither or not you are willing to stand up for the Word or not.

 

[Big Drew]

Based on my personal perception, yes I would deem this important. And I feel urged to ask you this, why would there be the need for say one day being a million years if there was no evolution? Doesn't make sense to me really. In my opinion it all comes down to weither or not you are willing to stand up for the Word or not.

So you believe it's impossible to advocate an old earth without advocating evolution?

 

[Mess]

So you believe it's impossible to advocate an old earth without advocating evolution?

In my personal opinion, yes I think it is. There are just to many problems that arise when you say old earth without evolution. For example, old earth means you acknowledge dating methods(which are extremely flawed btw, 1801 volcanic rocklayers are dated as 6billion years old for example), and such, but then you'd have to admit to the dating on fossils. Fossils then would mean, death is not the result of sin, which actually means the Word isn't true, which then means we believe in a lie. Also there just isn't any use for a billion years creation model if there is no evolution. I just can't see the reason why God would create the animals, then say you know what I'm going to wait a billion years before I create something else. After all He can still renew peoples bodies in less than a second today, so two people, or a few animals would be peanuts for Him. Also the order of the creation of animals is intriguing. He created the sea animals and birds first, and only then He created the land animals. If you take a model that suggests millions of years, you run into a problem here. Afterall those birds include predators what did they feed on for so long? Not all birds can catch fish. Also the Garden of Eden was the only part of the world that wasn't barren, man was told to submit the earth, I'd think that if the world was a few billion years old when man arrived on the scene that there would have been trees, and bushes and plants all over the world. Afterall that is nature. So yeah, I just can't see the reasoning for seperating non literal 6days and evolution.

 

[Big Drew]

In my personal opinion, yes I think it is. There are just to many problems that arise when you say old earth without evolution. For example, old earth means you acknowledge dating methods(which are extremely flawed btw, 1801 volcanic rocklayers are dated as 6billion years old for example), and such, but then you'd have to admit to the dating on fossils. Fossils then would mean, death is not the result of sin, which actually means the Word isn't true, which then means we believe in a lie. Also there just isn't any use for a billion years creation model if there is no evolution. I just can't see the reason why God would create the animals, then say you know what I'm going to wait a billion years before I create something else. After all He can still renew peoples bodies in less than a second today, so two people, or a few animals would be peanuts for Him. Also the order of the creation of animals is intriguing. He created the sea animals and birds first, and only then He created the land animals. If you take a model that suggests millions of years, you run into a problem here. Afterall those birds include predators what did they feed on for so long? Not all birds can catch fish. Also the Garden of Eden was the only part of the world that wasn't barren, man was told to submit the earth, I'd think that if the world was a few billion years old when man arrived on the scene that there would have been trees, and bushes and plants all over the world. Afterall that is nature. So yeah, I just can't see the reasoning for seperating non literal 6days and evolution.

Thanks for the response.

 

[Willtor]

I was just reading in another thread and someone said that if they were looking for a new church one question they would ask the pastor would be their view on the age of the earth...the poster also said their answer should be 6000 years.

I got to thinking about this...is it really necessary to believe the universe is only 6000 years old to be a conservative Christian? Does being a conservative Christian mean that the creation account has to be literal days?

Would one not holding to the literal 6 day Creation account be considered liberal solely on this? Keep in mind they're not advocating evolution, they simply believe that a day may have not actually been a 24 hour day like we observe.

Opposition to evolution didn't used to be a criterion for conservatism, but I think it is in many circles, today (especially in the U.S.). As to the age of the Earth question, I don't think that's typically a criterion for conservatism, even now. If you go into the Creationist subform of Origins Theology, you will find many Old Earth Creationists (OECs) who regularly debate with the Young Earth Creationists (YECs). I think they all tend to consider themselves conservative. There is a very small group, too, who call themselves Gap Theorists, and who argue that there is a substantial period of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Among the Theistic Evolutionists, some consider themselves conservative, others liberal, others moderate. I think that camp has more retained its character over the last 150 years.

When evolution was first proposed, the divide was actually not between conservative and liberal, but between two schools of Natural Theology. One, which I will personify by Paley, identified the hand of God in the particulars of creation. Paley used the analogy of the watchmaker. You're probably heard that analogy used with respect to, e.g., the human body. I'll call this the "Teleological-esque" group. The other school saw the hand of God in creation more in the processes and intelligibility of nature (natural laws, etc.). I'll refer to this as the more "Ontological-esque" group.

Interestingly, both camps were full of both conservatives and liberals. When Darwin published The Origin of the Species the Teleological-esque group (both liberals and conservatives) were quite defensive and adamantly opposed to it. The Ontological-esque group (both liberals and conservatives) kind of declared victory over the Teleological-esque group. Haha! Gradually, among the theologians, the Teleological-esque group died out. Hodge's son, for example, was an outspoken evolutionist, though he was as conservative as his father.

This really lasted into the early-mid 20th century. The founders of fundamentalism were divided, but didn't want the matter to divide them. B.B. Warfield, an evolutionist, wrote essays in which he attempted to allay the fears of the laity regarding evolution and against the claims of some of the more outspoken atheists of his day (who, then as now in some cases, used evolution as a reason not to believe, or at least to discredit the Bible).

The modern creationist movement nominally began in 1906 with a Seventh Day Adventist pastor named George McCready Price, but it didn't really pick up a head of steam until the 1960s when it was more fully developed by Henry Morris. The particular literal interpretation of Genesis (there are older literal interpretations of Genesis, prior to McCready Price) has become a significant part of modern conservatism. This interpretation includes a literal understanding of the six days as 24-hour periods.

Nevertheless, I think if you go to a goodly-sized sample of self-identified conservative churches, you will find that many of the members think that the world is more than 6-10 thousand years old, even if they don't accept the theory of evolution. Generally speaking, even the OEC interpretation is reminiscent of George McCready Price's interpretation.

 

[Big Drew]

Opposition to evolution didn't used to be a criterion for conservatism, but I think it is in many circles, today (especially in the U.S.). As to the age of the Earth question, I don't think that's typically a criterion for conservatism, even now. If you go into the Creationist subform of Origins Theology, you will find many Old Earth Creationists (OECs) who regularly debate with the Young Earth Creationists (YECs). I think they all tend to consider themselves conservative. There is a very small group, too, who call themselves Gap Theorists, and who argue that there is a substantial period of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Among the Theistic Evolutionists, some consider themselves conservative, others liberal, others moderate. I think that camp has more retained its character over the last 150 years.

When evolution was first proposed, the divide was actually not between conservative and liberal, but between two schools of Natural Theology. One, which I will personify by Paley, identified the hand of God in the particulars of creation. Paley used the analogy of the watchmaker. You're probably heard that analogy used with respect to, e.g., the human body. I'll call this the "Teleological-esque" group. The other school saw the hand of God in creation more in the processes and intelligibility of nature (natural laws, etc.). I'll refer to this as the more "Ontological-esque" group.

Interestingly, both camps were full of both conservatives and liberals. When Darwin published The Origin of the Species the Teleological-esque group (both liberals and conservatives) were quite defensive and adamantly opposed to it. The Ontological-esque group (both liberals and conservatives) kind of declared victory over the Teleological-esque group. Haha! Gradually, among the theologians, the Teleological-esque group died out. Hodge's son, for example, was an outspoken evolutionist, though he was as conservative as his father.

This really lasted into the early-mid 20th century. The founders of fundamentalism were divided, but didn't want the matter to divide them. B.B. Warfield, an evolutionist, wrote essays in which he attempted to allay the fears of the laity regarding evolution and against the claims of some of the more outspoken atheists of his day (who, then as now in some cases, used evolution as a reason not to believe, or at least to discredit the Bible).

The modern creationist movement nominally began in 1906 with a Seventh Day Adventist pastor named George McCready Pirce, but it didn't really pick up a head of steam until the 1960s when it was more fully developed by Henry Morris. The particular literal interpretation of Genesis (there are older literal interpretations of Genesis, prior to McCready Price) has become a significant part of modern conservatism. This interpretation includes a literal understanding of the six days as 24-hour periods.

Nevertheless, I think if you go to a goodly-sized sample of self-identified conservative churches, you will find that many of the members think that the world is more than 6-10 thousand years old, even if they don't accept the theory of evolution. Generally speaking, even the OEC interpretation is reminiscent of George McCready Price's interpretation.

Interesting, thanks for the info.

The last paragraph seems to be true for my denomination...we would be considered conservative, except some may argue that based on our beliefs on the spiritual gifts...but every other bit of our doctrine would be conservative...when it comes to Creation, though, we have no official stance other than that it happened as described in Genesis...but whether it's young earth, old earth, gap theory, etc...is up to the member's interpretation. And I know the IPHC isn't the only denomination that leaves it open for interpretation...that's why I'm led to believe that this is not an issue that's really all that important when one is deciding what church they should go to, as the poster in the other thread said it was.

 

[Willtor]

Interesting, thanks for the info.

The last paragraph seems to be true for my denomination...we would be considered conservative, except some may argue that based on our beliefs on the spiritual gifts...but every other bit of our doctrine would be conservative...when it comes to Creation, though, we have no official stance other than that it happened as described in Genesis...but whether it's young earth, old earth, gap theory, etc...is up to the member's interpretation. And I know the IPHC isn't the only denomination that leaves it open for interpretation...that's why I'm led to believe that this is not an issue that's really all that important when one is deciding what church they should go to, as the poster in the other thread said it was.

My pleasure.

You know, I don't know much about the history of the Pentecostal denominations. I do know that when I take a walk around the various denominations, however, I find very different things constitute "conservative." So the poster who said that YEC was essential for conservatism might have been correct -- for his (or her) denomination. And this is pretty critical to understand -- it tripped me up for years -- conservatism and liberalism mean different things to different people in different contexts. And they have both changed over the years!

The ancient literal interpretations of Genesis, for example, would not stand up in basically any modern conservative (or liberal, for that matter) churches. Some of the ancient Fathers were emphatic that Genesis must be taken literally, others were emphatic that it not be taken literally. And some were tentative in the literal meaning.

But I like your denomination's attitude toward it. Conservative or liberal, figurative-only, literal-only, or both, at any rate, one works very hard to understand. And what else can one do? The Bible is the word of God. Sometimes He says things that are not easy to understand and people try to make them easy. Other times, He says things that are easy, and people try to make them difficult. Which is the creation narrative in Genesis?

At any rate, God bless you in your study. Have faith that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in her interpretation, and that He guides you, too.

 

[sealacamp]

I was just reading in another thread and someone said that if they were looking for a new church one question they would ask the pastor would be their view on the age of the earth...the poster also said their answer should be 6000 years.

I got to thinking about this...is it really necessary to believe the universe is only 6000 years old to be a conservative Christian? Does being a conservative Christian mean that the creation account has to be literal days?

Would one not holding to the literal 6 day Creation account be considered liberal solely on this? Keep in mind they're not advocating evolution, they simply believe that a day may have not actually been a 24 hour day like we observe.

Frankly I can't understand why this question keeps coming up over and over and over again. The bible is very clear about this:

But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.

If it is like a day then it is not actually a day and essentially this indicates that God exists outside of time and that time has no meaning to Him. So how old is the earth? Only God truly knows and it is not even an important point for anyone to focus on. What is important is focusing on the creator Himself.

Sealacamp

 

[Mess]

Frankly I can't understand why this question keeps coming up over and over and over again. The bible is very clear about this:



If it is like a day then it is not actually a day and essentially this indicates that God exists outside of time and that time has no meaning to Him. So how old is the earth? Only God truly knows and it is not even an important point for anyone to focus on. What is important is focusing on the creator Himself.

Sealacamp

Agree with your first point, which is ironic because I'm going to disagree with your second point. The Bible was written for man, not for God. God created time and space, so surely in His infinite wisdom He knows the difference between a day and a billion years? He knows what a day means for us, and His word was written for us. So a day must be a day. Simple as that.

 

[Big Drew]

Frankly I can't understand why this question keeps coming up over and over and over again. The bible is very clear about this:



If it is like a day then it is not actually a day and essentially this indicates that God exists outside of time and that time has no meaning to Him. So how old is the earth? Only God truly knows and it is not even an important point for anyone to focus on. What is important is focusing on the creator Himself.

Sealacamp

Agreed.

 

[miamited]

Hi Drew,

I posted the question you are referring to so let me see if I can use a little logic to explain why it is important.

As I understand the Scriptures, God created all the heavens and the universe as a home for man. I'm confident by the Spirit that He didn't spread out the array of the universe before His throne so that He could look out of His picture window each morning and say, "Oh, what a great thing of planets and stars that I have created. It is so beautiful to behold." When God first spoke into the inky black darkness of space all of the heavenly bodies of this created universe, He had already set the purpose of this created realm to be the home of man.

Now the logical question that comes to my mind is this. If the universe was, in fact, created for the sole purpose of providing a place for man to live, then why would He have it sit around for billion, millions of years? You see, it really all boils down to the glory of God. I serve and know a God who can in literally a moment in time speak and fill the entire universe with heavenly bodies that operate in absolute perfection in their design and purpose. Can your God do that? If He can, and the purpose again for creating all of this realm is to provide a place for man to live, then why wouldnt' He?

Secondly, and what is even more assuring to me that the creation is only 6,000 years old and that the days of the Genesis account are really 'days' as man understands is the great wisdom and love of God. God is not ignorant that He, -- I mean we do agree that the writings in Genesis are still a part of the whole 'Scriptures written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit', right?, -- would have caused to have written the Hebrew word for days, that up until the time of Jesus visitation most every Jew, they are the ones we should look to for much of our understanding of the Scriptures, believed as a 24 hour day.

Then Jesus came. When Jesus walked upon the earth giving us the true testimony of his Father, the Penteteuch had been completely assembled and canonized as the Old Testament that we have today. The account in Genesis and all the 'day' thing had been written and had been read, taught and believed for some 1500 years already when Jesus came to tell us the 'truth'. The true witness; the firstborn from the dead. His mission was to teach and show us the truth of God and to then carry the penalty for our sin upon himself for all those who would believe his testimony. He never once denied or corrected the Genesis account. God in his infinite wisdom knew that as we moved into the days of great apostasy that Paul, Peter and Jesus all spoke of, never directed Jesus to correct the misunderstanding that the Jews had of the creation account. Because I know that God loves me and wants me to know the truth, I know that He would have corrected such a grave misunderstanding among His people with the testimony of His Son.

So, there you have it. Logically. If the purpose of the created realm in which we live was for the sole purpose of supporting life in the flesh and God is powerful enough to create it just as He said, then why wouldn't he have. What would be God's purpose to allow the universe to sit idly by waiting for God to decide what He was going to do next. Do we have a picture of a god who created all the heavens and then sat around rubbing his chin and considering, "Gosh, what can I do with all that real estate out there?" Is our picture of a god one that shows a god who didn't really know how he was going to make man so he allowed nature to take its course and, of course, if we go with that, then what's the issue with Adam and Eve and their sin?

No, my friend, the evolutionary 'theory' leaves way to many gaps that can't be reconciled with God's word. The young earth model, however, shows a God with purpose and great love who created all that is seen and not seen in this realm and because of a real disobedience of the first created man and woman requires such a great sacrifice and outpouring of His love to bring about His will, which is to live with those whom He created who love Him.

The problem, of course, is that most people don't want to appear 'stupid'. So when all of our 'brilliant' scientists who really don't have a clue how God created all things, try to explain it, it gets all fuddled and muddy and then they start trying to impress us with 'proofs' that what they know is the 'truth' and weak believers fall prey to their wickedness.

Now, here's why its important what we believe. If, yea, lets go with a great big 'if', the account of a six day creation just as plain and simple as it is stated in Genesis is, in fact, the truth -- it is really how God created this entire realm of existence in which we live -- then will God see those as faithful who have allowed the 'truth' of men to supercede His truth? Will He find those faithful who went around teaching others that God didn't really create a man named Adam and a woman named Eve and claiming to be speaking His truth? Will He look with approval upon those who claim His Son's name for their eternal salvation and yet don't understand anything about His great power and love? Those who would say, "Yea, you can't take the Genesis account as literal. Scientists have 'proven' beyond any doubt that all that part of God's word is somehow messed up."

Pray about this.

Here's my challenge to you. Ask any scientist to explain the virgin birth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[PaulFan]

I got to thinking about this...is it really necessary to believe the universe is only 6000 years old to be a conservative Christian?

No.

Does being a conservative Christian mean that the creation account has to be literal days?

No.

There are many conservative Christians who are open minded about this issue. That does not mean they have somehow "sinned" against God. It means, only, that they are using the brain God gave them to explore their surroundings. God gave us "physics" to help us to define and explore our surroundings, specifically, our physical universe. Though, physics only allows us to view our universe, not anything beyond its boundaries (nothing outside of our space and time).

The debate of the age of the earth is nothing new. Early Christians also held this debate. In fact, if I am not mistaken, a young earth theory was not popular until after the reformation.

Ultimately, your salvation is not affected whether you believe in young or old earth creation, IMO.

 

[PaulFan]

How do we define "a day".

Is it not a 24 hour period during which the earth makes a single revolution?

Yes, it is. So, from one sun-up to the next sun-up is one day.

However, in Genesis, the sun and the moon are not created until the 4th day.

SO, how do we compare days 1, 2 and 3 to a 24 hour day since there was no sun and moon. And if there was no "sun", then physics suggests the earth was not rotating.

Think about it. It makes it seem probable that the 1 day "analogy" is something God gives us for our consumption to help us comprehend God's process of creation, but not necessarily a single, 24 hour day.

 

[Big Drew]

Hi Drew,

I posted the question you are referring to so let me see if I can use a little logic to explain why it is important.

As I understand the Scriptures, God created all the heavens and the universe as a home for man. I'm confident by the Spirit that He didn't spread out the array of the universe before His throne so that He could look out of His picture window each morning and say, "Oh, what a great thing of planets and stars that I have created. It is so beautiful to behold." When God first spoke into the inky black darkness of space all of the heavenly bodies of this created universe, He had already set the purpose of this created realm to be the home of man.

Now the logical question that comes to my mind is this. If the universe was, in fact, created for the sole purpose of providing a place for man to live, then why would He have it sit around for billion, millions of years? You see, it really all boils down to the glory of God. I serve and know a God who can in literally a moment in time speak and fill the entire universe with heavenly bodies that operate in absolute perfection in their design and purpose. Can your God do that? If He can, and the purpose again for creating all of this realm is to provide a place for man to live, then why wouldnt' He?

Secondly, and what is even more assuring to me that the creation is only 6,000 years old and that the days of the Genesis account are really 'days' as man understands is the great wisdom and love of God. God is not ignorant that He, -- I mean we do agree that the writings in Genesis are still a part of the whole 'Scriptures written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit', right?, -- would have caused to have written the Hebrew word for days, that up until the time of Jesus visitation most every Jew, they are the ones we should look to for much of our understanding of the Scriptures, believed as a 24 hour day.

Then Jesus came. When Jesus walked upon the earth giving us the true testimony of his Father, the Penteteuch had been completely assembled and canonized as the Old Testament that we have today. The account in Genesis and all the 'day' thing had been written and had been read, taught and believed for some 1500 years already when Jesus came to tell us the 'truth'. The true witness; the firstborn from the dead. His mission was to teach and show us the truth of God and to then carry the penalty for our sin upon himself for all those who would believe his testimony. He never once denied or corrected the Genesis account. God in his infinite wisdom knew that as we moved into the days of great apostasy that Paul, Peter and Jesus all spoke of, never directed Jesus to correct the misunderstanding that the Jews had of the creation account. Because I know that God loves me and wants me to know the truth, I know that He would have corrected such a grave misunderstanding among His people with the testimony of His Son.

So, there you have it. Logically. If the purpose of the created realm in which we live was for the sole purpose of supporting life in the flesh and God is powerful enough to create it just as He said, then why wouldn't he have. What would be God's purpose to allow the universe to sit idly by waiting for God to decide what He was going to do next. Do we have a picture of a god who created all the heavens and then sat around rubbing his chin and considering, "Gosh, what can I do with all that real estate out there?" Is our picture of a god one that shows a god who didn't really know how he was going to make man so he allowed nature to take its course and, of course, if we go with that, then what's the issue with Adam and Eve and their sin?

No, my friend, the evolutionary 'theory' leaves way to many gaps that can't be reconciled with God's word. The young earth model, however, shows a God with purpose and great love who created all that is seen and not seen in this realm and because of a real disobedience of the first created man and woman requires such a great sacrifice and outpouring of His love to bring about His will, which is to live with those whom He created who love Him.

The problem, of course, is that most people don't want to appear 'stupid'. So when all of our 'brilliant' scientists who really don't have a clue how God created all things, try to explain it, it gets all fuddled and muddy and then they start trying to impress us with 'proofs' that what they know is the 'truth' and weak believers fall prey to their wickedness.

Now, here's why its important what we believe. If, yea, lets go with a great big 'if', the account of a six day creation just as plain and simple as it is stated in Genesis is, in fact, the truth -- it is really how God created this entire realm of existence in which we live -- then will God see those as faithful who have allowed the 'truth' of men to supercede His truth? Will He find those faithful who went around teaching others that God didn't really create a man named Adam and a woman named Eve and claiming to be speaking His truth? Will He look with approval upon those who claim His Son's name for their eternal salvation and yet don't understand anything about His great power and love? Those who would say, "Yea, you can't take the Genesis account as literal. Scientists have 'proven' beyond any doubt that all that part of God's word is somehow messed up."

Pray about this.

Here's my challenge to you. Ask any scientist to explain the virgin birth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

Hi Ted,

I never said I agreed with the evolution theory...in fact I said this had nothing to do with evolution.


Other than that, thanks for the input.

 

[Mess]

How do we define "a day".

Is it not a 24 hour period during which the earth makes a single revolution?

Yes, it is. So, from one sun-up to the next sun-up is one day.

However, in Genesis, the sun and the moon are not created until the 4th day.

SO, how do we compare days 1, 2 and 3 to a 24 hour day since there was no sun and moon. And if there was no "sun", then physics suggests the earth was not rotating.

Think about it. It makes it seem probable that the 1 day "analogy" is something God gives us for our consumption to help us comprehend God's process of creation, but not necessarily a single, 24 hour day.

It doesn't make sense, and here is why. The Word was written for man after the creation. So if the Word was written for man, why then would God use His mysterious concept of day? Besides He had a plan for His creation, you can see it in the order of the entire universe, then why then would He not have known what a day would be, that would suggest He is not all powerfull and that would mean we might be in trouble. People keep forgetting God didn't give us the Word for Himself, He gave it for us. Considering He gave it for us, He must have understood our minds, and our concepts of time.

 

[salida]

Its not a salvation issue but I believe creation science over agnostic and athiestic science.

 

[Big Drew]

No.



No.

There are many conservative Christians who are open minded about this issue. That does not mean they have somehow "sinned" against God. It means, only, that they are using the brain God gave them to explore their surroundings. God gave us "physics" to help us to define and explore our surroundings, specifically, our physical universe. Though, physics only allows us to view our universe, not anything beyond its boundaries (nothing outside of our space and time).

The debate of the age of the earth is nothing new. Early Christians also held this debate. In fact, if I am not mistaken, a young earth theory was not popular until after the reformation.

Ultimately, your salvation is not affected whether you believe in young or old earth creation, IMO.

I agree...all we know is that God spoke everything into existence...Adam, for example, was formed from the earth...did God just speak and there he was, or did it take time for all the various parts to mesh together? We don't know...all we know is that God formed Adam from the earth...that's a good enough answer...I believe it...and the Bible isn't a a physics or biology book anyway.

 

[PaulFan]

then why then would He not have known what a day would be, that would suggest He is not all powerfull and that would mean we might be in trouble.

I don't agree with your premise exactly, that such a belief would indicate that God did not know what a 24 hour day was. My point is, if it was meant to be literal, in our understanding of a 24 hour day being sun up to sun-down, then God would have surely created the sun and the moon first (supposition). Not everything in the bible is spelled out for us. For example, we are not told where Cain's wife came from. We must use our powers of deduction but then, we can only assume.

And thus, a person who suggests definitively that a creation day is 24 hours is only "assuming" too, IMO as I assume it is not a literal 24 hour day. In short, it is not critical to our salvation, but does make for interesting conversation. Also, I am not an evolutionist. I am a creationist.

People keep forgetting God didn't give us the Word for Himself, He gave it for us. Considering He gave it for us, He must have understood our minds, and our concepts of time.

That is my point exactly. God wasn't giving us a detailed account of creation, but rather, an overview in a manner which we might understand with our limited human ability. IMO, I don't think it is necessary that we know the actual length of a creation day. When people say it is critical, I think they mean that it is critical that we avoid taking the evolutionary track as that track does seem to lead to glorifying the creation instead of the creator.

 

[miamited]

Hi Drew,

No, perhaps you didn't. So, let me ask you. What was going on on the earth and why was the universe created if, you believe the biblical account of the creation of man? Maybe a full clarification of what you do believe would shed some light on why you question the validity of asking such a question of one's teacher of the truth of God.

Thanks and God bless.
In Christ, Ted.

Hello Paul,

You wrote that a day is one rising of the sun to the next. Your exact words were:
How do we define "a day".

Is it not a 24 hour period during which the earth makes a single revolution?

Yes, it is. So, from one sun-up to the next sun-up is one day.

However, in Genesis, the sun and the moon are not created until the 4th day.

While it is true that a day has, for near 6,000 years included one sun rise and one sun set, that does not define a day. A day is one rotation of the earth. Whatever point on the earth that you might choose as a starting point, when that point gets back around to where you started, it has been a day. Regardless of the rising or setting of the sun and moon a day is defined as the roughly 24 hour period in which the earth makes one full rotation. So, as long as the earth has existed, even before or without any other heavenly body in the entire universe, as far as we know, it has always rotated. So, a day can easily be understood as having been counted upon the earth from the very first moment of its existence. As soon as God spoke the earth into existence and it made its first rotation, would have been a day.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.