Six Day Creation? No Way!

[Marvin Knox]

And why exactly could this not be referring to spiritual death? After all Christ's sacrifice does not save those who accept Him as Savior from physical death, does it? No, it saves them from spiritual death.

He does do it? How does He do it and what is your evidence?

That was 2,000 years ago. Define "soon".

Something usually said by those who realize they have been called out on something that they can't support.

Look - this will probably be my last post.

The context of the 1 Corinthian passage had to do with the physical resurrection. Work that out for yourself.

Read about the Lord's involvement all through the Bible with births and barrenness. He is involved on every conceivable level with the management of His creation.

I don't have to define soon for you. It's God's term and He can define it further for you if you really pray hard and study.

I can support everything I have said and I have.

 

[Queller]

Look - this will probably be my last post.

The context of the 1 Corinthian passage had to do with the physical resurrection. Work that out for yourself.

Yes, with Christ's physical resurrection. As I said though, His sacrifice does not prevent those who accept Him as Savior from dying a physical death. It prevents a spiritual death.

Read about the Lord's involvement all through the Bible with births and barrenness. He is involved on every conceivable level with the management of His creation.

And yet there is no scriptural support for the claim that God was going to micromanage His creation to keep the absence of physical death prior to sin from becoming a real problem.

I don't have to define soon for you.

You do if you want me to accept your version of Scripture.

It's God's term and He can define it further for you if you really pray hard and study.

I do but He hasn't revealed to me when He will be returning. Has He done so for you?

I can support everything I have said and I have.

Except apparently for the consequences of a lack of physical death in a world in which animals are told to be fruitful and multiply.

 

[NobleMouse]

Hello friends! I am always interested in reading the different views and opinions on this highly debated topic. Borrowing from an older post I did in a different thread, I wanted to share another angle in considering a plain interpretation of the creation account within Genesis (not looking to sway others who believe differently - just sharing for thought). I believe the OT is largely a historical text (telling us of events and people that really happened and really lived at one time), and that a plain interpretation of the creation account found in Genesis is reasonable. I've not yet seen this mentioned here in this discussion thread (though could have overlooked) so I thought it worth consideration.

Matthew 19:4-5
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

While this was in response to pharisees trying to test Jesus on the topic of divorce. A few items of interest are worth pointing out:

1) Jesus here is restating what is already written elsewhere in scripture, so it was inspired by God and written down, then repeated by the word made flesh Himself - it happened. Jesus and the Father are one, and here Jesus is quoting scripture as the basis for His teaching (rebuking) the pharisees. But then comes the big question: when?

2) As is stated in Genesis and repeated by Jesus himself, in the beginning (and we can reasonably assume, according to the order as presented in the creation account). But, is a plain interpretation of the creation account in Genesis rational/reasonable?

3) The first four words of what Jesus said: "Have you not read..." When interpreting scripture, when Jesus says things like, "have you not read", or "it is written", or "you have heard it said" these are all real good indicators that a plain (take it at face value) interpretation is appropriate.

For example, Matthew 4:7
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Passage from the OT (Deuteronomy 6:16)
You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah.

Would a plain interpretation of Deteronomy 6:16 be appropriate? Yes. And it is also appropriately so with the creation account in Genesis.

The passage above and many others are found throughout scripture. The following article written by Rich Robinson with Jews for Jesus does a great job of pulling together different references Jesus made to scripture, both showing what Jesus said as well as the original passage, should that be of interest:
Jesus' References to Old Testament Scriptures - Jews for Jesus

So in summary, whether we believe in a young or an old creation, the good news is that this topic is not central to our salvation... what a relief, right? If you believe in a young creation on the basis of the creation account and various lineages from scripture in support of your belief, which I do too, take courage!

 

[Speedwell]

3) The first four words of what Jesus said: "Have you not read..." When interpreting scripture, when Jesus says things like, "have you not read", or "it is written", or "you have heard it said" these are all real good indicators that a plain (take it at face value) interpretation is appropriate.

I don't think it does. Those words indicate that Jesus is referring to the text, not necessarily to actual events, drawing lessons from the text, taken at face value for that purpose only. They do not constitute an endorsement of any particular genre determination.

 

[Papias]

Hello friends! .....So in summary, whether we believe in a young or an old creation, the good news is that this topic is not central to our salvation... what a relief, right?

Yes! Thanks for this. It makes it much easier to have a discussion. I'll also say up front that if we disagree on how to interpret Genesis/creationism, that's fine, and I appreciate your input.

Matthew 19:4-5
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
.....
2) As is stated in Genesis and repeated by Jesus himself, in the beginning (and we can reasonably assume, according to the order as presented in the creation account). But, is a plain interpretation of the creation account in Genesis rational/reasonable?
3) The first four words of what Jesus said: "Have you not read..." When interpreting scripture, when Jesus says things like, "have you not read", or "it is written", or "you have heard it said" these are all real good indicators that a plain (take it at face value) interpretation is appropriate.

"Have you not read" etc, seems to me to be just as compatible with a deeper meaning that just a literal meaning.

More clearly, it seems to me that in that verse Jesus himself here says that YEC creationism is incorrect, and instead affirms evolution.

In the literalist, YEC story, God does *not* make them male and female from the beginning. At the beginning, he makes just the male, Adam. Female is only made much later, after the whole animal naming story. With evolution, on the other hand, male and female humans grow at the same time from an evolving population.

That's why it seems clear to me that Jesus is telling us here to interpret the Genesis story non-literally, and describing something that fits better with evolution.

...... that a plain interpretation of the creation account found in Genesis is reasonable.

But don't we already agree that Genesis has plenty of non-literal things, so that a strictly literal reading is not reasonable? For instance, in Genesis, a talking snake tempts Eve - not Satan. By thinking it is Satan, we've already accepted a symbolic reading. The same goes for the need for salvation and original sin. Genesis doesn't say "original sin" anywhere, and certainly never says that Hell awaits people due to anything.

In fact, that's true throughout the old testament. Exodus 19:4 is quite clear - if read literally, it says that God flew the Jews out of Egypt on giant Eagles, like in the Hobbit. I don't think that should be read literally.

...... If you believe in a young creation on the basis of the creation account and various lineages from scripture in support of your belief, which I do too, take courage!

It seems to me that the Gospels show that God wants us to read the lineages figuratively, not literally. I see this by comparing the genealogies in Mt, 1 Cr, and Lk.

The Holy Spirit, author of both of them, suggests this by the fact that Mt and 1 Cr disagree with each other, and that Mt's list is altered so as to make his "14 generation" thing work. (from before)

Compare Mt with the same genealogy given in Chronicles:

Mt Gen# .................Gospel of Matthew has............... 1st Chron. Has:

1..............................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, ...Solomon's son was

2 .............................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,...... Rehoboam,

3 .............................Abijah .................................Abijah his son,

4..............................Asa .......................................Asa his son,

5 .............................Jehoshaphat .........................Jehoshaphat his son,

6............................. Jehoram ...............................Jehoram his son

................................Skipped............................ Ahaziah his son,


................................Skipped ..........................Joash his son,

................................Skipped ................................Amaziah his son,

7......................Uzziah the father of Jotham, .......Azariah his son,

8............................ Jotham .............................Jotham his son,

9 ............................Ahaz ..........................Ahaz his son,

10...........................Hezekiah ............................Hezekiah his son,

11.......................... Manasseh ...........................Manasseh his son,

12 ..........................Amon ...............................Amon his son,

13.......................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ….....Josiah his son.


Since we know that the Holy Spirit is behind the writing of the gospel of Matthew, it cannot be in error. If it seems there is an error, it must be with our interpretation. We also know that the Holy Spirit, being also behind 1 Cr, would know if 1 Cr was symbolic, not literal, and could thus tell us about how to interpret 1 Cr by what is written in Mt. Since they both literally list the generations, and Mt clearly skips people, the Holy Spirit seems to be clearly telling us that the geneology in 1 Cr (and by necessity then in Mt) is figurative, and not literal, and hence that the Holy Spirit is telling us not to interpret genealogies literally nor historically.

As you've stated, I don't see any of this as a salvation issue. I'm sure we'll find out either way in Heaven.

In Christ-
Papias

 

[pat34lee]

So in summary, whether we believe in a young or an old creation, the good news is that this topic is not central to our salvation... what a relief, right? If you believe in a young creation on the basis of the creation account and various lineages from scripture in support of your belief, which I do too, take courage!

Actually, that is wrong. Creation is the very center of salvation.

If we were not created perfect, without sin.
If we didn't fall from grace by sinning.
If death preceded sin.
If all things occurred by chance, and not design.

Then God would be a liar, and we would have no need for a savior.

 

[pat34lee]

But don't we already agree that Genesis has plenty of non-literal things, so that a strictly literal reading is not reasonable? For instance, in Genesis, a talking snake tempts Eve - not Satan. By thinking it is Satan, we've already accepted a symbolic reading. The same goes for the need for salvation and original sin. Genesis doesn't say "original sin" anywhere, and certainly never says that Hell awaits people due to anything.

You are talking about exact wording. You don't get to choose
how the bible must be written in order for it to be true. Eve
was created later in the same day that Adam was created.
After he named the animals. How long do you think it took?

 

[NobleMouse]

Actually, that is wrong. Creation is the very center of salvation.

If we were not created perfect, without sin.
If we didn't fall from grace by sinning.
If death preceded sin.
If all things occurred by chance, and not design.

Then God would be a liar, and we would have no need for a savior.

Cats!! Hey, good call and thank you for correcting me friend... I've been corrected on this in another similar post just recently and appreciate the gentle admonition. In my statement, I meant it from a very narrow view of us being saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except by Him (no direct references to the creation account). That said, we cannot cherry-pick scripture and ignore other parts. You are absolutely correct in that if Genesis is not correct then we really have no basis to form faith in other truths from scripture (for example, our salvation).

In Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[Oseas]

Actually, that is wrong. Creation is the very center of salvation.

If we were not created perfect, without sin.
If we didn't fall from grace by sinning.
If death preceded sin.
If all things occurred by chance, and not design.

Then God would be a liar, and we would have no need for a savior.

What is God's judgment...? Is it different for the believer and the non-believer...?

 

[Papias]

@NobleMouse

-Did you see my response to your post, #265? I thought that might interest you.

 

[NobleMouse]

@NobleMouse

-Did you see my response to your post, #265? I thought that might interest you.

Hi Papias, sorry I have not responded sooner - hope you had a good weekend! Thank you for your responses and I'll try to reply to them all:

"Have you not read" etc, seems to me to be just as compatible with a deeper meaning that just a literal meaning.

In the article I linked in post #263, the author does a thorough job of illustrating that a deeper meaning is not required of the referenced text for proper exegesis. This is not to say there is never any additional deeper meaning found in the OT text, just that consistently, a plain rendering of the referenced text is appropriate.

In the literalist, YEC story, God does *not* make them male and female from the beginning. At the beginning, he makes just the male, Adam. Female is only made much later, after the whole animal naming story.

Jesus said to the contrary and I am unaware of any YEC that interprets the creation account as Adam being created at a significantly different time than Eve. To the contrary, Genesis 2 gives us a more in depth explanation of the events around the creation of man on day 6. Since God rested on day 7, it is reasonable to conclude Eve was made somewhere on the same day as Adam.

I believe you may be likening a 'plain' interpretation as a siloed, literal word-for-word interpretation without giving heed to the context, 'big picture', and clarification given by other texts within scripture. My intent behind when I use the word 'plain' is not to always imply a siloed, literal word-for-word interpretation.

As to your comments around the serpent in the garden and riding on the backs of Eagles, I believe @miamited has addressed the backs of Eagles as turn of phrase (which I agree), and as such one is not to take this literally. The serpent; however, was a literal (not allegorical) creature in the garden with Adam and Eve and is identified as satan himself (see also Revelation 12:9, "...that ancient serpent..." in the ESV rendering). The following article gives more on this:
How Do We Understand the Serpent in the Garden of Eden?

As far as the comparison of genealogies between Genesis, Chronicles, and Matthew, I will agree all scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit; however, I do recognize that the intent of the author also has some influence on the text as written. For Genesis and Chronicles, the authors were not present at the beginning of creation - thus the early lineages from Adam would have been relied upon the Holy Spirit. In the book of Matthew (see Matthew 1:17) we see the intent of the author is not just to magnify Christ, but also to create a memorization mechanism (memoria technica) by grouping the genealogy into 3 major groupings:

- From Abraham to David
- From David to the captivity of Israel
- From the captivity of Israel to the Messiah

The fact that we see the same names at all between Genesis, Chronicles, Matthew, and even Luke only corroborates that Genesis and Chronicles are not to be taken symbolically. It makes no sense to have a lineage that, in part, is symbolic, then later is sewn in with real names of real people in the lineage of Christ - the central figure of the Bible.

In summary, we should not let ourselves be deceived by the father of lies (satan). Scripture does not give rise to hold the creation account as allegorical or symbolic. How did satan try to tempt Jesus in the wilderness? By manipulating and twisting scripture. Even in the garden, what does satan say? "Did God really say...?" Satan is a liar and a murderer (John 8:44). How did Jesus respond to satan? "It is written...", and so we see the truth of creation written in Genesis. God said it, Jesus repeated it, it is referenced multiple times throughout the OT and NT. Isaiah 40:8 makes my position on trusting God's word in His creation clear. When we do not trust in His word, we become like children tossed about by every conventional wisdom and doctrine of our day (see Ephesians 4:14). What is the conventional wisdom of today as to how life arose? Evolution and billions of years.

Respectfully in Christ,
"Reepicheep"

 

[miamited]

Hi papias,

You wrote:

In the literalist, YEC story, God does *not* make them male and female from the beginning. At the beginning, he makes just the male, Adam. Female is only made much later, after the whole animal naming story. With evolution, on the other hand, male and female humans grow at the same time from an evolving population.

I just thought that I'd add my two cents to this thought. When Jesus said, 'in the beginning', I don't think that has to be intended to mean at the exact same moment in time. I would read it to mean that in the beginning of God creating mankind, He created Adam and Eve. When someone speaks of, say, a process of manufacturing and says, 'well, in the beginning we did it this way', can mean that yes, they started it this way and may have done it that way for quite some time. But, then at some point later they changed the process. So, I don't think that we have to understand that 'in the beginning' cannot be true if God didn't create Adam and Eve within moments of each other.

Jesus may well mean for us to understand that 'in the beginning', when God was working on creating this realm, that He created Adam and Eve. Not necessarily within 10 minutes of each other or 10 days of each other, but in the beginning God did create them. Both male and female He created them. I rather imagine, since I believe that God knows the beginning from the end, that He may well have given His Son these words to speak, after all Jesus himself said that the words he spoke were not his own but were given him by the Father, for the very purpose of our being able to deny the evolutionary theory that was coming down the pike.

You see, there are some things that I believe God has caused to be written in His Scriptures to address the future that He knows is coming. For example, God could have just had written:
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And thus ended the first day."

"So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And thus ended the second day."

But, in believing that God knows the beginning from the end, then I must also believe that God knew a day would come when men would work to deny the simple truth of what He had caused to be written to us in arguing over what 'yom' could mean as to length of time. Is He speaking of an age or eons of time between day 1 and day 2? Or, is He meaning that there was some great length of those days as compared to the days we have today that are measured by the rotation of the planet? So God, being omniscient and knowing how the knowledge of man was going to grow, defined the word 'yom' for us. He told us not that each step comprised only the time of a day, but defined that day as being one in which there was an evening and a morning, which today we still define as a.m. and p.m.

Similarly, God knew that the day would come when men would not put up with sound doctrine, but rather fill their itching ears with the wisdom of men rather than the wisdom of God. That a day would come when men would want to think to imagine that the realm in which we live was not specifically and perfectly created. Fully formed and ready to support the life of man. Rather they would begin to entertain the idea that this realm has existed for billions and billions of years and that what we see in it came about through the natural processes of matter working within itself to create and become all that we see today. Including man! So, Jesus was given the words by his Father to say to us that in the beginning God created them male and female.

So for me, God has answered our questions about old earth understanding and evolutionary thinking. But because we think of ourselves as being so very wise in what we have created as 'science', we don't want to see these clues for what they are. We actually ignore the contextual clues and spend our worthless time debating over what 'yom' could mean despite God's giving us His definition for 'yom'. We debate and argue over evolutionary theory, despite God's giving us His understanding of the male and female being created as they are today, in the beginning.

Because we are humanists and want to understand ourselves as being wiser than God and having figured it all out, we deny the truth of God. Sadly, this is also the way it has been from the beginning. God was clear to tell Adam and Eve about the consequences of eating the forbidden fruit, but Satan got her to question what God had said and decided for herself that she was going to 'test' it out. Did God really say?

That's exactly what we're hearing today in these debates and discussions regarding the creation and evolution. Did God really say? Well, for me, yes, I believe God did really say. He really said that each day consisted of an evening and a morning and He did really say that mankind was created in the beginning.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[typological1]

With God one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years a day. I believe that the seventh day is ongoing and will end when Jesus returns on the last day.

 

[mindlight]

I currently hold to the Regular Day View. While it is certainly the simplest reading of the text, it is not without its own exegetical problems. What would be your challenge to the Literary Framework view?

I held a Theistic Evolutionist view for many years before I became a Young Earth Creationist. The literary Framework view is probably the neatest way to justify a non literal reading of Genesis. It preserves the important theological stuff like reverence for God as Creator and that creation was made out of nothing. But it hangs loose on the details that will get you into trouble with mainstream scientists today e.g. Adam and Eve as special creations, the age of the earth, and a complete rejection of macroevolutionary theory. Augustines fling with a similar way of approaching scriptures were also in response to the dominant philosophical outlooks of his day. IN that time it was Neoplatonism rather than naturalistic materialism that held sway and many of these could not grasp that God could take as long as 6 days to create the earth so the days had to be symbols pregnant with deeper spiritual truthes.

So my first answer to your question is how important is it to you that you live a comfortable and unchallenged life? If you adopt literary framework theory you will be able to rub shoulders with the worlds so called intellectual elites and will be accepted by them. On the other hand holding a YEC viewpoint will only earn you ridicule and incredulity by people who really do not know any better and who think they are doing you a favour by mocking you.

If you want the truth then you need to read scripture as it is. At the end of the day the first chapters of Genesis cannot be detached from the rest of the book, are written in an historical style, have always been interpreted literally by mainstream Jews and Christians.

There are also proof texts like this one from Exodus 20:8-11 which are hard to get round unless you think the Sabbath day and the 7 day week are metaphysical symbols.

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

[miamited]

Hi mindlight,

In your reply above you wrote:

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

While many people make claims about the writings of the Scriptures and how they may have been tainted by the understanding and knowledge of people in that day, these words, if we believe the account, were written by the very finger of God. Some people have some picture in their mind of Moses finding a couple stone tablets and then sitting down with God and chiseling out the two tablets, but that isn't how we are told they came to exist. Exodus 24:12 states that God spoke to Moses and said to him: The LORD said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain and stay here, and I will give you the tablets of stone with the law and commandments I have written for their instruction.”

So, personally, I find your reference to the giving of the law in Exodus to be even paramount to the explanation of a literal six day creation than the Genesis account itself. Then, of course as I have mentioned often before, God is very, very wise. He knows the beginning from the end. He concluded the work of each day as being enclosed within an evening and a morning for some reason. I believe that reason was that He knew that a time would come upon the earth when men would argue and debate just what God meant by 'yom'.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[joshua 1 9]

If we were not created perfect, without sin.

Adam in the Garden of Eden around 6,000 years ago was "perfect and without sin".

Romans 5 12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned".

 

[joshua 1 9]

With God one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years a day. I believe that the seventh day is ongoing and will end when Jesus returns on the last day.

Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden on the eighth day. This is the end of the 13th day and very close to the beginning of the 14 day when man will rest from his works.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm considering taking the Literary Framework View of Genesis 1. If you're unfamiliar, this is the view that Genesis 1 is a poem or song that is using a six day framework in order to communicate truths about God and Creation, but not to be understood as six historical days. It's an argument from genre.

However before I really made a commitment to this view I wanted to try it on for size and see if it could be adequately defended. How would you challenge this view? I'll try my best in this thread to defend it.

God is omnipotent.

Also consider that when a number is used with day it always means as 24 hour day as we use it today.

 

[Edison Trent]

And there was morning and evening, dawn and dust continueous light,

 

[GBTG]

Read through most of this. I have a Blog on this very topic that I cannot post here yet thetruth.life.

In essence you have a really bad math problem, literally, in Genesis.

Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

As I state in my Blog how many hours are from evening to morning as stated in Genesis 1:5? (not 24). If God has just created light and separated it from darkness what is he speaking about?

The sun, moon, and all the stars were not created until the fourth "day" of creation.

Genesis 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also."

How can you have a 24hr day in Genesis 1:5 the first "day", if the sun did not exist until 1:16 the fourth "day"?

While I agree that the study of Genesis is not paramount to ones salvation. I think this book, more than any other, keeps individuals from knowing the truth of Jesus Christ, because of illogical or crazy sounding new earth ideas.

Regards, GBTG