Creation more than 6 DAYS

[wandering misfit]

With the mounting evidence are Reformers better to understand that each day is a period of time, not 24 hrs? Let's talk.

 

[Tree of Life]

What kind of evidence are you referring to? Scientific evidence? I think that hermeneutically the literary framework hypothesis makes some sense of Genesis 1 and would not require belief in YEC. But the most straightforward reading of the text, in my opinion, is the "regular day" view.

 

[wandering misfit]

Archeology, Genesis 6.

 

[Tolworth John]

With the mounting evidence are Reformers better to understand that each day is a period of time, not 24 hrs? Let's talk.

These attempted to legitimise " Did God really say ? " Are boring and a waste of time.

You are familiar with scripture, so please re read what the ten commandments say about the safety.

Basically it says as God created the world in six days so you are to work for six days and rest on the seventh.
Now re read it putting in your pet theory of what a day should be.

You shall work for six thousand years/ million/billion, does not make any sense.


Please remember even liberal Jewish scholars accept that genesis is written to impart the knowledge of a six day creation.

 

[Tree of Life]

Archeology, Genesis 6.

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

 

[wandering misfit]

Thank you, Yahveh is not boring to understand.

 

[wandering misfit]

Son's of God, vs ....

 

[chad kincham]

With the mounting evidence are Reformers better to understand that each day is a period of time, not 24 hrs? Let's talk.

The fact that the language clearly states the morning and evening comprised each day, is too unambiguous to claim each day is an indeterminate length.

Not to mention trees and plants were created days before the sun was lit-off, and it’s obvious that they would die before they got sunlight, even if each day was only a hundred years long.

 

[Hammster]

With the mounting evidence are Reformers better to understand that each day is a period of time, not 24 hrs? Let's talk.

Not me. Six days. Period.

 

[JM]

SOURCE: Six Days are Six Days - Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Annually, the faculty of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary subscribe to the following statement regarding the proper biblical understanding of the creation week.

We the faculty of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary wish to acknowledge publicly our view on creation so that the churches and individuals supporting the Seminary may know what to expect from classroom instruction and faculty writing. In so doing, we note the following as preliminaries: (1) the issue of creation has long been considered a fundamental Christian belief, one that distinguishes Christianity from other religions; (2) this particular doctrine has been subject to prolonged attack since the mid-19th century, but continues to be critical for orthodoxy; (3) although the history of belief on this subject is clear, some fine and notable theologians from our communions have held differing views on this subject; and (4) that as a Seminary we are obligated not to teach contrary to the Westminster Standards. The Westminster Standards may be changed by the church courts, but, in our view, the seminaries ought not to be teaching contrary to those Standards, so that when there are changes they will occur as a result of the church’s mature deliberation and not in a de facto manner.

Thus, we offer our view on the subject of creation as a school that serves a number of Reformed denominations, especially the PCA and the OPC.

• We believe that God’s Word is not only inerrant, but that it is also clear to the learned and unlearned alike; thus, we affirm that when God reveals his mind—on creation or any other matter—he is quite capable of making his thoughts known in ordinary language that does not require extraordinary hermeneutical maneuvers for interpretation.
• Accordingly, we believe that when God revealed his creation as ex nihilo and by the power of his word, and when he surrounded the six days of creation with such phrases as “the first day . . . the nth day” and “evening” and “morning”—all phrases which would have been understood in their normal sense by Hebrews in the second millennium BC—that God himself intended to convey that the work of his creation spanned six ordinary days, followed by a seventh and non-continuous day which also spanned 24 hours like the other six days.
• We believe that an accurate study of OT texts does not support the gap theory, the framework hypothesis, the analogical theory, or the day-age view. Indeed, we find the OT creation texts to be interpreted as normal days, and no passage demands that Genesis 1-2 be re-engineered to yield other interpretations. The long history of rabbinical commentary, the very dating of time by the Hebrew calendar, and orthodox Jewish thought so understands these texts to embrace only days of ordinary length.
• The NT church and Scriptures offered no revisions of this view, and nowhere do those texts themselves advocate framework or day-age views. We certainly believe that if the wording of Genesis 1-2 required clarification or modification away from the normal meaning of the Hebrew terms, God would so indicate in the text itself, as well as in NT treatments of Genesis 1-2.
• The earliest post-canonical commentaries either advocated a 24-hour view of the days (e.g., Basil, Ambrose) or followed Augustine in a somewhat platonic scheme. Augustine’s view, however, was that creation occurred instantaneously, and he nowhere enunciated a day-age view or a framework hypothesis.
• Until the Protestant Reformation, only two views were propagated: (1) the Augustinian view (followed by Anselm and John Colet) and (2) the literal 24-hour view (espoused by Aquinas, Lombard, and others).
• The magisterial Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Beza) adopted a uniform view, that of 24 hours, and overtly repudiated the Augustinian view.
• Prior to the Westminster Assembly, the leading Puritans (Ainsworth, Ames, Perkins) and others repudiated the Augustinian view and taught a sequential, normal day view.
• The Westminster Assembly divines either felt no need to comment on the length of days—so clearly was it established—or if they commented, they uniformly (either explicitly or implicitly) adopted the 24 hour view. With 60-80 divines normally attending sessions, at least 20 of the divines who did comment in other published writings indicate that they only understood the creation days to be 24-hour days (or ordinary days), and none have been found who espoused a contrary view. Specifically, there were no divines who wrote advocating a day-age view or a framework view. We continue to esteem them not only as confessional authors but also as faithful exegetes. We deny that certain scientific theories are so certain as to compel us to reinterpret Scripture on this matter.
• Following the Westminster Assembly, the testimony of the American Reformed tradition (e.g., J. Edwards) followed the tradition of Ussher/Perkins/Ames/The Westminster Divines on this question. No debate about this subject arises until after 1800, as the winds of various European views began to circulate.
• By the mid-nineteenth century, certain leading Presbyterians (C. Hodge, A. A. Hodge, and later Shedd and Warfield) began to conform their exegesis to the ascendant science of the day. We believe that this was a strategic and hermeneutical mistake, as well as a departure from the meaning of terms in the Westminster Standards.
• Leading southern Presbyterians (such as Thornwell, Dabney and Girardeau) however, simultaneously resisted efforts to broaden the church on this point, as is documented in the Woodrow trial and decisions.
• Early in the twentieth century, numerous evangelicals — and some seminaries — became overly concessive to a secular cosmology, departing from the historic view expressed in the Westminster Standards on this subject.
• Some of us, at earlier times, were willing — due to love of the brethren and respect for esteemed teachers — to declare that the meaning of confessional language on this question was vague. We are no longer able in good conscience to do so. Both the normal meaning of the confessional phrases and the original intent as verified by other writings of the divines is now abundantly clear, with no evidence to the contrary.
• Even the secular confidence in earlier cosmologies is declining in some areas.
• Therefore, we declare our view shares the exegesis of the Westminster divines that led them to affirm that God created all things “in the space of six days” by the word of his power. We also believe that this clear meaning of confessional language should be taught in our churches and pulpits, and that departures from it should be properly safeguarded.
• Accordingly, we reject the following contemporary notions: (1) that John 5:17 teaches a continuing seventh day of creation; (2) that violent death entered the cosmos before the fall; (3) that ordinary providence was the only way that God governed and sustained the creation during the six days of creation; (4) that extraordinary literary sensitivities must be ascribed to pre-1800 audiences; and (5) that Scripture is unclear in its use of “evening and morning” attached to the days of creation.

We admit that some Christians have been too lax on this subject, and others have been too narrow. Hence, we hope to enunciate in this statement a moderate, historic, and biblical position. Even should other fine men differ with us on this subject, we hereby announce our intent to remain faithful to the teaching of the Westminster Standards and other Reformed confessions of faith on this subject.

To God alone be glory.

 

[tdidymas]

With the mounting evidence are Reformers better to understand that each day is a period of time, not 24 hrs? Let's talk.

I would like to believe the literal 24 hour day in Gen. 1, because the traditional view is easy to accept, since I am generally lazy, as I can simply adopt what I was taught by others. However, this traditional view has some problems, and I example one of them here:

If the universe was created 6k years ago, then how could we observe a supernova event 168,000 light years away? This is called "the light time travel problem." I have seen several hypotheses from Young-Universe-Creationists, but all of them leave much to be desired. I've yet to read or hear of a plausible explanation from either AIG or ICR or anyone else. This leaves me a skeptic about the traditional interpretation of "day" in Gen. 1.

Another problem I see is that Adam named the animals, got put to sleep and operated on, and then met Eve and got married, all in the same day. I find that implausible that it all happened in a 12-hour time frame. In many places in scripture the term "day" is used figuratively. And just because they applied the usage of the term literally in their literal week doesn't mean they believed the original context in Gen. 1 was literal.

The "day of the Lord" is a period of time, yet we apply the concept to our daily life in a literal sense. "Day of the Lord" means the time of the Lord's coming, or time of His judgment, etc. It's like the difference between "chronos" and "kairos" in Greek. Chronos is clock time, but kairos is a "right time" which is indeterminate in regard to the clock.

But this subject will continue to be controversial, because no one has all the answers to the questions. For now, it largely depends on one's personal interpretation and agenda. I'm open to any plausible hypothesis, but if I can't see it to be viable, I'm not going to believe it.

 

[wandering misfit]

Impressive discussion. We can't ignore the evidence that giants were here, men of renown, and this world was very different for a very long time..... God chose the weakest, a remnant for Himself. I'm not going to quote the book of Enoch, but we should be very aware not to fall into the pit of pharisees. IMO 6 periods of time and a time of rest is exactly on point with the accounts we have. All of Revelation isn't literal, neither is Genesis all literal.

 

[Hammster]

neither is Genesis all literal.

Which parts, and what do you base that on?

 

[wandering misfit]

There's biblical support, a day of the Lord is like a 1000 yrs.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

I’ve never understood why any of this matters. Faith sees God's Word and says "It is so". Believers have the transcendent God's Spirit inside them, when His creative acts are detailed there’s a lift within and glory is given to Him. Nitpicking Him over the circumstantial evidence of Earth is not on the table.

 

[wandering misfit]

I apologize to GSF, I do tend to push an edge of a discussion. I've come to peace not having to defend something that is undefendable. Yahweh spoke creation, we base a day on 24 hrs in our physical universe, our King is not restrained by our constraints. I believe we (I in the past) are forcing a literal 6 day creation.

 

[wandering misfit]

The fact that the language clearly states the morning and evening comprised each day, is too unambiguous to claim each day is an indeterminate length.

Not to mention trees and plants were created days before the sun was lit-off, and it’s obvious that they would die before they got sunlight, even if each day was only a hundred years long.

A day of 1000 yrs and night of a 1000 yrs. I'm pretty sure the sun didn't move when Israel was at war, I'll remember the vs in a minute, brain fog.

 

[Hammster]

There's biblical support, a day of the Lord is like a 1000 yrs.

I’m pretty sure that’s not how exegesis works.

 

[Hammster]

I apologize to GSF, I do tend to push an edge of a discussion. I've come to peace not having to defend something that is undefendable. Yahweh spoke creation, we base a day on 24 hrs in our physical universe, our King is not restrained by our constraints. I believe we (I in the past) are forcing a literal 6 day creation.

I find it extremely defendable. But if you are going with the day-age theory, do you think Adam was a literal person?

 

[wandering misfit]

I find it extremely defendable. But if you are going with the day-age theory, do you think Adam was a literal person?

With a book.