Do you believe in a literal 7 day creation?

I pretty much hold to a 6day creation process.
Though a bit of flexibility in understanding this scripture seems reasonable. Part of that need comes from the opening words.
gen 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters [ ebible website (web) translation]

The opposition to a 6day creation view might be:
1) common sense -- "How could it take only 6 days?"
2) scientific "facts"
3) some theologies

1) common sense
People easily feel uncomfortable with a 6 day creation seeing how much work would have to be done. With man, though, this would be impossible but with God nothing is impossible. I don't see the time frame nor the sequence of events being problematic with God.
Further we see in proverbs that Wisdom worked in the creation process. [prov 8:21ff]. So, God seemed to have wisdom in making the world in 6 days.

2) scientific "facts"
Christians have been swayed by scientific "facts." Non-Christian thought plays an important role in keeping Christians from swaying too much into fantasy-based thought. But areas such as the experimental sciences are also influenced by speculation and culture (e.g. in the theory of evolution from simple life to mankind).
The "facts", especially when regarding the age of the earth, involve many assumptions and speculations.
One interesting possibility lies in the potential that no true conflict occurs between the idea of a 6 day creation and the Big Bang Theory. The moderating factor could lie in the possibility that the speed of light has decreased exponentially. This speed limit on the universe influences people on the age of the universe.

3) Some theologies
Theology often gets influenced by the culture and by science. Theologians will then modify their understandings of scripture "in light" of the culture, science, or philosophy. Sometimes this can be good. Sometimes this is bad.

The weird thing here relates again to Gen 1:1-2. As I read this, two ideas are suggested:
1) The earth existed before creation
2) Gen 1:1-2 really are part of the first day of creation
Idea #2 just came today as I read the verses.
Its weird if the earth existed before creation, but now I'm seeing that such may not be the proper reading.

Now the other odd thing relates to the creation of light on the first day. Then days later the light was separated from the darkness. So what really constitutes "a day"



//end

jason_the_ecumenicalist said:

Do you believe in a literal 7 day creation? If so, why? Please elaborate beyond "because the Bible says so."

Click to expand...

Remember the formula that God uses in Genesis chapter one, namely: "There was evening and there was morning, the # day."

Ok, the Hebrew for evening is literaly "dark hours" and morning "light hours." So, what if a "day" were a thousand years in Genesis one. Well, then there would be 500 years of darkness (the earth would freeze) and 500 years of light (the earth would be scortched) for each "day." But someone says "hey, idiot (referring to me), don't you know that if we take it figuratively we would not take the dark and light literally." Ok then, what would dark and light be each day if not literal dark and light? A figurative interpretation leads to utter foolishness.

On the otherhand, if each day is a literal 24-hour day, the dark and light hours work so as to not freeze nor scortch the earth, and they also can be seen literally (the only way there is to see them). In fact, it is obvious that the formula "There was evening and there was morning, the # day" is specifically designed by God to indicate that He is refering to literal 24-hour days here.

jason_the_ecumenicalist said:

I do not believe in a seven day creation.

Click to expand...

That's your business.

jason_the_ecumenicalist said:

Read Augustine regaurding Genesis 1: "No Christian will dare say the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense."

Click to expand...

Unlke Augustine, I would say it the other way around, and dare be so bold only because you proposed such polarization first: "No Christian will dare say the narrative is to be taken in any way other than the literal."

jason_the_ecumenicalist said:

He goes onto say "What meaning other then allegorical have the words 'In the beggining God created...'"

Click to expand...

That is most ridiculous, and shows the utter spiritual bankrupcy of the Manicheans. One thing to keep in mind about Augustine is that he was a Manichean before he became a Catholic. That fact can be easily learned from his own writings, for he mentions it a lot. He even wrote books about the errors of the Manicheans after he became a Catholic. Even so, the fact remains that the Manicheans made fun of the Scriptures and of the Holy Ghost. They mocked the Holy Ghost, and they blasphemed him. BTW, I got all this information from Augustine's own writings. But what is the only unforgiveable sin? To blaspheme the Holy Ghost. (Luke 12:10, Mark 3:29) Therefore, Augustine's conversion from Manicheanism to Catholicism could do him no good. If he converted to Protestantism that too would do him no good. If he became a Christian and that only, that also would do him no good. Why? He had been a Manichean and he had blasphemed the Holy Ghost on a regular basis. His judgement then cannot be taken in spiritual matters by Catholics, Protestants or purely Christians, because he having blasphemed the Holy Ghost so was unforgiveable and unsavable, and all his writings are clouded over by a carnal Holy Ghost-less unsaved misunderstanding.

jason_the_ecumenicalist said:

John Calvin said "Let us conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men."

Click to expand...

I say "Let us conclude that John Calvin could never stop himself from imputing limitation to God."

jason_the_ecumenicalist said:

Ofcorse, I do realize, that both literalists and non-literalists and used for their arguements. But Calvin was heavily reliant on Augustine, so I would tend to line his views of up with that of Augustine.

Click to expand...

Calvin would have learned well to not trust those who have blasphemed the Holy Ghost.

...

...

No. But I could be wrong.

Unlke Augustine, I would say it the other way around, and dare be so bold only because you proposed such polarization first: "No Christian will dare say the narrative is to be taken in any way other than the literal."

Click to expand...

Wrong. I am a Christian and will say just that. It is figurative.

Since none of us were around when these things occurred, we only have supposition and opinion. So we can either believe the Bible, which has proved itself true in millions of lives throughout the centuries, or we believe science which continually keeps re-inventing itself.

Not much of a choice when you think about it. Yep I believe in a literal 7 days of creation.

The problem here is seeing this as "do I follow science, or do I follow the Bible?"

It's actually a case of "what do I do when the position I have previously held does not actually meet up with reality?"

Scientists, as a rule, (and this is why they are criticised as being changeable by creationists) have the humility to change what they previously thought to match up to reality.

Creationists, as a rule, do not.

The issue is not that six-day creationism doesn't agree with science; it is that it doesn't agree with reality.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

The problem here is seeing this as "do I follow science, or do I follow the Bible?"

Click to expand...

I definitely don't believe in the man-made science of YEC scientists. And I definitely follow the Bible and interpretations of Genesis that take into considerations the literary, cultural and historical context of the original authors.

So I don't follow science but I do follow the bible and God's revelation in words and nature.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

The issue is not that six-day creationism doesn't agree with science; it is that it doesn't agree with reality.

Click to expand...

Reality is a very strong word for something that is so open to interpretation. "What does this piece of bone mean?" or "What does that strata of rock tell us"?. It is all interpretive and so much based upon a premise like the world is millions of years old.

Now the scientist that is totally open thinking well it could 6000 years or it could be millions of years. Now what are the factors that could lead to either conclusion. Now how can we test their validity?

Unfortuneately such a persion is extremely rare. They either come from the creationist camp who clearly seek to prove a Young Earth, or the evolutionary camp who need a long time line. Even those, who proclaim objectivity, are still very coloured by their education and training, which means if they went through university anytime after the 1950's or 60' would have been endocrinated with evolutionary propoganda.

As it stands all sides of the equation, may have interesting things to say, but none rise to the standard of 'reality'. Therefore the best foundation is to have a faith acceptance of God's teachings in the Bible. If you don't believe, Gen1:1 then why should John 3:16 be anymore believable?

God Bless
Kerry.

Kerry:

This is why your commonly-posed argument is off-target.

Kerry said:

If you don't believe, Gen1:1 then why should John 3:16 be anymore believable?

Click to expand...

The first answer to that question is that theistic evolutionists do believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The next comment that comes to mind, assuming "Gen1:1" is synecdoche for the whole Genesis Creation account, is that Genesis is mythology and John 3:16 is of the genre "gospel." In other words, we interpret passages differently based upon the cultural, historical, and literary features that distinguish them. This leads me to my next observation: we in fact do believe the whole Creation account (or both of them, I should say). We just don't believe they're written and intended to be interpreted as history.

And, no, the study of rock strata and fossils is not just a matter of interpretation. Geologists know very well how to date the various layers of the earth, just as astrophycisists know how to date the age of the universe with some accuracy. This is not just a bunch of guesswork. And no, a scientist who is completely open to the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old will not, could not, conclude that it is so based on the evidence. In fact, the evidence would make no sense. All of these processes and evidence is set out in great detail in the Creation and Evolution forum if you would like to see it.

As for the theology: what Didaskomenos said. But I would also add that it is not enough to say "hey, if you don't believe X, then how can you believe Y?" The fact is very simple that we DO believe Y, without believing X, so obviously a belief in X is not really a requirement for believing Y after all.

Basically, if the YEC position was correct, we would not believe Y, but we do, so that YEC position must be wrong.

Vance said:

And, no, the study of rock strata and fossils is not just a matter of interpretation. Geologists know very well how to date the various layers of the earth, just as astrophycisists know how to date the age of the universe with some accuracy. This is not just a bunch of guesswork. And no, a scientist who is completely open to the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old will not, could not, conclude that it is so based on the evidence. In fact, the evidence would make no sense. All of these processes and evidence is set out in great detail in the Creation and Evolution forum if you would like to see it.

As for the theology: what Didaskomenos said. But I would also add that it is not enough to say "hey, if you don't believe X, then how can you believe Y?" The fact is very simple that we DO believe Y, without believing X, so obviously a belief in X is not really a requirement for believing Y after all.

Basically, if the YEC position was correct, we would not believe Y, but we do, so that YEC position must be wrong.

Click to expand...

I think you lost me at the second Y.

Yes but the question is who decided that it was mythology and not history, and what was their authority for doing so. Mythology is somthing the Greeks did with their false gods. A myth is a symbolic fable that is not true.

I'm sorry but that does not accord with my understanding of the Word of God being the living word of God that proclaims;

2Ti 3:16-17 ESV All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Click to expand...

So either Timothy and God are right or they are wrong. Either 'all scripture' means 'ALL SCRIPTURE' including Genesis 1-5 or it doesn't. I don't find any purpose for mythology in the equipping of a worker for every good work.

What if some group of theological scholars should declare the gospel books of mythology. Do we then all change our theology because of that classification. I think not.

So while a literary technique of medieval times may have been for fictional stories to begin with "In the beginning" that does not justify the impostion of a mythology classification upon Genesis, since it literally is the book of beginnings, historically and doctrinally.

When you read Genesis, it very much is a historical record of the earliest of the people who would become the Jewish race. That is not mythology, that is history. So now who is to decide at what point in Genesis it switches to being historical.

We have a geneology that is obviously historical, and then the flood account. Do we then switch back to mythology from history and then back to history when we get to the table of nations.

There is far too much mental gymnastics in that whole clasification for me to cope with. And for what purpose? To deny God's ability to do things that we don't understand, or to appease the worldly scientists who seek to disprove God's existence entirely.

Nope if God says ALL SCRIPTURE, then that is good enough for me. ALL starts at Gen 1.1 and goes through to Rev 22.21.

God bless.
Kerry.

Gold Dragon said:

I think you lost me at the second Y.

Click to expand...

OK, I will plug in examples.

"hey, if you don't believe Genesis 1 and 2 is literal history, then how can you believe anything in the Bible is true, like the resurrection?" The fact is very simple that we DO believe in the resurrection, without believing Genesis 1 and 2 are literal history, so obviously a belief in Genesis 1 and 2 is not really a requirement for believing in the resurrection after all.

Basically, if the YEC position was correct, we would not believe in the resurrection, but we do, so that YEC position must be wrong.

Does that make more sense?

Vance said:

And, no, the study of rock strata and fossils is not just a matter of interpretation. Geologists know very well how to date the various layers of the earth, just as astrophycisists know how to date the age of the universe with some accuracy. This is not just a bunch of guesswork.

Click to expand...

Well I don't claim that it is guesswork, but rather that it is interpretive, base upon agreed assumptions. If you assume a gradual layering and eroding process then you arrive at one conclusion. If instead you assume a cataclysmic event producing layering caused by monumental rapid flooding and subsequent draining, then you arrive at a different conclusion. Now really who is to say for certain which assumption is correct. We might agree with one more than the other BUT how can you be sure.

With universal age dating, again base upon what assumptions? Speed of light constancy, but what if it is not constant. How does that change the equation? So again how can we be sure. Both of these fields of science require a 'faith' acceptance of the assumptions, in order to prove the conclusions.

Which brings me back to my original point. In the realm of faith, I would rather have faith in God and His Word, rather than faith in science.

God bless to all.
Kerry.

GodAtWorkToday said:

In the realm of faith, I would rather have faith in God and His Word, rather than faith in science.

Click to expand...

I do too. I would much rather have faith in interpretations of the Bible that take into considerations the literary, historical and cultural context of the original authors that God inspired, than I would have faith the work of YEC scientists.

Vance said:

OK, I will plug in examples.

"hey, if you don't believe Genesis 1 and 2 is literal history, then how can you believe anything in the Bible is true, like the resurrection?" The fact is very simple that we DO believe in the resurrection, without believing Genesis 1 and 2 are literal history, so obviously a belief in Genesis 1 and 2 is not really a requirement for believing in the resurrection after all.

Basically, if the YEC position was correct, we would not believe in the resurrection, but we do, so that YEC position must be wrong.

Does that make more sense?

Click to expand...

Actually no, because the logic is flawed. While the first statement maybe true that the belief in one part of the Bible is not pre-conditional to belief in another part of the bible, the second statement is complete rubbish.

How would a Young Earth prevent your belief in the resurrection. That would just show your belief in science was wrong. So your belief in resurrection has no bearing upon the logical or actual age of the earth.

As to the first statement while one is not pre-conditional when you start to determine that parts of the Bible are not factual and therefore not reliable upon for belief and doctrine then at what point do you stop, and who determines that? What you have only achieved is a weakening of the authority of the Bible.

To declare Gen 1-2 mythological, is to call Timothy a liar, or a person who did not hear clearly from God when he wrote that All scripture was useful for doctrine, teaching, etc.

God bless to all,
Kerry.