7 Day creation- literal or figurative?

[JaeMelo]

Perhaps because the bible says so. Perhaps because it's the simple natural interpretation. Perhaps because the 10 commandsments also say so...many of reasons.

Why would I think the days are long time periods?

Thats your problem not everything is to be taken literally. If we all had your kind of logic we'd be clueless for the most part. For instance:
______________________________________________________

Revelation 8:10
The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters.

Do you know what a star is?! Its the thing we all call the sun. You think that scripture is literally talking about a sun smashing into earth?! Stars don't smash into planets, planets revolve around them. John is most likely describing what we'd call a comet or meteorite today.

Revelation 6:1
Then I saw when the Lamb broke one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with a voice of thunder, "Come."

You think there is a lamb up there in heaven breaking seals with its hoof?! That scripture is referring to Jesus.
______________________________________________________


If these two prophets words below aren't enough proof about the length of a day in the Lords eyes than count me out of this discussion. We can simply agree to disagree.

2 Peter 3:8
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.

Psalms 90:4
For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.

 

[OzSpen]

Thats your problem not everything is to be taken literal. If we all had your kind of logic we'd be clueless for the most part. For instance:

Revelation 8:10
The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters.

Do you know what a star is?! Its the thing we all call the sun. You think that scripture is literally talking about a sun smashing into earth?! Stars don't smash into planets, planets revolve around them. John is most likely describing what we'd call a comet or meteorite today.
______________________________________________________

Revelation 6:1
Then I saw when the Lamb broke one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with a voice of thunder, "Come."

You think there is a lamb up there in heaven breaking seals with its hoof?! That scripture is referring to Jesus.
______________________________________________________


If these two prophets words below aren't enough proof about the length of a day in the Lords eyes than count me out of this discussion. We can simply agree to disagree.

2 Peter 3:8
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.

Psalms 90:4
For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.

Jae,

I haven't read every post in this thread, but there I am responding to your post
#161. Even though 'literal' and 'figurative' are in the title of the thread, has anyone defined the terms 'literal' and 'figurative'. In the few posts I've read, it seems as though many are assuming what these terms mean.

To help me understand your post, would you please define for me how you understand these two terms when applied to the interpretation of any literature, including the Bible and the local newspaper:

• literal, and
• figurative.

Oz

 

[-57]

Thats your problem not everything is to be taken literally. If we all had your kind of logic we'd be clueless for the most part. For instance:
______________________________________________________

Revelation 8:10
The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters.

Do you know what a star is?! Its the thing we all call the sun. You think that scripture is literally talking about a sun smashing into earth?! Stars don't smash into planets, planets revolve around them. John is most likely describing what we'd call a comet or meteorite today.

Revelation 6:1
Then I saw when the Lamb broke one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with a voice of thunder, "Come."

You think there is a lamb up there in heaven breaking seals with its hoof?! That scripture is referring to Jesus.
______________________________________________________


If these two prophets words below aren't enough proof about the length of a day in the Lords eyes than count me out of this discussion. We can simply agree to disagree.

2 Peter 3:8
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.

Psalms 90:4
For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.

Who said you should take the whole bible literally? I certainly never said that.

Here's what you do....look at the verse and try to pull out the natural reading.
For instance Day in Gen 1 is bracketed by evening and morning and a numerical daily value added to it. This clearly tells us the day were what we typically consider as days rather than long time frames. To turn it up a notch..the ten commandments reinforces the argument.

Apply common sense reading rather than trying to fit it into anti-biblical terms.

To continue with the argument.....the medical doctors say if you die...you will remain dead on day 3. Resurrection is impossible. Jesus could not have risen. THEREFOR, the resurrection wasn't literal and now must be taken figuratively. But i would imagine you believe in the miracle of the resurrection...as well as other miracles performed by Jesus....yet somehow find a way to disavowe the creation act performed by Jesus in 6 literal days. It boggles my mind.

 

[Luke17:37]

Hi PM, Writing an essay, huh? The good old days! No, in my opinion, each day as is 1,000 years as stated in 11Peter, chapter 3. Now, that is not to say God could'nt do it in 7 literal days. In any case, if you want to do a study on this, check out the meanings of 6 & 7 in Biblical numerics. I believe we are at the end of the 6th day, from Adam, and the 7th day will be the final, millennial day.

Hey friend. Please read 2 Peter 3:3-9 carefully.

What is the actual context of 2 Peter 3:8?

What was it, foundationally, that helps the scoffers reject the literal bodily return of Jesus Christ?

On the fourth day, when God made the sun, moon and stars/planets, He said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth" (Genesis 1:14-15). If the fourth day was a thousand years or some other indeterminate amount of time, what did He mean by 'years' in verse 14? Notice all these things characterize our days, seasons, years today. And how did the plants created on day 3 survive the 500 year nights?

Exodus 20:11 should put the whole thing in perspective, tying Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 1:2-2:3 (as I think people naturally read it, without outside influence).

Exodus 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Consider this: the seven day week God put in place has continued to this day.

It might not seem important to you, but it would seem that God thinks differently. When we subjugate God's authority and elevate man's authority (in this case, man's proclamation of millions of years), it's a type of attack on his Word, which is ultimately an attack on the person of Jesus Christ, the Word of God (Revelation 19:13, John 1:1-3,14). He said, "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).

Consider these words Jesus uses to describe Himself to the Laodicean church: "These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God."

Amen is the end of a prayer. He says He's the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God. We can trust what He has written about the beginning. He does not deceive us. And He is not only the Beginning, He's the end.

The word of God is a double-edged sword (capable of judging our hearts). When the Word of God returns, He will have a double-edged sword in His mouth... It says in Revelation 19:21 that, "the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse." The same Jesus who said, "Let there be..." and there was, will speak the destruction of His enemies when He returns.

 

[BobRyan]

Who said you should take the whole bible literally? I certainly never said that.

Still...it makes for a good "straw man" - don't you think?

 

[BobRyan]

Thats your problem not everything is to be taken literally. If we all had your kind of logic we'd be clueless for the most part. For instance:
______________________________________________________

Revelation 8:10
The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters.

Do you know what a star is?! Its the thing we all call the sun. You think that scripture is literally talking about a sun smashing into earth?! Stars don't smash into planets, planets revolve around them. John is most likely describing what we'd call a comet or meteorite today.

1. We still have "shooting stars" that can be seen almost any night of the year - and it does not require that we apply the wooden definition to them without context. Not a lot of spin-doctoring happens when we use such terms.

2. The straw man - claim that everyone who accepts texts as they read - must also never admit to any symbol used in the Bible - has never been shown to be a justifiable accusation "in real life" because nobody does that.

 

[Luke17:37]

You can't seriously be asking that... are you pulling my leg? Well just in case not, here is one...

(2Pe 3:8) But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

I'd recommend that if you are serious about your post to me, that you follow Peter's advise to "not forget this one thing" when you want to talk to me about how "long" a day was in Genesis.

Hi there. I encourage you to read 2 Peter 3:8 in context: 2 Peter 3:3-9.

What is 2 Peter 3:8 really talking about?

The scoffers of verse 3 have a foundational belief of denying God's creation by water and the global flood (vs. 5-6). Notice where it leads them. I'm not saying it will necessarily lead you there, but I'm just saying it's a serious thing to reject the clear counsel of God.

Exodus 20:11 makes it clear that Genesis 1:1-2:3 was the first week made up of ordinary days (evening, morning, darkness, light, night, day) and these seven day weeks governed by these same lights continue to this day.

God put the sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies in place so that men could track days, seasons, and years. (Genesis 1:14-19)

 

[BobRyan]

there are Bible details so glaringly obvious that even our atheist friends notice them --

for example - the "kind of literature" that it is - in Genesis 1:2-2:3

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

 

[Luke17:37]

I'm sorry, you really haven't an argument. It would seem as though you just attempted to dismantle the meaning of what Peter is trying to teach you. No, I can't take you seriously if you don't take scriptures seriously. If you are serious about thinking God age embedded fossils as a joke, and serious that each day was 24 hours, I can tell you that such talk is embarrassing to Christians. Such talk makes us all look like fools, how could we possible reach a non-believer with that strike against us? Learn your scriptures! Have RESPECT for them. Maybe as well learn some archaeology and the carbon dating process, of which you don't know either it appears...
And try to remember, as Peter said, and don't go adding your own ideas into again...

A DAY WITH THE LORD IS AS A THOUSAND YEARS AND A THOUSAND YEARS AS A DAY.

Get a piece of chalk, write it down a hundred times. Then we'll talk

Fossils aren't a trick, joke, or evidence of millions of years, but they fit nicely with a global flood.

 

[Luke17:37]

I know this is a little late but I just came across this scripture not long ago. It kind of proves that 1 day(24hours) to us on earth indeed isn't the same for God himself.

2 Peter 3:8-9

8 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.9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

You are not using the "day" in context if you apply it to Genesis 1.

Check out the passage in context: 2 Peter 3:3-9.

Okay, so what is 2 Peter 3:8 actually saying?

Concerning the scoffers of verse 3, what foundational belief supported their rejection of the literal, bodily return of Christ? (P.S.: verses 5-6)

God is outside of time. God didn't need to define a day for Himself. Days govern our world. He doesn't think like we do about time. Two thousand years ago Jesus walked the earth. We only live 70-100 years (typically) so that seems like a long time to us. He will wait until everyone has a chance to repent and believe in Him. When the full measure of the elect has been brought into the Church, He will come again.

 

[-57]

Still...it makes for a good "straw man" - don't you think?

Yup.

 

[miamited]

Hi Luke:37,

There's a story told about a man who wanted to communicate with ants. He thought and pondered how he might be able to accomplish the task and hit upon an idea that if he became an ant, he could communicate with ants.

Of course, this is just a fanciful tale, but it makes a very good point about the Scriptures. God caused the Scriptures to be written in order that He might communicate with man. He didn't write them so that all the angels and all the other gods could read them and say, "Oh yea, I know what God meant when He wrote 'day'". He caused them to be written so that He might communicate with man using man's language and understanding.

When one begins to understand the purpose of the Scriptures and why and how they were written, it becomes much clearer that when God caused to be written 'day' in the Genesis account that He wrote it for man to understand.

Of course, in many of these discussions everyone gets caught up in thinking that there is some ambiguity in the word 'day' in the Genesis account. However, God is wiser than your or I will ever be or hope to imagine. He knows the beginning from the end. He knew before the foundations of the world were set in place that there would come a day when man would work diligently to deny the truth of His account of the creation of all things. So, He caused to be written as a part of the law: for in six days God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.

After reading a few of your posts I see that I'm probably misunderstanding what you wrote. Forgive me, but I'll leave this post up for others.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[BobRyan]

Some bible details are so blatantly obvious - that even the atheists can see the point.

For example when it comes to -- "kind of literature" that it is - in Genesis 1:2-2:3

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

Why should even ONE Christian have to be "more in the dark" as to "the kind of literature that it is " or "what the text actually says" --- than non-christians?

 

[Johnnz]

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

John Walton, Ian Provan, and Bruce Waltke are three well regarded Old Testament evangelical scholars who would heartily disagree with the above statement. John Walton's talks on You Tube present a very different picture, as do his very thorough writings in Genesis 1-3.

John
NZ

 

[OzSpen]

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

John Walton, Ian Provan, and Bruce Waltke are three well regarded Old Testament evangelical scholars who would heartily disagree with the above statement. John Walton's talks on You Tube present a very different picture, as do his very thorough writings in Genesis 1-3.

John
NZ

John,

Add to that the late Gleason Archer. See his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan 1982, pp 58-69). Other scholars who do not accept the liberal James Barr's view include Norman Geisler, Hugh Ross and William Lane Craig. I can dig up those references if you want.

St Augustine of Hippo also didn't accept literal 24-hour days. 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!'

However, the young earth, 6 literal day creationists trot out this James Barr quote in support of their position. I found this out when I attended a Christian Ministries International meeting here in Brisbane (conducted by Dr John Sarfati) a few weeks ago at Q&A time. Sarfati denigrated those who did not accept his 6 literal days view.

Oz

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

Well, just to throw this out there, and I will say in advance that there is no proof of this position and it is all just the suppositions of a wicked and depraved mind, when Jesus said that there would be 'many' on the day of judgment crying out that they had done great miracles and driven out demons in Jesus' name, is it at all possible that while these people apparently called on the power of God to do things in this life, did they believe God?

Let's take Hugh Ross as an example. He professes to be a christian and he has given of much of his earthly life professing Jesus and who he is. I don't know if one would call him an evangelist, but I imagine most christians expect to find him in the new city of Zion. However, if what God has caused to be written turns out to be true in its most simple and direct understanding; that is that in six rotations of the newly formed planet earth all of this realm was created. If their ministry for God is to work to convince people and prove to them that those facts of reality just aren't true, doesn't that make them false prophets?

If A is true and B is not, wouldn't those teaching others B be liars? Don't the Scriptures say that no liar will enter the kingdom? Is God approving of those who teach others B even though it is in direct conflict with A? Is it at all possible that while those crying out to Jesus seemed to call upon and use the mighty power of God before the people, they didn't really believe God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[-57]

Hi all,

If A is true and B is not, wouldn't those teaching others B be liars? Don't the Scriptures say that no liar will enter the kingdom? Is God approving of those who teach others B even though it is in direct conflict with A? Is it at all possible that while those crying out to Jesus seemed to call upon and use the mighty power of God before the people, they didn't really believe God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I don't really consider the old earthers as liars, even though they are spreading a falsehood...because they believe they are spreading the truth.

 

[DivineMarissa]

7 day creation isn't literal. We have scientific evidence that the earth 4.5 billion years old. Anyone who disagrees with that fact is simply being indenial.

 

[OzSpen]

Hi all,

Well, just to throw this out there, and I will say in advance that there is no proof of this position and it is all just the suppositions of a wicked and depraved mind, when Jesus said that there would be 'many' on the day of judgment crying out that they had done great miracles and driven out demons in Jesus' name, is it at all possible that while these people apparently called on the power of God to do things in this life, did they believe God?

Let's take Hugh Ross as an example. He professes to be a christian and he has given of much of his earthly life professing Jesus and who he is. I don't know if one would call him an evangelist, but I imagine most christians expect to find him in the new city of Zion. However, if what God has caused to be written turns out to be true in its most simple and direct understanding; that is that in six rotations of the newly formed planet earth all of this realm was created. If their ministry for God is to work to convince people and prove to them that those facts of reality just aren't true, doesn't that make them false prophets?

If A is true and B is not, wouldn't those teaching others B be liars? Don't the Scriptures say that no liar will enter the kingdom? Is God approving of those who teach others B even though it is in direct conflict with A? Is it at all possible that while those crying out to Jesus seemed to call upon and use the mighty power of God before the people, they didn't really believe God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Ted,

You are basing this on your view being the correct one.

You mention Hugh Ross, a Canadian PhD in astronomy who is a Christian and does not believe in 6 literal days of creation.

However, he's not the only one. 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!'

Other evangelical scholars such as Gleason Archer (he spoke 30 oriental languages, including Hebrew), Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig also do not believe in the 6 literal days of creation. Are these evangelicals false prophets because they reject the 6 literal days of creation?

Oz

 

[miamited]

Ted,

You are basing this on your view being the correct one.

You mention Hugh Ross, a Canadian PhD in astronomy who is a Christian and does not believe in 6 literal days of creation.

However, he's not the only one. 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!'

Other evangelical scholars such as Gleason Archer (he spoke 30 oriental languages, including Hebrew), Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig also do not believe in the 6 literal days of creation. Are these evangelicals false prophets because they reject the 6 literal days of creation?

Oz

Hi oz,

Well, actually I do believe the literal and regular 6 day creation is the truth of how we got to be where we are today, but...

It could certainly be argued, and often is, that the days signify some other length of time. If those arguments turn out to be correct, then yes, I will be the one condemned as a false prophet.

However, I hope you understand that just because you are able to pull together a few notable people in the past who believed one creation reality over another, does not truth make. Throughout the history of the 'church age', one has always been able to find someone of note that supports their position. This is true of many Scriptural 'truths'. Predestination is one that has proponents and opponents of differing views and everyone always lines up the folks of note that agreed with their position to offer some sort of 'proof' that their position is the correct one. Baptism has the same issue. Some well respected and notable christians have claimed the need for baptism and some equally well respected and notable christians have claimed that it is not a necessity.

So, I hope that you will understand when I respond to you that St so and so of so and so who believed a particular way doesn't really offer any validity as to the truth of a matter. The only place where a believer can know that they know that they know the truth is knowlege gleaned from the Scriptures and Holy Spirit. That's it.

In this matter, I can easily stack up more witnesses than yours offered here that believed in the literal six day creation. You or I don't either one know the heart and place before God of anyone who is alive and most certainly of anyone who is dead. We just don't know. Of course, it is natural for us to play this card. The best way to bolster a disputable position is to trot out notables who agree with them, but the reality is, that it doesn't really have any bearing on what is truth.

Take for example the Mormon organization. People who are aligned with that religion believe that Joseph Smith is the end all be all of truth. Muslims believe that Muhammed is the end all be all of truth. What is the truth?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted