What is your view on creation?

[sevenzedek]

I just don't know about this thread. There is so much potential for argument... I don't want to be a stir of the pot and I certainly don't want to be branded a heretic. Questions like this are interesting but then after awhile we start bickering.

I didn't answer either because there are not enough choices.

Do I believe God created the earth in 6 days? Sure - He says He did. Do I know they were consecutive, contiguous days? No, I don't, but I am sure someone here will correct me on this point.

Do I think that the earth is young? No I don't. There are too many gaps in our knowledge and we really don't know how long it was from when Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden until now. How long were they IN the garden?

Do I think evolution is a lie from the flames of hell? Nope. It leads TO the genius and mercy of God, not away from it. Tell me, do the many varieties of dogs come from randomness or design? We did that. Evolution is an act of active creation, in my opinion and it points towards intelligence. Do I believe it's a lie from hell to presume that humans can evolve? No. I can think of no better explanation for why we have races.

Listen, man and creation fell and God, in His mercy, designed our bodies (and those of the animals) to be able to survive in and adapt to harsh conditions. Do those of you who insist that the earth is 6,000 years old also believe that Adam and Eve were Caucasians? Or any the other existing races? All this being said, I believe in a literal Adam and Eve, created by God out of the dust. What they looked like is not my concern and I don't really even care.

In conclusion, this whole debate and whatever evidence we may find for or against evolution doesn't prove God is a liar. It proves that there's so much that we don't know.

Ummm... are you talking about micro-evolution or macro-evolution?

 

[sevenzedek]

#1. The insistence the all the days of creation contain 24 hours is In my most humble opinion a tad dogmatic in that the people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun, and knowing that the sun moon and stars were created on the fourth day tells me that man's measurement of a day is different than what God calls a day before the sun moon and stars were created. In other words, I see no reason to be dogmatic in stating the first 3 days were 24 hours. After day 4 I have no problem in believing our measurement of a day is exactly the same amount of time The Lord wishes to convey.

Uncertainty can also be a form of dogmatism too. Also, can one be considered "too dogmatic" when they have acceptable grounds for insistence? For my part, I would rather believe upon an obvious reading of the text rather than a philosophical import. I believe the import happens when we insert into the text that God could view a day as though it were many days to us. That is true, but is it there in the reading? God was not writing to us from his perspective. Rather, he was writing to us from our perspective and for our benefit. I think that is why he says "first day," "second day," and so forth. Since a day can be viewed as a twenty-four hour period after day 4, a day in the same context can easily be viewed as a similar twenty-four hour period of time for each day prior even though a sun never rose or set. If it were not so, why did the Lord not wish to convey so otherwise? He didn't. He said day when he could have something else. That is why I favor a twenty-four reading to be more plausible.

I do see your point about the first three days. I just find more the evidence pushes me the other way.

Why is this so important anyway? I suppose there are many implications from such a heavily argued point in the Scriptures.

 

[ReformedChristian]

6 Literal days and 24hrs I let the Biblical text speak on its own.

 

[earl40]

Why is this so important anyway? I suppose there are many implications from such a heavily argued point in the Scriptures.

I agree and my point I believe stands about the length of a day, without the sun, which was not created as of yet as revealed in Scripture.

 

[One Little Nail]

Apparently Genesis 1:1 happened at the beginning of the night which preceded the 23rd of October 4004BC


Bishop James Ussher Sets the Date for Creation: October 23, 4004 B.C.

 

[sevenzedek]

Why is this so important anyway? I suppose there are many implications from such a heavily argued point in the Scriptures.

I agree and my point I believe stands about the length of a day, without the sun, which was not created as of yet as revealed in Scripture.

I don't mind thinking hard about matters that appear insignificant on the surface. So, I belabor the the point.

I think you may have missed the issue I raised. If the word "day" equals an approximate twenty-four hour period after the fourth day, then the use of the same word, "day," before the fourth day must refer the same. To use the word "day" to describe an indefinite amount of time is inconsistent with the context if the word ever refers to an approximate twenty-four hour period in the same context. To put it another way, the use of the word puts parameters upon our understanding of its use before the fourth day. If this were not true, the another word should have been used.

If the issue is not so clearly defined regarding its use before the fourth day, then it is not really important for the days following because we segregate the context. If that is the case, then we open the door to allow the word to refer to an indefinite period of time anywhere we choose since the word becomes divorced from its context. This is where the "import" occurs.

Another thing that supports the view I am purposing is the fact that day, night, morning, and evening were all created on the first day; all intervals that speak to the same approximate twenty-four hour period of time for which I argue regarding the first three days. These intervals did not appear with the arrival of the sun.

 

[Romans922]

#1. The insistence the all the days of creation contain 24 hours is In my most humble opinion a tad dogmatic in that the people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun, and knowing that the sun moon and stars were created on the fourth day tells me that man's measurement of a day is different than what God calls a day before the sun moon and stars were created. In other words, I see no reason to be dogmatic in stating the first 3 days were 24 hours. After day 4 I have no problem in believing our measurement of a day is exactly the same amount of time The Lord wishes to convey.

So you would rather eisegete the passage because people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun? I just had (or am having now) a 25 hour day with daylight savings because of how people measure days. Take that hermeneutic and be consistent throughout all of Scripture, and you will be a blasphemer by the end of the day.

On such a debate with Scripture "In my most humble opinion" is not allowed. Prophets don't get the luxury of "In my most humble opinion". What matters is what Yahweh says. And He is clear.

 

[earl40]

#1. The insistence the all the days of creation contain 24 hours is In my most humble opinion a tad dogmatic in that the people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun, and knowing that the sun moon and stars were created on the fourth day tells me that man's measurement of a day is different than what God calls a day before the sun moon and stars were created. In other words, I see no reason to be dogmatic in stating the first 3 days were 24 hours. After day 4 I have no problem in believing our measurement of a day is exactly the same amount of time The Lord wishes to convey.

So you would rather eisegete the passage because people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun? I just had (or am having now) a 25 hour day with daylight savings because of how people measure days. Take that hermeneutic and be consistent throughout all of Scripture, and you will be a blasphemer by the end of the day.

On such a debate with Scripture "In my most humble opinion" is not allowed. Prophets don't get the luxury of "In my most humble opinion". What matters is what Yahweh says. And He is clear.

I hear you. Now show me where God said a day is approximately 24 hours long in the first 3 days of creation. The view I hold believes that a day could have been a lot longer than 12 hours for the light may not be what many think it is.

 

[earl40]

Why is this so important anyway? I suppose there are many implications from such a heavily argued point in the Scriptures.

I agree and my point I believe stands about the length of a day, without the sun, which was not created as of yet as revealed in Scripture.

I don't mind thinking hard about matters that appear insignificant on the surface. So, I belabor the the point.

I think you may have missed the issue I raised. If the word "day" equals an approximate twenty-four hour period after the fourth day, then the use of the same word, "day," before the fourth day must refer the same. To use the word "day" to describe an indefinite amount of time is inconsistent with the context if the word ever refers to an approximate twenty-four hour period in the same context. To put it another way, the use of the word puts parameters upon our understanding of its use before the fourth day. If this were not true, the another word should have been used.

If the issue is not so clearly defined regarding its use before the fourth day, then it is not really important for the days following because we segregate the context. If that is the case, then we open the door to allow the word to refer to an indefinite period of time anywhere we choose since the word becomes divorced from its context. This is where the "import" occurs.

Another thing that supports the view I am purposing is the fact that day, night, morning, and evening were all created on the first day; all intervals that speak to the same approximate twenty-four hour period of time for which I argue regarding the first three days. These intervals did not appear with the arrival of the sun.

As Jonah was in the belly of the whale for 72 hours?

"for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Hear we have the context of 3 days that is not 24 hours and no one is arguing for a strict time period even though the 3 days were less than 72 hours.

Also so far as intervals with the "arrival of the sun" why not assume God is defining the time of how long a day is from that day forward as the below says.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:

 

[sevenzedek]

Also so far as intervals with the "arrival of the sun" why not assume God is defining the time of how long a day is from that day forward...

Because he already defined it beforehand:

Genesis 1:5, 8, 13
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
8 ...And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
13 ...And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

And, as I said before, the interval existed before the arrival of the sun.

If the words "there was evening and there was morning, the... day" do not define the parameters of an approximate twenty-four hour period for the first three days, the context becomes lost and the door opens for us to import meaning into the text.

This is where my quote is fulfilled:

If that is the case, then we open the door to allow the word to refer to an indefinite period of time anywhere we choose since the word becomes divorced from its context. This is where the "import" occurs.

Is it not possible for God to describe the first three days in terms of what it would look like when the sun would finally be created? I would say yes simply because that is what he did on the first day where he said, "There was evening and there was morning, the first day." In order for your view to be correct, what he said cannot be true; unless you mean to say that a morning and evening do not equal a day as it does for the following days. And if it doesn't, then the door remains open for the rest of the Bible too.

Another thing to bear in mind is that God not only creates time in Genesis 1, he orders it there as well. If the word "day" can mean an indefinite period of time in the context of that particular chapter, the order is lost and days mean nothing anymore. God established this order before the arrival of the sun. The greater and lesser lights do not create that order. The order of days existed beforehand and the lights merely help us to identify that order.

 

[Romans922]

#1. The insistence the all the days of creation contain 24 hours is In my most humble opinion a tad dogmatic in that the people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun, and knowing that the sun moon and stars were created on the fourth day tells me that man's measurement of a day is different than what God calls a day before the sun moon and stars were created. In other words, I see no reason to be dogmatic in stating the first 3 days were 24 hours. After day 4 I have no problem in believing our measurement of a day is exactly the same amount of time The Lord wishes to convey.

So you would rather eisegete the passage because people who occupy history measure the length of a day by the rising and setting of the sun? I just had (or am having now) a 25 hour day with daylight savings because of how people measure days. Take that hermeneutic and be consistent throughout all of Scripture, and you will be a blasphemer by the end of the day.

On such a debate with Scripture "In my most humble opinion" is not allowed. Prophets don't get the luxury of "In my most humble opinion". What matters is what Yahweh says. And He is 8clear.

I hear you. Now show me where God said a day is approximately 24 hours long in the first 3 days of creation. The view I hold believes that a day could have been a lot longer than 12 hours for the light may not be what many think it is.

The real question is where in the text is it being shown that it was anything different than an ordinary literal day. Is there any purpose in the text to show it any differently than how someone of Israel in the time of Moses would have taken it?

 

[sevenzedek]

The real question is where in the text is it being shown that it was anything different than an ordinary literal day.

I don't want you to feel like I am ganging up on you, Earl, but that is the question begged.

 

[THE W]

Genesis 1:5, 8, 13
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
8 ...And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
13 ...And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

Couple this with what Jesus said in john 11:9-10

 

[earl40]

The real question is where in the text is it being shown that it was anything different than an ordinary literal day. Is there any purpose in the text to show it any differently than how someone of Israel in the time of Moses would have taken it?

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:

 

[earl40]

Genesis 1:5, 8, 13
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
8 ...And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
13 ...And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

Couple this with what Jesus said in john 11:9-10

As mentioned above God did indeed define 12 hours in a day from day four on.

 

[One Little Nail]

There are hermeneutics that would allow for a non-literal reading of Genesis which renders it neither wrong nor "rubbish." There are questions of genre and authorial intent that need to be dealt with before jumping to a conclusion that it MUST be literal.

Ok, make your case..

Yes you should state your case, this sounds like the echoing of Higher Criticism thought.