Christian: Do you believe in a Six Day Literal Creation?

[FresnoRob]

Some of these discussions seem to be a bit hot tempered. There are believers in both camps and there are arguments for both side of the coin. If you are a believer please read your posts and ask if it’s delivered in a loving manner.
As for me I do believe is a literal 6 days. First God being God he could do it any way he wanted.
Some people who believe in an old Earth try to reconcile evolution and creation. It can’t be.
Evolution teaches life started in the sea, crawled out to land then learned to fly. IE: lizard type creators evolving into birds.
The Bible teaches on the 5th day Created and Sea creatures and Birds. Land creatures on the 6th day.
As to the age of the Earth I believe in a young Earth. There are some 100 ways to measure the age of the Earth. Only some give it millions of years. IE: Radiocarbon dating.
Many show a much younger Earth. IE: Rotation of the Earth slowing.
Be kind to each other as this discussions moves forward.

[RAMCLAP]

There are also those of us who believe in an old earth and no evolution.

[JeffC]

I didn't say that "most" Hebrew scholars believe in a literal 24hr day in Genesis 1. What I said was that those who are committed to a consistent, grammatical-historical exegesis are. When that is your commitment then you get 24hr days.



God bless,
Bill

Circular reasoning. If they agree with you they are committed to a consistent grammatical historical exegesis when they do not agree with you are they wrong....

Most Hebrew scholars are committed to proper hermeneutical principles. Interestingly enough, most Hebrew scholars accept the possibility of old earth creation.

[ECG_88]

Wow the amount of hubris in this thread. All the commentaries and grammatical studies in the world are all still creations of flawed human beings. You are thinking too small if you lock creation into a literal 6 days. That is viewing the story through your own understanding of a day and night. God is bigger than that.

When he inspired the prophets to write the word and how he created the world, I bet it was like explaining to your dog how a gun works. Your dog may understand a word or 2 here or there, but there is no way he will understand well enough to tell other dogs how to make or even use a gun.

History has shown many times how people have misused or misinterpreted the word. I think it is very possible that many parts of the Bible are not literal.

The short and best answer is... we don't know. We were not there when it happened, so how can we say it was or was not. Except we do have a fossil record. We do have sedimentary layers that explain millions of years.

I agree with another post above, the bible is meant to point to salvation. It is not a scientific textbook.

[Wordupmybrotha]

Onto the sabbath.....
If you note that the 6 days each have a beginning and an end. As young eathers interpret them "morning and evening" old earthers, "beginning and end".. Regardless of how you interpret them 6 of the 7 day had a beginning and an end. The 7th has neither a beginning or an end. It has no morning or evening. That is because the creation sabbath started with the end of the 6th yom and continues to day; there is no end.

The creation sabbath is no more a literal day than Jesus being the Sabbath.

Interesting interpretation. I haven't heard that before.
So you're saying the 7th day is a metaphor for a particular phase of time? Which is to say, we're currently in the "7th day"?
And likewise, the first 6 days aren't literal 24 hour days, but metaphorical periods?

[billvau]

Circular reasoning. If they agree with you they are committed to a consistent grammatical historical exegesis when they do not agree with you are they wrong....

Most Hebrew scholars are committed to proper hermeneutical principles. Interestingly enough, most Hebrew scholars accept the possibility of old earth creation.

Sorry, Jeff, can't agree with you. It's not that they agree with me, it's that when one uses a consistent grammatical historical hermeneutic, one arrives at a six day literal interpretation. It's easy to see where others hermeneutic fails to get the proper interpretation.

Again, "most" was not my statement. "Most" is not a biblical hermeneutic!

Look, we don't agree. Go in peace, love the Lord, and have a blessed day!

Bill

[billvau]

Wow the amount of hubris in this thread. All the commentaries and grammatical studies in the world are all still creations of flawed human beings. You are thinking too small if you lock creation into a literal 6 days. That is viewing the story through your own understanding of a day and night. God is bigger than that.

When he inspired the prophets to write the word and how he created the world, I bet it was like explaining to your dog how a gun works. Your dog may understand a word or 2 here or there, but there is no way he will understand well enough to tell other dogs how to make or even use a gun.

History has shown many times how people have misused or misinterpreted the word. I think it is very possible that many parts of the Bible are not literal.

The short and best answer is... we don't know. We were not there when it happened, so how can we say it was or was not. Except we do have a fossil record. We do have sedimentary layers that explain millions of years.

I agree with another post above, the bible is meant to point to salvation. It is not a scientific textbook.

Thanks for your opinion. I smiled because you're calling others out for hubris, and you're not guilty of the same?

There are some strongly held, strongly argued, viewpoints on this thread, and virtually all have been by honest, sincere, well-studied, Christians. It's been edifying and glorifying to God in many ways.

God bless,
Bill

[Wordupmybrotha]

Wow the amount of hubris in this thread. All the commentaries and grammatical studies in the world are all still creations of flawed human beings. You are thinking too small if you lock creation into a literal 6 days. That is viewing the story through your own understanding of a day and night. God is bigger than that.

When he inspired the prophets to write the word and how he created the world, I bet it was like explaining to your dog how a gun works. Your dog may understand a word or 2 here or there, but there is no way he will understand well enough to tell other dogs how to make or even use a gun.

History has shown many times how people have misused or misinterpreted the word. I think it is very possible that many parts of the Bible are not literal.

The short and best answer is... we don't know. We were not there when it happened, so how can we say it was or was not. Except we do have a fossil record. We do have sedimentary layers that explain millions of years.

I agree with another post above, the bible is meant to point to salvation. It is not a scientific textbook.

I don't see any hubris. I see people studying the word and trying to understand the best they can. Also, why is it "thinking small" to believe in 6 days creation? Maybe you're thinking God isn't big enough to be capable or willing to create the world in 6 days?

[ECG_88]

I don't see any hubris. I see people studying the word and trying to understand the best they can. Also, why is it "thinking small" to believe in 6 days creation? Maybe you're thinking God isn't big enough to be capable or willing to create the world in 6 days?

I'm not saying "He cant create the world in 6 days". I am saying it is putting God into a box to say "He made the world in 6 days and that is all there is to the story."

[cvigue]

Back in my Grandfathers day he understood the term day wasn't always used in reference to a 24 hour period.

[Wordupmybrotha]

I'm not saying "He cant create the world in 6 days". I am saying it is putting God into a box to say "He made the world in 6 days and that is all there is to the story."

Actually, you're putting him in a box by saying he didn't do it in 6 days (even though the Bible states that), because it doesn't make sense to you.

[bazmonkey]

I don't see any hubris. I see people studying the word and trying to understand the best they can. Also, why is it "thinking small" to believe in 6 days creation? Maybe you're thinking God isn't big enough to be capable or willing to create the world in 6 days?

Not a believer, but if I may take the position of an old-earth creationist for a second... there is an abundance of data outside of the Bible that suggest a universe far, far older than a literal six days, no gap allows. It would not be at all genuine to simply discard all of this data (if "I ignore conflicting arguments" is how you make sense of your worldview, there isn't really anything to discuss), and so the question seems to boil down to this:

A) The universe was created exactly as-written in the Bible, using the most natural interpretation possible. Despite having no exposure to modern technology, they were not mistaken in any detail. The various reasons we have to think the world is incredibly older are all wrong, and for lack of a better word, the natural world seems to deceive us when we try to determine its age with non-Biblical methods. The natural world is all but dead-set on convincing people it's much older than it is.

-or-

B) Well-meaning Biblical authors, as divinely inspired as they may be, could not help framing the story of creation within their understanding of the world and what is possible. Having had not even the slightest concept of time in the millions of years, the account revealed to them was one they could make sense of, one that satisfied the concerns of their day and age. Devoid of a scientific worldview, the minutiae of the event itself was so far disconnected from the lives of everyday Israelites that they simply weren't important. At the time, the prospect of ever verifying or finding evidence of these details seemed almost certain to never happen, and there was no reason to give it a second thought. It could have been six days, six weeks, six whatever: at the time, it really didn't matter. The point was God did it, and it was good.

Put like this, "A" is thinking small. It's missing the forest for the trees and tripping up on technicalities. The take-away message of creation in Genesis was never the duration of the six stages in which it happened, and "A" makes it out to be such an important detail that it's worth outright discarding just about all non-Biblical study done on the topic. Believing in the Word is one thing. Believing that every single world is absolutely literal, that thousands of years has produced not one misinterpretation, and that it is completely impossible for even the slightest detail to have been symbolic--or even just a then-irrelevant detail--is another thing entirely.

[Not a Cook]

Not a believer, but...

bazmonkey - respectfully, I've noticed that you seem to like to participate in threads that are targeted to Christians. Why is that?

You seem very interested in "science" and accept scientific theories as facts (regardless of whether there are contradictory theories). Along those lines, I'd like to challenge you with something to consider which may be new to you:

... there is an abundance of data outside of the Bible that suggest a universe far, far older than a literal six days, no gap allows. It would not be at all genuine to simply discard all of this data (if "I ignore conflicting arguments" is how you make sense of your worldview, there isn't really anything to discuss)

Are you aware that there is are a couple of common, philosophical assumptions which directly impacts how you interpret the "abundance of data outside of the Bible" to which you refer?

If those common assumptions aren't made, the "abundance of data" does not "suggest a universe far, far older than a literal six days" allows.

The first MAJOR assumption is that a catastrophic, worldwide flood such as that described in the Scriptures never happened. Any such catastrophic event, if assumed, would massively impact the analysis and age conclusions drawn across multiple fields. If you'd like more information to consider regarding this point, this may be a good place to start: http://www.icr.org/creation-flood

Another MAJOR assumption is that of uniformitarianism which assumes that God would not have created the world with appearance of age already in existence and also assumes that things have always continued as they now are. This assumption is even discussed in the Scriptures. For a little more information about this flawed assumption, please see this article: http://www.icr.org/article/biblical-uniformitarianism

Also, there is a lot of scientific evidence out there pointing toward a timeframe with fits "young earth creation" timelines, but that data is often overlooked by many folks because it doesn't fit their beliefs (or because they're simply unaware of the multitude of such evidence). For example:

• here is a brief article to "whet your apetite" on the subject at hand: http://www.icr.org/article/1842/245/
• research into radioistopes and their decay rates such as the articles found here: http://www.icr.org/rate.
• various measurements which are calculated from the observed rates of natural worldwide processes, for a little more info. look at the articles found here: http://www.icr.org/recent-creation

In other words, the "abundance of data" may not necessarily point to the conclusion you think it does.

Just some thoughts for you to consider as you continue to read these threads.

[cvigue]

The Universe could have been conjured into existence just this moment - how would we know?

[Not a Cook]

To my fellow Christians who believe in an "old earth timeline" wherein the days of creation recorded in Genesis 1 were not literal days but were instead LONG periods of time, I still have the same questions as I've asked previously. JeffC took a crack at answering them (though not all of them), but no one else here has made such an attempt, and I'm very curious to hear your answers. So at the risk of repeating myself, I'd like to ask each of you who believes in an "old earth timeline" to address each of the following three points:

1. I have sincere questions for anyone here who who professes to believe the Scriptures, but yet does not believe that the Lord created everything in six literal days as recorded in Genesis. Please consider what I present below and respond if you would like.
   
   Consider:
   
   Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned - Romans 5:12
   
   For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23
   
   For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 1 Corinthians 15:21
   
   According to the Scriptures, death is the result of sin, and sin entered the world through the man Adam.
   
   Questions:

   • If you subscribe to the "gap theory" or if you subscribe to any theory that posits that the days listed in Genesis are not literal days, doesn't your theory require that death began LONG BEFORE the day when Adam sinned?
   • Isn't any interpretation of Genesis 1 which does NOT interpret the days to be literal days guilty of violating the revealed truths that death is the result of sin and that sin entered the world through Adam?
   • How can you reconcile this contradiction between your interpretation of Genesis 1 and what the Scriptures reveal about death being the result of sin that entered the world through Adam?

2. Also, I'd appreciate it if any of you would also address how precisely you interpret the following passage such that literal days are not what are being discussed:
   
   
   Please be mindful, also, that the Exodus passage above are words spoken by God as indicated in Exodus 20:1 and were merely dictated by Moses (as opposed to being Moses' words or his personal interpretation of what God said).
   
   
3. Lastly, I'd love to get your input/interpretation regarding what I shared previously regarding the "yoms" of Genesis 1 being long periods of time in light of the following:
   
   

   • Lengths of time recorded in Genesis - Adam was only 130 years old when Seth was born (ref. Genesis 5:3). Seth was not born until sometime after Cain murdered Abel. Adam, therefore, was even younger than 130 years when Cain and Abel were born. Cain was not conceived until sometime after the fall and banishment from the Garden of Eden (ref. Gen. 3 and 4). Per Genesis 1:26-31, God made Adam on the sixth day. Therefore, Adam had lived through all of the following by the time that Adam was only 130 years old:
     - "the sixth day";
     - "the seventh day";
     - Adam's sin and banishment from Eden;
     - Eve's conception and pregnancy with Cain;
     - enough time for Cain and Abel to grow up;
     - the murder of Abel by Cain;
     - Eve's conception and pregnancy with Seth.
     
     IF each of the "yoms" in Genesis is an extended period and if we ignore completely the time necessary for the last four itemized events above to occur, then each "yom" could only be, AT MOST, 65 years per "yom" (130 years divided by the last two days of creation week). In reality, it would likely be no more than 57 or so years per "yom". The problem with this is that each of the theories that posit that "yom" in Genesis 1 means something other than a literal day do so in order to JAM PACK HUGE amounts of time into each "yom" in attempt to reconcile a belief in an "old earth" with Genesis 1. 65 years per "yom" in Genesis 1 (which it would be less considering the last four item in the above list) simply doesn't satisfy any of the "old earth" timelines.

Instead of just "this is what I believe", I'd appreciate it if you could focus on showing me where I am wrong in my objections above to interpreting the "yom"s of Genesis 1 as anything other than literal days.

Thanks!