The whole seven days thing

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

Just a few questions from someone who believes the world was created in 7 days, however God meant that (ie the literal 7 days we know now, or the 'one day is a thousand' slant).

1. What do you believe - literal or metaphorical 7 days.

2. How did you reach that?

3. How old then, do you think the world is? How did you reach that decision - what articles/research helped?

4. Why is it, when the problem is interpretation of the '7 days', do some people believe that when you don't completely agree with it being 7 literal days, you can't believe in Jesus dying on the cross, God's commandments, etc etc. I've always believed firmly in the Bible as fact, but because of my interpretation of 7 days being different to a few other peoples, I've often been made to feel my faith is non-existent.

Please feel free to answer as you feel led.

Sasch -> Who believes that God created the world, in 7 days, however he meant 7 days to mean - whether that was 7000 of our days, or 7 of our days, I don't care - I'm still going to heaven!

 

[believe14]

Just a few questions from someone who believes the world was created in 7 days, however God meant that (ie the literal 7 days we know now, or the 'one day is a thousand' slant).

1. What do you believe - literal or metaphorical 7 days.

literal 7 days.

2. How did you reach that?

The Bible states cleary that with God all things are possible! He spoke us into existiance. I arrived at this conclusion by faith, and by the fact that Genisis states that from sun up to sun down is a day, and there were 7 of those in the creation of the universe.

3. How old then, do you think the world is? How did you reach that decision - what articles/research helped?

I'm not sure, but it is extremly old. lol, honestly, I don't think that anyone can be for certain on the age of the earth. First, carbon dating can be inaccurate and there is so much to consider in the time. Like, there has to be a place and a time that the dinosaurs were on the earth. There has to be time for people to have children and travel (Cain found a wife in the land of Nod), etc.

4. Why is it, when the problem is interpretation of the '7 days', do some people believe that when you don't completely agree with it being 7 literal days, you can't believe in Jesus dying on the cross, God's commandments, etc etc. I've always believed firmly in the Bible as fact, but because of my interpretation of 7 days being different to a few other peoples, I've often been made to feel my faith is non-existent.

OUr minds were not made to comprehend the capability and power of God. So many people want to be logical about everything, which in a way is good considering God is of order, but the fact is, God is not logical in all things. If He wants the world to be created in 7 exact days, so be it. BUt your belief on one certain thing does not change your salvation, and it does not change your other beliefs. People interpret the BIble differently. Your opinion matters, and God gives you that right. God does things in His own time. There are things that we will never get answered until we meet Him in Heaven. BUt most of those things don't really make a difference anyways. If God wants you to know something, He will reveal it to you in His time. Don't be hasty in finding all the answers.

Please feel free to answer as you feel led.

no problem.

Sasch -> Who believes that God created the world, in 7 days, however he meant 7 days to mean - whether that was 7000 of our days, or 7 of our days, I don't care - I'm still going to heaven!

That is true! Salvation secures your place in Heaven, as long as you believe in the Son of God, and that God raised Him from the dead after three days, and that Jesus died for your sins, and you repented and turned your life around, you will be in Heaven with God someday. The belief in the creation of the earth will not matter then. Sorry so long.

Believe 14

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

1. Literal

2. Reading not only Genesis but other parts of the Bible. Realizing observable science supports a young earth if you include the effects of a world flood and doesn't support goo to man evolution.

3. Around 6,000 years. Using the genealogies of the Bible.

4. If you can change the meaning of something that is clearly stated several times in the bible (7 literal days) what's stopping people from reinterpreting other things such as Jesus being the only way, homosexuality being a sin and the virgin birth? Science "proves" people can't have children as virgins so if you believe in evolution and etc you really shouldn't believe in a virigin birth if you want to be consistent.

 

[mark kennedy]

Just a few questions from someone who believes the world was created in 7 days, however God meant that (ie the literal 7 days we know now, or the 'one day is a thousand' slant).

1. What do you believe - literal or metaphorical 7 days.

Well, I would have to say that they are maked by the evening and then the morning thus the account of creation does not suggest figurative language. Also the narrative is from the perspective of the face of the earth, the first verse just say that God created the heavens and the earth and that at that time the earth was in utter darkness. A series of seperations follow; day from night, land from sea, water above and below. This is prose (poetic really) but it still can be taken as literal just not as precise as our more analytic approach to detailed descriptions of nature.

2. How did you reach that?

Frankly, I started with the New Testament and worked my way back. The New Testament is loaded with enormous implications, not the least of which are the ressurection, the deity of Christ and final judgment. Once I had that under my belt believing that God could create lifes ecosystems and original kinds was no big leap in logic. One of the things that sold me YEC was the absurdity of Darwinian logic but that's a little off topic for the moment.

3. How old then, do you think the world is? How did you reach that decision - what articles/research helped?

This one was the first to open my eyes to radiometric dating but I had allready been suspecious of gradualism in geology. I knew that Darwin had been influenced by the geologic theory that levels of strata accumulated over vast amounts of time and there were alternatives to this concept.

Is the Lava from Mt St Helens really 1 Million Years Old

Radiometic dating is considered an absolute standard based on rates of decay. This just does not convince me that I have reason to believe that the earth is billions of years old.

4. Why is it, when the problem is interpretation of the '7 days', do some people believe that when you don't completely agree with it being 7 literal days, you can't believe in Jesus dying on the cross, God's commandments, etc etc. I've always believed firmly in the Bible as fact, but because of my interpretation of 7 days being different to a few other peoples, I've often been made to feel my faith is non-existent.

I would never make such a broad assumption but I often wonder what leads people to adopt this over the clear testimony of Scripture. Of course you can still believe the Gospel and have no idea how to reconcile Christian theism with the claims of secular scientists. The key to faith is not in being able to understand how God keeps His promises but that the one who makes the promise is faithfull. God told Abraham to name his son Issac (which means to laugh) because Sarah laughed when she heard she would have a son at 99 years old. Abraham also laughed at the promise but even though he could not accept this intellectually he knew that God was faithfull.

Please feel free to answer as you feel led.

Sasch -> Who believes that God created the world, in 7 days, however he meant 7 days to mean - whether that was 7000 of our days, or 7 of our days, I don't care - I'm still going to heaven!

I really don't think you're origins theology are going to determine you eternal destination, even if some creationist do. In fact, I don't think you should even ask the question of whether or not someone else is going to heaven in you're own heart.

Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: “The man who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:5-9)

I have studied this somewhat and debated the evolution/creation controversy at some length. I have come to two general conclusions:

1. Nothing makes sense except in the light of special creation.
2. Origins theology is related to the Gospel but YEC is not necassary for salvation.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[keyarch]

Please feel free to answer as you feel led.

First of all, I believe Genesis to be literal, and that God tells us what he “created” and “made” during 6 - 24 hour days some 6,000 years ago. But, having said that, I also believe that a thorough study of Genesis including definitions of words from the Hebrew; will reveal something interesting.

1. Gen. 1:1 lets us know that in the very beginning (ancient past) God's ‘first fruits’ were the creation of the stellar heavens and the planet earth. This is not an overview statement.

2. Before God's acts of the six days of the creation week, we are told about the state that the planet is in: “without form and void” and “darkness was on the face of the deep”. So we have the foundations of the earth covered with the waters, and that’s why it’s described as without form (as we would recognize it) and void. Other references to this state are in Psalms 104:5-6 and Job 38:4-11.

3. The first act on the first day of the creation week was light on the surface of the deep that was formally dark.

4. Gen. 1:16 does not say “and He made the stars also” in Hebrew.

5. Exodus 20:11 does not say “For in six days,”

All this is to say that the universe and the core elements of the earth are of an untold age and that any science that reveals long ages for any of these things is irrelevant and not in conflict with the Bible. All the biology on earth is part of the 6 day creation and no more than the appx. 6000 years old.

What we have today is evidence of the global flood and other catastrophes that have covered, contaminated and fossilized this biology, creating a mixture of ages that makes the dating methods a joke. If a new lava flow that dated 10 million years covered today’s biology, that wouldn’t mean that everything below the lava was older. The same thing holds for the sediments of the global flood and the following mud-flows from and unstable earth soon after covering the biology of appx. 4400 ya. You can’t date the fossils by the rock layers or the rock layers by the fossils.

My full narrative of Genesis 1:1-19 can be found at: http://www.genesistruth.org/Genesisday1_4.htm

 

[Buachaille]

A question for those bringing up the Mt. St. Helens lava dates.

What do you think of the standard scientific responses to this charge?

 

[mark kennedy]

A question for those bringing up the Mt. St. Helens lava dates.

What do you think of the standard scientific responses to this charge?

Well, the response would seem to be that they used the wrong method of dating the samples, which...duh... they are all wrong if the earth is just 6,000 to 10,000 years old. I have yet to see anything to support the contention that radiometric dating is absolute and yet it was potasium argon dating the set the date of Lucy as being so ancient and it is barely given any attention is scientific papers about her, or other fossils for that matter. They just say that the age was determined as....no real documentation of the evidence for the dating. They get away with this, I still don't know why this makes sense to evolutionists...what do you think of their responses?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[keyarch]

A question for those bringing up the

Mt.St. Helens lava dates. What do you think of the standard scientific responses to this charge?

I didn't mention Mt. St. Helens, but you ask a good question if you are referring to the type of testing and it's lower limits. I think the scientific response is critically valid, but what I haven't seen (and maybe you know of a reference) is a method for dating young lava flows that would be consistent with all known historical events including Mt.St. Helens. It just seems impractical to me that any dating method is going to be accurate on all types of material from all ages i.e.: melted ancient rock in the form of lava; sediments with young and old material mixed with water and in some cases volcanic materials which all turns into rock; core earth material that thru metamorphosis changes elevation. They are generally all contaminated in one fashion or another.

I would be curious to see a method that could be used to test all types of soil and rock from core samples anywhere on earth without any reference to fossils, that would produce a successively older date that matched the “geologic column”, especially if the different layers were randomly sampled without knowledge of their position and then reassembled. Obviously this dating method would have to be sensitive to dates from within a year to billions of years.

The point in my previous post was that it’s not enough to know how old the material in a sediment layer is (if you can even accurately measure it). You have to know when it was deposited. Just like in concrete, you have old aggregate mixed with sand, cement and water. Can they tell when a foundation was poured by testing the age of the concrete? Do the components give the date of the pour? No. Does the hardness give it? Maybe if there were a specification followed in the mixture, but the global flood created many mixtures. If we knew the date that something was put over the concrete, you could say that the concrete was older than that, but there would have to be a verifiable method to establish the top date, and it couldn’t be the age of the material by a radiometric date. You would still have to know when it was placed. I think far too often the date of placement is established by faith in evolutionary paradigm using fossils; and that’s where the circular reasoning of the “scientific” community comes in.

Finally, why is all this stuff so obscure? If the “scientific” community is so positive about dating methods, why can’t they be asked to do a blind test on any mineral sample and provide a date that is beyond reproach?

Just my thoughts... I'm not an expert on the subject, though I wish I had time to be.

 

[herev]

closing for a bit of cleanup. non-creationsist should not be debating in this forum!

 

[herev]

please continue

 

[Remus]

1. What do you believe - literal or metaphorical 7 days.

Literal

2. How did you reach that?

The relevant verses give no indication that 'day' in these verses means anything other than a 24-hour period, and there is insufficient evidence outside of the Bible for me to change my opinion.

3. How old then, do you think the world is? How did you reach that decision - what articles/research helped?

About 6200 years give or take. Calculated it using Genesis, Exodus, 1 & 2 Kings.

4. Why is it, when the problem is interpretation of the '7 days', do some people believe that when you don't completely agree with it being 7 literal days, you can't believe in Jesus dying on the cross, God's commandments, etc etc. I've always believed firmly in the Bible as fact, but because of my interpretation of 7 days being different to a few other peoples, I've often been made to feel my faith is non-existent.

I suppose it may have something dealing with trusting the Bible. If you can't trust it to mean '7 days' when it says it, then how can one trust it when it says <insert typical stuff here>. Probably best to ask someone who shares that opinion.

 

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

Remus, you interested me with the Bible chapters you go as references for the age of the earth. Is it possible for you to explain how you got 6200 out of those books of the Bible?

To be honest, it doesn't bother me either way - literal or metaphorical. I haven't seen any evidence of my belief on how old the earth is impacting on the rest of my Christian walk or beliefs on what God says. If it did, I'd be seeing huge problems, but considering my worldview aligns with what God asks of us, then how old the earth is seems like something inconsequential to my walk with God - I haven't seen it hamper any growth, anyway!

Sasch

 

[TwinCrier]

The bible lists the ancestry of Jesus back to adam through both Joseph and Mary's lineage. Not that Jesus was their biological child as He created them, but even presumming each person who begat some else waited until they were 100 years old to have a child, the Earth still couldn't be more than maybe 10,000 years tops. However, there are old earth creationisr who believe God created the world in a literal six days and then waited several million years to make Adam, but that wouldn't explain why the bible says God made man the sixth day, not after the seventh.

 

[keyarch]

However, there are old earth creationisr who believe God created the world in a literal six days and then waited several million years to make Adam, but that wouldn't explain why the bible says God made man the sixth day, not after the seventh.

I think a lot of confusion on this issue stems from not fully understanding what Genesis 1 actually says. When we’re talking about the creation week, we have to ask ourselves:

1. What was the start of the first day and what was done during the 6 days? In other words, the first “and God said”.

2. Was there anything in existence before the acts on that first day?

3. Is Genesis 1:1-2 and overview statement or an actual account of history?

My in-depth study on this issue has led me to the following conclusion:

A. That the upper heavens and the unfinished earth (a planet covered in water and a thick cloud layer) were created as the first fruits of God some time before the creation week.

B. That the first act of the first 24-hour day was God’s light on the surface of the deep. This was essentially “high noon”. Then the evening and the next morning (until noon again) is the definition of a “day”.

C. That whenever we’re talking about the “creation week” it should be in reference to what was actually done and created during that week and not try and combine the creation of the universe or the core elements of the this planet with it. It’s not all young or all old.

 

[MLML]

Something interesting to note, if you read about the Jewish people, you will find that is was extremely common to keep track of their complete geneologies.

 

[Remus]

Remus, you interested me with the Bible chapters you go as references for the age of the earth. Is it possible for you to explain how you got 6200 out of those books of the Bible?

Give me about a week and I'll post it. I need to double-check everything. Don't let me forget

 

[herev]

The bible lists the ancestry of Jesus back to adam through both Joseph and Mary's lineage.

Could you point me in that direction? Where is Mary's lineage listed in the Bible?

edited to add: this is a sincere question, allowable under the rules, but if it is offensive to ANYONE, simply PM me, and I will delete it myself--not intended to cause trouble

 

[Remus]

Could you point me in that direction? Where is Mary's lineage listed in the Bible?

Luke 3:23-38

 

[herev]

ok, I've heard that before, but only from creationists and I don't know why--to proceed further is to cross a line here. Thanks for your answer. God bless you all

 

[TwinCrier]

Thanks Remus, I forgot to get back to this thread. Since Erwin got rid of the ability to search for your own posts I'm lost.

I read a real good article once about how Jesus' line through Mary was actually more valid than Joseph's because since Mary had no brothers, the lineage could be passed through the woman, a one time exception, where with Joesph, Jesus would be considered an adopted son and not a blood relative, He would still be respected as having Joseph's ancetry as well.
In another post I asked TE's to explain where in the line of Jesus' ancestry the people went from the figuative Adam to the literal Jesus. I pray the Holy Spirit woks in their hearts as they ponder the question and search for an answer.