How many days did creation take?

[DamianWarS]

I was reading the creation account in Genesis and comparing the various days and what was created on them. As I began to read some similarities among the days seem to come out and it seems that some of the days had some overlap and a patterned emerged pairing day 1/4, day 2/5 and day 3/6 for example:

Day 1 - Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

Day 4 - Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth

Clearly in Day 1 God "separated the light from the darkness" but as we continue reading it seems he does it again on Day 4 "[separating] the day from the night".

Although Day 2 and 4 have the clearest overlap Day 2 and 5 seem to be talking about the same thing. On Day 2 the waters are separated creating the heavens and the oceans and on Day 4 a liken event happens when all sea and air creatures are created.

Day 3 and 6 are similar with Day 3 being about the creation of land and vegetation and in Day 6 a like event happens when all the land creatures are created.

Looking at these paired days as descriptions of their own days making a 3 day creation is not what I am suggesting. Since there does appear to be overlap then perhaps these are not literal days or even literal periods being described such as what the gap theory suggests but instead the chaos and complexity of creation reveled in an organized order of 6 days with the 7 reserved for rest.

The creation account has very purposeful foreshadowing to a system that God ordain and used through the OT and in the NT is continued with the idea of God's rest being perfected through Christ and today we continue to use the very same images. Perhaps this perfect foreshadowing is too good to be true and instead it is simply how God choose to revel creation to us to ordain and use a system widely embraced through Judeo Christian teaching. This perhaps can help reconcile the very different accounts of creation of Genesis 1 compared with Genesis 2.

 

[Keachian]

I was reading the creation account in Genesis and comparing the various days and what was created on them. As I began to read some similarities among the days seem to come out and it seems that some of the days had some overlap and a patterned emerged pairing day 1/4, day 2/5 and day 3/6 for example:

Day 1 - Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

Day 4 - Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth

Clearly in Day 1 God "separated the light from the darkness" but as we continue reading it seems he does it again on Day 4 "[separating] the day from the night".

Although Day 1 and 4 have the clearest overlap Day 2 and 5 seem to be talking about the same thing. On Day 2 the waters are separated creating the heavens and the oceans and on Day 4 a liken event happens when all sea and air creatures are created.

Day 3 and 6 are similar with Day 3 being about the creation of land and vegetation and in Day 6 a like event happens when all the land creatures are created.

I think the number three is rather significant in this passage, what other constructs in the Bible use it?

Looking at these paired days as descriptions of their own days making a 3 day creation is not what I am suggesting. Since there does appear to be overlap then perhaps these are not literal days or even literal periods being described such as what the gap theory suggests but instead the chaos and complexity of creation reveled in an organized order of 6 days with the 7 reserved for rest.

You mean day-age theory, gap theory suggests that there was some length of time normally between 1:1 and 1:2.

The creation account has very purposeful foreshadowing to a system that God ordain and used through the OT and in the NT is continued with the idea of God's rest being perfected through Christ and today we continue to use the very same images. Perhaps this perfect foreshadowing is too good to be true and instead it is simply how God choose to revel creation to us to ordain and use a system widely embraced through Judeo Christian teaching.

I think there's quite some significance to the perfect foreshadowing, especially when the same sort of imagery is used in the closing chapters of Revelation, I think it speaks quite a lot to the sure intention of God's plan fulfilled in Christ.

This perhaps can help reconcile the very different accounts of creation of Genesis 1 compared with Genesis 2.

I would have also thought that the exalted prose narrative form(somewhere between prose and poetry) of Genesis 1 might have also helped with that.

 

[miamited]

Hi Damian,

Ok, so that's 6 days, right? I'm not sure what you might be finding difficult to reconcile between one piece of Scripture and another, but I'll be happy to try and help if I can.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[DamianWarS]

I think the number three is rather significant in this passage, what other constructs in the Bible use it?

You mean day-age theory, gap theory suggests that there was some length of time normally between 1:1 and 1:2.

I think there's quite some significance to the perfect foreshadowing, especially when the same sort of imagery is used in the closing chapters of Revelation, I think it speaks quite a lot to the sure intention of God's plan fulfilled in Christ.

I would have also thought that the exalted prose narrative form(somewhere between prose and poetry) of Genesis 1 might have also helped with that.

You are right about the day age theory. I agree that the foreshadowing in the text is very intentional but it doesn't mean the world was created in 6 days it only means God reveled the creation story this way. Jesus told parables and no one takes them literal as actual events but the truth is still very real, so why is the creation story so hard to view this way?

 

[DamianWarS]

Hi Damian,

Ok, so that's 6 days, right? I'm not sure what you might be finding difficult to reconcile between one piece of Scripture and another, but I'll be happy to try and help if I can.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I am merely pointing out that there appears to be two creation accounts in genesis and each has his own feel to it. I'm sure you have very thought out answers as to why this is but it still doesn't change the fact that they are different. The reconciling part is understanding why they are different and no one said I was having a difficult time doing it.

 

[Keachian]

You are right about the day age theory. I agree that the foreshadowing in the text is very intentional but it doesn't mean the world was created in 6 days it only means God reveled the creation story this way. Jesus told parables and no one takes them literal as actual events but the truth is still very real, so why is the creation story so hard to view this way?

Well I have talked with people on this board who believe that the parables are literal events, but I think it all comes down to presuppositions when approaching the text.

 

[ptomwebster]

You are right about the day age theory. I agree that the foreshadowing in the text is very intentional but it doesn't mean the world was created in 6 days it only means God reveled the creation story this way. Jesus told parables and no one takes them literal as actual events but the truth is still very real, so why is the creation story so hard to view this way?

The parables could easily be grounded in reality and not merely fictitious.

 

[mark kennedy]

I was reading the creation account in Genesis and comparing the various days and what was created on them. As I began to read some similarities among the days seem to come out and it seems that some of the days had some overlap and a patterned emerged pairing day 1/4, day 2/5 and day 3/6 for example:

Day 1 - Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

Day 4 - Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth

That's one of the literary features that are far less descriptive then the analytic way of speaking we are into. The light of creation may not even be natural light and as far as the lights in the heaven, they may well have been fully formed and only visible after the progressive changing of the earth during creation.

The rule of thumb for me is the entire narrative is from the surface of the earth.

Clearly in Day 1 God "separated the light from the darkness" but as we continue reading it seems he does it again on Day 4 "[separating] the day from the night".

Although Day 2 and 4 have the clearest overlap Day 2 and 5 seem to be talking about the same thing. On Day 2 the waters are separated creating the heavens and the oceans and on Day 4 a liken event happens when all sea and air creatures are created.

Day 3 and 6 are similar with Day 3 being about the creation of land and vegetation and in Day 6 a like event happens when all the land creatures are created.

This is a common misconception, it's like when people think you are looking at two separate accounts of the creation of man. The one in Genesis one is a briefer description and after day 7 the narrative goes back to day 6. I get it but it can be a little awkward until you start to follow the flow of the narrative. Kind of like talking to someone who likes to go off on tangents then into great detail in the same breath.

Looking at these paired days as descriptions of their own days making a 3 day creation is not what I am suggesting. Since there does appear to be overlap then perhaps these are not literal days or even literal periods being described such as what the gap theory suggests but instead the chaos and complexity of creation reveled in an organized order of 6 days with the 7 reserved for rest.

It is generally understood to be three days of preparing the earth for life, sometimes described as 'vessels' and then three days of the creation of life to fill the 'vessels' Sure they overlap, but it's not a reiteration it's just the creation gaining a more broader array of features as life is developed.

The creation account has very purposeful foreshadowing to a system that God ordain and used through the OT and in the NT is continued with the idea of God's rest being perfected through Christ and today we continue to use the very same images. Perhaps this perfect foreshadowing is too good to be true and instead it is simply how God choose to revel creation to us to ordain and use a system widely embraced through Judeo Christian teaching. This perhaps can help reconcile the very different accounts of creation of Genesis 1 compared with Genesis 2.

Genesis 1 and 2 are not different, in Genesis 2 you kind of zoom in on days 6 and the creation of man comes into focus. You really have to follow where the narrator is taking you instead of anticipating an analytic style that wouldn't have been how things were written down in those days.

As difficult as it is to translate I think we are simply looking at a writing style that is alien to our culture. I know I wouldn't really be able to duplicated in an historical description without just losing a modern audience.

 

[Keachian]

The parables could easily be grounded in reality and not merely fictitious.

The parable of the Two Lost Sons is reason enough to believe this is not true, sure one son being disrespectful enough to his father to warrant banishment, but both!?

 

[mark kennedy]

I am merely pointing out that there appears to be two creation accounts in genesis and each has his own feel to it. I'm sure you have very thought out answers as to why this is but it still doesn't change the fact that they are different. The reconciling part is understanding why they are different and no one said I was having a difficult time doing it.

It depends on the events described. Who cares if a guy carrying a bag of seeds loses a few on the way to the field where he plants them? Parables are clearly indicated in the immediate context, even the bizarre nature of the visions of the prophets there is always something indicating exactly that in the immediate context, usually something like, 'he taught this parable' or 'I saw this vision'. Reducing Genesis 1 to the level of a parable is just absurd, not because I want it to be literal history but because that is the literary character of the book, it's an historical narrative.

 

[ptomwebster]

The parable of the Two Lost Sons is reason enough to believe this is not true, sure one son being disrespectful enough to his father to warrant banishment, but both!?

Are you referring to Luke 15?

 

[Keachian]

Are you referring to Luke 15?

Yes, the reaction of the elder son to his father accepting the younger back is just as disrespectful as the younger son at the beginning of the parable.

 

[sonhador]

I was reading the creation account in Genesis and comparing the various days and what was created on them. As I began to read some similarities among the days seem to come out and it seems that some of the days had some overlap and a patterned emerged pairing day 1/4, day 2/5 and day 3/6 for example:

Day 1 - Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

Day 4 - Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth

Clearly in Day 1 God "separated the light from the darkness" but as we continue reading it seems he does it again on Day 4 "[separating] the day from the night".

Although Day 2 and 4 have the clearest overlap Day 2 and 5 seem to be talking about the same thing. On Day 2 the waters are separated creating the heavens and the oceans and on Day 4 a liken event happens when all sea and air creatures are created.

Day 3 and 6 are similar with Day 3 being about the creation of land and vegetation and in Day 6 a like event happens when all the land creatures are created.

Looking at these paired days as descriptions of their own days making a 3 day creation is not what I am suggesting. Since there does appear to be overlap then perhaps these are not literal days or even literal periods being described such as what the gap theory suggests but instead the chaos and complexity of creation reveled in an organized order of 6 days with the 7 reserved for rest.

The creation account has very purposeful foreshadowing to a system that God ordain and used through the OT and in the NT is continued with the idea of God's rest being perfected through Christ and today we continue to use the very same images. Perhaps this perfect foreshadowing is too good to be true and instead it is simply how God choose to revel creation to us to ordain and use a system widely embraced through Judeo Christian teaching. This perhaps can help reconcile the very different accounts of creation of Genesis 1 compared with Genesis 2.

6 Days
6 Suns
And then we rest. The new world.

 

[elopez]

I was reading the creation account in Genesis and comparing the various days and what was created on them. As I began to read some similarities among the days seem to come out and it seems that some of the days had some overlap

Take into consideration day one and four. Both of them describe what seems to be the same exact event, the creation of light and darkness and the creation of day and night.

 

[samaus12345]

Light day one, naturalistic sources of light day 4 (sun moon stars). Do TE and OEC think God was lying when he said "and it was good"? Ie there was death and suffering before Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

 

[Keachian]

Light day one, naturalistic sources of light day 4 (sun moon stars). Do TE and OEC think God was lying when he said "and it was good"? Ie there was death and suffering before Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

I always find this stance strange, especially when you realise that Adam and Eve would have needed to have some point of reference for what their punishment for eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is. I can totally see it:

God: Don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or you will die.
Adam: Sure thing God, but what exactly is 'die'?
God: Well it's something evil...
Adam: Oh, so now I have some form of knowledge of what is good (following your commandments) and what is evil (dying).

It seems so materialistic.

 

[DamianWarS]

This is a common misconception, it's like when people think you are looking at two separate accounts of the creation of man. The one in Genesis one is a briefer description and after day 7 the narrative goes back to day 6. I get it but it can be a little awkward until you start to follow the flow of the narrative. Kind of like talking to someone who likes to go off on tangents then into great detail in the same breath.

It is generally understood to be three days of preparing the earth for life, sometimes described as 'vessels' and then three days of the creation of life to fill the 'vessels' Sure they overlap, but it's not a reiteration it's just the creation gaining a more broader array of features as life is developed.

Genesis 1 and 2 are not different, in Genesis 2 you kind of zoom in on days 6 and the creation of man comes into focus. You really have to follow where the narrator is taking you instead of anticipating an analytic style that wouldn't have been how things were written down in those days.

Genesis 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created..."

this narrative opens explaining they are about to give an account of when the heavens and earth where created. Genesis 1-2:3 seems to have already given an account so the text says in itself it is retelling the story.

Genesis 2:5 "Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground."

ok we have an earth with dry land but there is no vegetation. If we are to assume this follows the creation account in Genesis 1 then this must mean it is part way in day 3 since on day 3 God made both dry land and vegetation. but as we read on day 4, 5 are skipped and it seems to jump right into day 6. Remember the OP when I said day 3 and 6 can be paired together well Genesis 2 happens to confirm this as well.

In 2:5 the text says there was no vegetation because there was no rain or anyone to cultivate the earth. In verse 6 it shows us how a mist would rise from the earth to water the ground and then verse 7 man is created. After man is created in verse 8 God plants the Garden of Eden. There seems to be this back and forth motion here that is inconsistent with the literal days presented in Genesis 1. God creates dry land, then he creates man, then he plants vegetation which are examples of day 3 and day 6 being completely overlapped.

If you want to believe the account in Genesis 2 all took place on day 6 then you are ignoring the command God gave on day 3 saying "let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them" This is what I mean by reconciling the two accounts.

 

[samaus12345]

Yes because believing the bible is just sooooo difficult because we know soooooo much HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAH

 

[Keachian]

Yes because believing the bible is just sooooo difficult because we know soooooo much HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAH

Belief in the Bible is a consequent of our belief in Christ, as such I'm getting to the point where the proper interpretation of most/all passages is one that points the easiest towards Christ, in the case of Genesis 1 it would be the ANE interpretation which shows creation cosmologically as a temple, this points to Christ in a few ways; 1st it shows God's intent to be emmanuel from the beginning of the Bible, 2nd it gives a place for the Great High Priest to perform his sacrifice, ie in the temple and 3rd we have the whole Christ v. Adam thing, though you get that from most interpretations anyway.

 

[samaus12345]

Do you believe Noahs flood?

ANE

http://creation.com/ane-cosmogonies-and-genesis-1

When someone posts me a link i read it, even when its TE ummmm 'stuff', out of interest do you read links people post you?