Is Literal 24 Hour View a Recent Interpretation?

[FaithfulPilgrim]

Hello!

I am studying the different views of Genesis and which one is the most biblically accurate.

I am a young earth creationist, but old earthers also have good arguments.

I have heard that interpreting the Creation Week as six literal days is a recent development and that the Church did not historically hold to that view.

We all know Augustine doubted a the days as literla days. IIRC, he believed it all happened simultaneously.

Is there any historical evidence that early Christians believed them to be literal 24 hour days?

 

[Hoghead1]

Probably the biblical writers did. Gen. 1 appears to be something intended for a worship service. It spans a week. What it is doing is fighting polytheism, which had a different day for a different god. Gen. 1 is saying there is just one God to be worshipped every day. Much depends on the particular church father you are examining. Some held with six 24-hour days, others took a more allegorical approach. Also, you are quite right about Augustine. He believed God was wholly outside time and therefore did not work via successive movements in time.

 

[paloma22]

Hello!

I am studying the different views of Genesis and which one is the most biblically accurate.

I am a young earth creationist, but old earthers also have good arguments.

I have heard that interpreting the Creation Week as six literal days is a recent development and that the Church did not historically hold to that view.

We all know Augustine doubted a the days as literla days. IIRC, he believed it all happened simultaneously.

Is there any historical evidence that early Christians believed them to be literal 24 hour days?

Snip >>> In John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote.

And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: “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.” This, of course, is the basis for our seven-day week—six days of work and one day of rest. Obviously, this passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation Week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest.

https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/did-jesus-say-he-created-in-six-literal-days/

 

[SkyWriting]

I am studying the different views of Genesis and which one is the most biblically accurate.

Man was made from dirt or dust. Typically, these are not "young" materials to work with.
If man was created from "manna" I'd think completely differently.

 

[paloma22]

Man was made from dirt or dust. Typically, these are not "young" materials to work with.
If man was created from "manna" I'd think completely differently.

So, when God created the earth, (dust and dirt) ex nihilo, why does it have to be "old"? Is it just because it's "natural" in appearance? When Jesus made water in wine we all know it take months to grow the grapes and then to make wine, yet he did it mere seconds.

Dirt or dust are only as old as they are old. When God pulled them out of nowhere and created them, they were seconds old as well. The long age paradigm brainwashing goes very deep and is hard to escape, I know, it took me a while wrap my brain around another way to look at it. It can be done however!

Peace.

 

[SkyWriting]

So, when God created the earth, (dust and dirt) ex nihilo, why does it have to be "old"? Is it just because it's "natural" in appearance? When Jesus made water in wine we all know it take months to grow the grapes and then to make wine, yet he did it mere seconds.

Dirt or dust are only as old as they are old. When God pulled them out of nowhere and crested them, they were seconds old as well. The long age paradigm brainwashing goes very deep and is hard to escape, I know, it took me a while wrap my brain around another way to look at it. It can be done however!

It wasn't so much as the reality of miracles that changed my views. It was Henry Morris and
his series of books on genesis and revelations and his insistence that the scriptures be read
in the most literal and "natural way" possible. This lead me to the discovery that all of scripture
refers to an "old" earth. Added to this is the ungodly requirements to estimate the age of
Creation. I hear it took years and 1000 pages of explanation to derive a young earth
from the ancestry listings.

I'm not aware of any other scriptural truths that are not covered multiple ways by multiple
authors in different books. Can you think of any?

 

[paloma22]

It wasn't so much as the reality of miracles that changed my views. It was Henry Morris and
his series of books on genesis and revelations and his insistence that the scriptures be read
in the most literal and "natural way" possible. This lead me to the discovery that all of scripture
refers to an "old" earth. Added to this is the ungodly requirements to estimate the age of
Creation. I hear it took years and 1000 pages of explanation to derive a young earth
from the ancestry listings.

I'm not aware of any other scriptural truths that are not covered multiple ways by multiple
authors in different books. Can you think of any?

I've read the Genesis Flood by Morris and Whitcomb, few years back. I don't recall any old earth conclusions, just the opposite in fact. I don't know of any of ungodly requirements to estimate the age of the earth. Not sure what you getting at, can you elaborate?

When Genesis is taken at face value ( and using known literary devices of course ) the clear implication is that of a young world and a young history of mankind. It's very clear. And amazing, the evidence we see in science also supports this view. The only real problem comes is when we allow mans interpretation to supersede Gods Word. There is no evidence that proves an old earth or old mankind, there are many assumptions mind you, but no concrete proof. We all work and use assumptions, I choose to to use ones that flow from Gods Word.

 

[SkyWriting]

I've read the Genesis Flood by Morris and Whitcomb, few years back. I don't recall any old earth conclusions, just the opposite in fact. I don't know of any of ungodly requirements to estimate the age of the earth. Not sure what you getting at, can you elaborate?

When Genesis is taken at face value ( and using known literary devices of course ) the clear implication is that of a young world and a young history of mankind. It's very clear. And amazing, the evidence we see in science also supports this view. The only real problem comes is when we allow mans interpretation to supersede Gods Word. There is no evidence that proves an old earth or old mankind, there are many assumptions mind you, but no concrete proof. We all work and use assumptions, I choose to to use ones that flow from Gods Word.

I agree that he didn't follow his own guidelines. I did and found no biblical references
to a young earth. The plain and natural reading he suggests, describes an old earth.

Compute the age of the earth yourself and likely your number will not match any
previously published numbers. This says, it not a Biblical Truth. If it were, you'd
have multiple scriptural sources for this so-called Truth.

 

[SkyWriting]

When Genesis is taken at face value ( and using known literary devices of course ) the clear implication is that of a young world and a young history of mankind.

You mean like the young wine?
The story says it was not physically young.
We shouldn't expect the earth to be.

 

[SkyWriting]

And amazing, the evidence we see in science also supports this view.

I don't look to science to back up miracles in scripture. Just the opposite.

 

[paloma22]

I agree that he didn't follow his own guidelines. I did and found no biblical references
to a young earth. The plain and natural reading he suggests, describes an old earth.

Compute the age of the earth yourself and likely your number will not match any
previously published numbers. This says, it not a Biblical Truth. If it were, you'd
have multiple scriptural sources for this so-called Truth.

There are no "young earth" references to everything being young, per say, but what we have is even better. It's plainly inferred in the text and story it's self. Adam begat...all the way to Jesus. Etc... You can't find millions of years in Genesis since creation. It's just not there.

Exodus 20 11"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day;

…45"Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.47"But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" John 5:46

Peace

 

[SkyWriting]

It's plainly inferred in the text and story it's self. Adam begat...all the way to Jesus. Etc..

The Gospel truth is covered in multiple ways, by multiple authors, in various books.
The begats are not clear, not even to scholars. So therefore it is invented truth.
Here are the age estimates before Bishop Ussher pulled out his calculator:

5501, 5492, 5426, 5411, 5199, 4192, 4141, 4103, 4079, 4062, 4053, 4051, 4042, 4041, 4021, 4005, 4004, 4001, 3983, 3975, 3974, 3971, 3971, 3970, 3968, 3966, 3964, 3963, 3958, 3949, 3927, 3836

This is an ungodly way to use the scriptures.

 

[SkyWriting]

There are no "young earth" references to everything being young, per say, but what we have is even better. It's plainly inferred in the text and story it's self.

Yes it is.
The Creation story says Adam was not "Young" when he was created.
So we should not expect the earth to be young either.
Only by faith was Adam "young". Not really. But by Faith, he was young.
But not really.

 

[SkyWriting]

I've read the Genesis Flood by Morris and Whitcomb, few years back. I don't recall any old earth conclusions, just the opposite in fact.

Correct. It was the one thing he got wrong. Spiritually the earth is young and Adam was
only a few days old on day 7. But by most measures, he was not a few days old.
What YE Creationists are suggesting is that science can determine that the earth
was age "zero" during Creation Week. That's like scientifically proving Adam was 2 days old.

 

[paloma22]

Correct. It was the one thing he got wrong. Spiritually the earth is young and Adam was
only a few days old on day 7. But by most measures, he was not a few days old.
What YE Creationists are suggesting is that science can determine that the earth
was age "zero" during Creation Week. That's like scientifically proving Adam was 2 days old.

By the evidence of Genesis, Adam was only mere hours "old" by day seven, but he most likely looked like a mid-20 year old or so, we have no way of telling, as the text, as you know does not say. If events happened as Genesis records, he was in reality only hours old yet appeared much older.

I see what your saying here skywriting, I think you misunderstand our position. YE's can only assume based on the text....but we use the evidence to hone the case, that creation AND mankind are relatively young (under 10,000 years old). And sure enough, the two agree; the whole creation and mankind can be young.

If God just creates something, it's going to look older than it actually is. This is consistent and internally correct.



.

 

[paloma22]

Yes it is.
The Creation story says Adam was not "Young" when he was created.
So we should not expect the earth to be young either.
Only by faith was Adam "young". Not really. But by Faith, he was young.
But not really.

The creation story does not tell us how old Adam was.

But Why would God create an old man as his first act of creating man? Why would God create a toddler either?

I think it's logical to assume that Adam was probably 20-40 years of age ( as he lived so long) this is relatively "young" and if God pops a 30 year old out of thin air, that man is in reality young even tho he be 30!

Peace

 

[SkyWriting]

The creation story does not tell us how old Adam was.
But Why would God create an old man as his first act of creating man? Why would God create a toddler either?
I think it's logical to assume that Adam was probably 20-40 years of age ( as he lived so long) this is relatively "young" and if God pops a 30 year old out of thin air, that man is in reality young even tho he be 30!
Peace

"The creation story does not tell us how old Adam was."
When God rested on day 7, Adam would be two days old.
Then he named all the animals on earth.

So we should not expect the earth to be young either. Though it may be.
But we should not expect that it would be young....even though it may be.

26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Job 42:2 "I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

Jeremiah 32:27 "I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?

Jeremiah 32:17 "Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth
by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you.

Luke 18:27 Jesus replied, "What is impossible with man is possible with God."

 

[SkyWriting]

I see what your saying here skywriting, I think you misunderstand our position. YE's can only assume based on the text....but we use the evidence to hone the case, that creation AND mankind are relatively young (under 10,000 years old). And sure enough, the two agree; the whole creation and mankind can be young.

The two do not agree.
I think you misunderstand your position.
By observation Adam was not young.
By observation, the wine was not grape juice.
By observation, the earth is not young either.
I asked James Irwin face-to-face if the dust
under his feet on the moon indicated that the
moon was young. He smiled and indicated no.
This was at a Creation rally he spoke at.

 

[paloma22]

"The creation story does not tell us how old Adam was."
When God rested on day 7, Adam would be two days old.
Then he named all the animals on earth.

So we should not expect the earth to be young either. Though it may be.
But we should not expect that it would be young....even though it may be.

26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Job 42:2 "I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

Jeremiah 32:27 "I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?

Jeremiah 32:17 "Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth
by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you.

Luke 18:27 Jesus replied, "What is impossible with man is possible with God."

Adam was created on day 6. (Gen 1:26) So by day 7 he was 1 day old, agree.

But he would have LOOKED like the "age" he was created as (i.e 30 year old) He probably would not have had a belly button either as he was not born of a woman.

So, by end of day 6 all was created. So the entire universe and earth would be no older than 6 days. (Gen 1) If Adam lived to 930 years, ( Gen 5:5) then its safe to say that the earth and Heavens were ONLY 930 years old when Adam died.

So the Bible clearly implies a young creation, it is only when the interpretations of men cloud the issue are we confused as to the age of the earth!

 

[SkyWriting]

Adam was created on day 6. (Gen 1:26) So by day 7 he was 1 day old, agree. But he would have LOOKED like the "age" he was created as (i.e 30 year old) He probably would not have had a belly button either as he was not born of a woman.So, by end of day 6 all was created. So the entire universe and earth would be no older than 6 days. (Gen 1) If Adam lived to 930 years, ( Gen 5:5) then its safe to say that the earth and Heavens were ONLY 930 years old when Adam died. So the Bible clearly implies a young creation, it is only when the interpretations of men cloud the issue are we confused as to the age of the earth!

Men can take a wife before 3 years of age? You've
created a cloud of confusion in my reasoning.
I don't think Paul would approve of these hijinks.