A
AlabamaScout
Guest
I believe God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th day. What do you believe 
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
OrthodoxServant10
Newbie
- Mar 2, 2010
- 75
- 6
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
I personally think that God didn't create the whole world in literally 6 days. Me and My Christian friend did some research and in Hebrew a day is equal to an eon ( around a billion years?) . I think God is the driving force that created organisms and creates fit to function (meaning that he directed the synthesis of cells and directs what each cell does and the function of each cell).
Upvote
0
itisdeliciouscake
Deus est regit qui omnia
you might wanna re-do that Hebrew research. The idea that the word in Hebrew isn't a literal day is a bold-face lie. People started making that up around 60 years ago. Find a legitimate source from an authority on Hebrew then come back. kthx.
Upvote
0
OrthodoxServant10
Newbie
- Mar 2, 2010
- 75
- 6
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Actually this was directly from a Jewish-Hebrew speaking man. Are you hebrew? Thats what i thought.
Upvote
0
OrthodoxServant10
Newbie
- Mar 2, 2010
- 75
- 6
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
I believe in 6 literal days. If you're going to start saying it could be millions of years old, then maybe Jonah was in the whale billions of years? The Bible says 6 days. 6 literal days, therefore I believe 6 days. 6 literal days.
Upvote
0
A
AlabamaScout
Guest
I agree with you about the creation. The "6 days" God created everything in exactly 6 human days. God doesn't feel time like we humans do.
Upvote
0
tpk
The Preacher's Kid
- Jan 29, 2005
- 5,555
- 240
- 34
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
That second link goes entirely against the theory that a day equals any longer than a normal 24 hour period...
Anyway, imo, why would you change what the Bible literally says just so that your belief fits in with current popular opinion? IMO, if the Bible says six days, I will believe that God wants me to know that He created the earth in six days. Not six weeks. Not six months. Not six billion years. Six days.
If I were from some obscure country that had never before read the Bible and I was first shown the Bible, there is no way on Earth that I would mistake the word "day" for the word "age" or "eon" or whatever you call it. I would see "day" and say... wow! God is so amazing that he has the power to create everything in the world in merely 6 days (144 hours).
Therefore, it is obvious that the Day = Age theory was thought up to appease the Evolution theory, which insists that the earth has been around for billions of years. I think that rather than appease some theory, I'm going to stick with what I believe God is saying quite plainly in His word.
Upvote
0
Stjernkvist
disciple
- Jan 12, 2010
- 539
- 28
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
i'm pretty unsure about how the world was made, but i do know that God made and he could make it on 2 days if he wanted.
But who knows, there might be 6 days of God. (but the question is do god have time in heaven, since time is something that we "created") but the bible says 6 days. so... I I'm pretty confused at that Q
One thing i know for sure, is that God made the earth and everything on it, that's the important thing for me to know.
But who knows, there might be 6 days of God. (but the question is do god have time in heaven, since time is something that we "created") but the bible says 6 days. so... I I'm pretty confused at that Q
One thing i know for sure, is that God made the earth and everything on it, that's the important thing for me to know.
Upvote
0
S
solarwave
Guest
I think the earth is billions of years old, but not for reasons of what the word day means in Genesis.
Sorry for picking on specifically what you said but its a good example for what I want to say. The Bible also says the earth has four corners (google for the verse) so because the words simply say the earth has corners are we to think that there is a huge conspiracy about the world being round?
More likely I think is understand that the Bible is written in different styles and uses phrases in non-literal ways. Eg: If I say "She has stars in her eyes" I don't mean her eyes are taking part in nuclear fusion.
If you faith in God would suffer from a non-literal understanding of Genesis 1 then disreguard what I am about to say.
Firstly there are two Creation stories in Genesis. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two conflicting stories with a different sequence of events. If you are going to say the Bible says it therefore it is true then you are forced to two conflicting accounts at the same time. So unless you are going to say the logically impossible is happened at the most only one of the accounts of creation can be what actually happened.
It seems that Genesis 1 is the non-literal account from its style, almost poetic. Im not sure about Genesis 2 but it is more easily put together with what science sense than Genesis 1.
In the beginning the earth was formless and void, meaning it has no stucture and there was nothing in it..... almost as if it was still in the mind of God and not yet made. The rest of Genesis 1 revolves around those words. In day 1, 2 and 3 God Forms the world. He creates Light, an expanse and dry ground. In days 4, 5 and 6 God Fills those areas He made with Stars, the Sun and Moon, birds and fish, animals and humans. It is a much more poetic style.
To add to this in Genesis 2 the style of writting suddenly changes. Everything becomes much more specific like history normally is. It talks about areas, rivers names and where they flow, what minerals are in the ground, etc. This is something Genesis 1 doesn't do.
Now I am not says Genesis 2 is necessarily the exact literal account of what actually happened in the beginning since some bits on Genesis 2 and 3 seem quite symbolic rather than literal, such as the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the snake.
Also for me I value science and I am happy to have faith in science AND the Bible. The Bible is God's Special Revelation and creation (the world) is God's General Revelation. Both are ways to know God.
Sorry for the length of the post guys
Sorry for picking on specifically what you said but its a good example for what I want to say. The Bible also says the earth has four corners (google for the verse) so because the words simply say the earth has corners are we to think that there is a huge conspiracy about the world being round?
More likely I think is understand that the Bible is written in different styles and uses phrases in non-literal ways. Eg: If I say "She has stars in her eyes" I don't mean her eyes are taking part in nuclear fusion.
If you faith in God would suffer from a non-literal understanding of Genesis 1 then disreguard what I am about to say.
Firstly there are two Creation stories in Genesis. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two conflicting stories with a different sequence of events. If you are going to say the Bible says it therefore it is true then you are forced to two conflicting accounts at the same time. So unless you are going to say the logically impossible is happened at the most only one of the accounts of creation can be what actually happened.
It seems that Genesis 1 is the non-literal account from its style, almost poetic. Im not sure about Genesis 2 but it is more easily put together with what science sense than Genesis 1.
In the beginning the earth was formless and void, meaning it has no stucture and there was nothing in it..... almost as if it was still in the mind of God and not yet made. The rest of Genesis 1 revolves around those words. In day 1, 2 and 3 God Forms the world. He creates Light, an expanse and dry ground. In days 4, 5 and 6 God Fills those areas He made with Stars, the Sun and Moon, birds and fish, animals and humans. It is a much more poetic style.
To add to this in Genesis 2 the style of writting suddenly changes. Everything becomes much more specific like history normally is. It talks about areas, rivers names and where they flow, what minerals are in the ground, etc. This is something Genesis 1 doesn't do.
Now I am not says Genesis 2 is necessarily the exact literal account of what actually happened in the beginning since some bits on Genesis 2 and 3 seem quite symbolic rather than literal, such as the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the snake.
Also for me I value science and I am happy to have faith in science AND the Bible. The Bible is God's Special Revelation and creation (the world) is God's General Revelation. Both are ways to know God.
Sorry for the length of the post guys
Upvote
0
I also believe in that he made the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. He's God, and he could've done anything.
Upvote
0
RipleyCountyChristian
The guy Chuck Norris tries to live up to :)
- Nov 25, 2007
- 6,541
- 1,356
- 32
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I believe that God created the universe and everything in it. How long did it take him...who knows...no one was there! But the only source we have is the account of creation in the Book of Genesis, and it says God did it in 6 days, so that is what I am sticking with.
Upvote
0
religious&reasonable
Slayer of Stupid Threads
I personally think God used evolution as a means to create us. So I would go with that he World took longer to make than 6 days, but I wouldn't 100% rule out that it took 6 literal days.
Upvote
0
fm107
Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20
- May 12, 2009
- 1,152
- 143
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
God made a perfect creation in 6 literal days.
To say otherwise is a direct contradiction of the bible.
Genesis 1:5
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
Genesis 1:8
God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.
Genesis 1:13
And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day.
Genesis 1:19
And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.
Genesis 1:23
And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.
Genesis 1:31
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.
God saw it was VERY GOOD. It was perfect and complete.
There was EVENING & MORNING = one literal day.
To say otherwise is a direct contradiction of the bible.
Genesis 1:5
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
Genesis 1:8
God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.
Genesis 1:13
And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day.
Genesis 1:19
And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.
Genesis 1:23
And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.
Genesis 1:31
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.
God saw it was VERY GOOD. It was perfect and complete.
There was EVENING & MORNING = one literal day.
Upvote
0
S
solarwave
Guest
It is a direct contradiction if the creation story is literally and historically true. I don't believe it is. I believe it is spiritually true.
Very good isn't the same as perfect.
Upvote
0
corymartin2012
Student of the Word.
- Nov 4, 2010
- 95
- 2
- 30
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Republican
Solarware, I would like to point out that the the second chapter of Genesis does seem relatively more specified, adding more details than the first chapter. This specification does not correlate to absolute history as the vagueness (for lack of better word) of chapter one does not mean poetic in nature. The same way that in Psalms, we seem poems that describe actual events in History in a more poetic manner, with a more "generalized approach" to the event, not naming specific cities, nations, people, attack plans. The first chapter can be seen as a more broad, generalized representation of fact. I do believe in literal 6 days for many reasons. I am in fact an intellectual christian, and adore science and the many developments, but I perfectly believe in the complementary properties science has towards the bible and Genesis, I disregard neither.
I would like to know, other than based on the "writing styles" of the first two chapters of Genesis, why you believe in an "Old Earth". And afterwards I would like to ask a few questions if its alright? Unless you would rather not, and I will respect your decision.. Sorry for the length of this post!
I would like to know, other than based on the "writing styles" of the first two chapters of Genesis, why you believe in an "Old Earth". And afterwards I would like to ask a few questions if its alright? Unless you would rather not, and I will respect your decision.. Sorry for the length of this post!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
