Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

the Days of Creation


Recommended Posts

  • Members

What does the Evolutionist say about Creation? 

What does it matter to us?

When I come to studying the Bible I don’t really give a hoot what other people believe, be they Pope or be they Darwinian, in that, what others believe doesn’t change that which it true. So with that in mind lets have a brief look at The Day and Night of Genesis, and then a few thoughts on the topic to finish.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I don’t think rules or principles of interpretation are always the best way to approach the Bible, rules are ok, but must never become chains to which we must submit the word of truth, there will always be exceptions to the rule, such as the so called The Johannine Comma () however in this case I will apply the so called rule of the first mention to see if it assists.

Here in we have light, darkness, we have Day and Night And the evening and the morning the first day.

The light has been made, it is called day, we have the darkness already, it is called night, we have evening and the morning which were the first day, and yet the sun and the moon have not yet been made, so what is the light that has been made???

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth…
The same word ‘day’ is used here to recount in some detail several days of the creation account in chapter one. So it isn’t referring to a single 24hour day or a single day as mentioned in Chapter one.

And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

This vision of the evening and the morning wasn’t in reference to a vision about a 24 hour time period

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it….
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Da 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.’ This also sounds like a long period of time is being talked about.

 

It sounds to me like God is still resting, or at least that there is no way this is talking about our sun day calendar days. No this is talking about the original days, God's Days.

I haven’t spent too much time on this point, but I think there is sufficient scriptural Evidence to support the view that the first day, and therefore the first week were not based on our sun. And so a dogmatic and judgemental attitude on this topic isn’t sustainable by scriptural standards.

Edited by Old-Pilgrim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Soooo...what exactly is the point you're trying to make about the first day and what does it have to do with the presence or absence of the sun? Is the dogmatic attitude you're talking about in reference to asserting a literal six 24-hour day creation week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I think far too many way overthink this, trying to see in it what just isn't there.

The Bible gives us the first day, which consisted of light and dark, and evening and a morning, the first day. That the word 'day', yom in the Hebrew, CAN refer to something other than a literal day, the fact that it is contextually tied to light and dark, and evening and morning, makes it very easily understandable as referring to a literal, 24 hour day, THE FIRST DAY. It could hardly be any plainer, except that man wants so badly to change what it plain. Like, oh, its just TOO plain. 

So yes, I believe it can be dogmatically held to a literal 6-day, 24 hour interpretation. The very establishment of time, in hours, days, weeks, months and years is founded upon the six-day interpretation, otherwise it is all just man-made and really has no meaning, save for what we choose to make of it. Why do we have a 7-day week, 12 month year? Why not just cut it up some other way? Because its how God created it. 

As for the vision of evening and morning, I suspect that refers literally to the times the vision was given, not reference to the content of the vision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'll just go ahead and put this out there in hopes it averts any potential doubt remaining about the need to be dogmatic on this...

Leading Hebrew scholar James Barr (who does not himself believe in Biblical creationism by the way) had this to say:

"...probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writes(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

  • creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
  • the figures contained in Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
  • Noah's flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those on the ark"

One should also note that until the 18th century when Charles Lyell began to push uniformitarian geology and Charles Darwin came up with his theory of evolution based on Lyell's deep time, the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, and individual churches for that matter, wholeheartedly asserted a young earth with a literal 6-day creation.

Finally, and most importantly, if you compromise a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 you undermine the following, which renders them meaningless and destroys your foundation for saving faith:

  1. The 3rd Commandment rests on a literal interpretation of the creation week (Ex 21:8-11; Deu 5:12-15)
  2. Jesus understood it as a literal event to support his teachings (ex. Matt 19:8; Mark 10:6)
  3. The explanation of the origin of sin and how it was overcome (Rom 5:12-21)

If you compromise here, you may as well throw the whole Bible out and make things up as you go. This is one of those foundational passages of the Bible on which the whole of Christianity rests. Without it, nothing else makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Soooo...what exactly is the point you're trying to make about the first day and what does it have to do with the presence or absence of the sun? Is the dogmatic attitude you're talking about in reference to asserting a literal six 24-hour day creation week?

sorry for my late reply I wasn't notified.

Dogmatic, I have heard people go as far as doubting that a Christian can believe anything other than a 24hour day.

QUESTION  what is the light that has been made Gen1:5 Because it is called DAY and made the first DAY of the seven day week of Genesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think far too many way overthink this, trying to see in it what just isn't there.

The Bible gives us the first day, which consisted of light and dark, and evening and a morning, the first day. That the word 'day', yom in the Hebrew, CAN refer to something other than a literal day, the fact that it is contextually tied to light and dark, and evening and morning, makes it very easily understandable as referring to a literal, 24 hour day, THE FIRST DAY. It could hardly be any plainer, except that man wants so badly to change what it plain. Like, oh, its just TOO plain. 

So yes, I believe it can be dogmatically held to a literal 6-day, 24 hour interpretation. The very establishment of time, in hours, days, weeks, months and years is founded upon the six-day interpretation, otherwise it is all just man-made and really has no meaning, save for what we choose to make of it. Why do we have a 7-day week, 12 month year? Why not just cut it up some other way? Because its how God created it. 

As for the vision of evening and morning, I suspect that refers literally to the times the vision was given, not reference to the content of the vision. 

QUESTION  what is the light that has been made Gen1:5 Because it is called DAY and made the first DAY of the seven day week of Genesis.

That has got to be a cue for some  prayerful meditation.

Apparently All Christians used to believe that the earth travelled round the sun, very few Christians dogmaticly hold to that view any more.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 Why do we have a 7-day week, 12 month year? Why not just cut it up some other way? Because its how God created it. 

As for the vision of evening and morning, I suspect that refers literally to the times the vision was given, not reference to the content of the vision. 

I think the days are obviously determined by the cycles of the sun in relation to the earth, and the Hebrews used the moon for times as well, it says that is what they are for, times and seasons for us. But the week probably never started until God gave revelation to Moses, he spoke to him face to face, i think that is when the week would have started, based on the week of Genesis, but as wee see throughout scripture, God has His days, and we have ours.

Does it matter? well As the sun and moon are for times and seasons for us, the only possible purpose of God revealing a little about his week and his days would most likely be to teach us something about his times and seasons, such as Him not being slack concerning his promises.

Edited by Old-Pilgrim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The source of the light is largely irrelevant, but Rev 21:23 indicates that it could have been God's glory if nothing else. The presence of the sun is not necessary for light to exist.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you feel that it is wrong to dogmatically assert a 24-hour day? Why look for any interpretation other than the obvious and plain meaning on this one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The source of the light is largely irrelevant, but Rev 21:23 indicates that it could have been God's glory if nothing else. The presence of the sun is not necessary for light to exist.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you feel that it is wrong to dogmatically assert a 24-hour day? Why look for any interpretation other than the obvious and plain meaning on this one?

I don't see any harm in believing it to be a seven '24 hour day' week, but now that I see that it cannot be that, then I think it is wrong for others to unnecessarily oppress me and try to intimidate me to conform to an interpretation which I have grown out of, I honestly don't worry about people believing in a 'man's week' time scale for creation, and if what I am seeing is right, then it can only put me in a more spacious and better place ready to be taught perhaps the next point, perhaps on for example, what happens after Harvest? well generally there is a change of season and then another spring, and then another harvest, and so on, it is never ending, so we have the Gospel harvest due in its season, then what Is it never ending too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'll just go ahead and put this out there in hopes it averts any potential doubt remaining about the need to be dogmatic on this...

Leading Hebrew scholar James Barr (who does not himself believe in Biblical creationism by the way) had this to say:

"...probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writes(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

  • creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
  • the figures contained in Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
  • Noah's flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those on the ark"

One should also note that until the 18th century when Charles Lyell began to push uniformitarian geology and Charles Darwin came up with his theory of evolution based on Lyell's deep time, the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, and individual churches for that matter, wholeheartedly asserted a young earth with a literal 6-day creation.

Finally, and most importantly, if you compromise a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 you undermine the following, which renders them meaningless and destroys your foundation for saving faith:

  1. The 3rd Commandment rests on a literal interpretation of the creation week (Ex 21:8-11; Deu 5:12-15)
  2. Jesus understood it as a literal event to support his teachings (ex. Matt 19:8; Mark 10:6)
  3. The explanation of the origin of sin and how it was overcome (Rom 5:12-21)

If you compromise here, you may as well throw the whole Bible out and make things up as you go. This is one of those foundational passages of the Bible on which the whole of Christianity rests. Without it, nothing else makes sense.

I'll go off and have a look at you three points on scripture now....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree That Genesis is literal. I believe it is historical  in our scientific sense of the word from At least chapter 2 I didn't see anything in those verses which deny what I am saying, I think one of the earliest mentions of the Sabath is  Ex 35:1 And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them. Ex 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.  This might have been about the time when a seven day week was established, Adam might have passed some history down to Moses time, But would Adam have had the revelation of Gen 1 which God Gave to Moses? The principle of one man and one woman seems to have been passed down to some degree either by Adam & Co or simply nature, but was perhaps being lost sight of by the time of Moses.

 

 

 

Edited by Old-Pilgrim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

I'll just go ahead and put this out there in hopes it averts any potential doubt remaining about the need to be dogmatic on this...

Leading Hebrew scholar James Barr (who does not himself believe in Biblical creationism by the way) had this to say:

"...probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writes(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

  • creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
  • the figures contained in Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
  • Noah's flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those on the ark"

One should also note that until the 18th century when Charles Lyell began to push uniformitarian geology and Charles Darwin came up with his theory of evolution based on Lyell's deep time, the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, and individual churches for that matter, wholeheartedly asserted a young earth with a literal 6-day creation.

Finally, and most importantly, if you compromise a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 you undermine the following, which renders them meaningless and destroys your foundation for saving faith:

  1. The 3rd Commandment rests on a literal interpretation of the creation week (Ex 21:8-11; Deu 5:12-15)
  2. Jesus understood it as a literal event to support his teachings (ex. Matt 19:8; Mark 10:6)
  3. The explanation of the origin of sin and how it was overcome (Rom 5:12-21)

If you compromise here, you may as well throw the whole Bible out and make things up as you go. This is one of those foundational passages of the Bible on which the whole of Christianity rests. Without it, nothing else makes sense.

I understand a certain uneasiness about moving to a theological  position which seems to be closer to the worlds, but why should we fear them, they are but the hand and the sword of the Lord?

I would say the third Commandment rests on the faith of the revelation of God to Moses, confirmed by the Prophets the Lord and the Apostles. I affirm that God Created Man Adam, male and female made he them, upright and they sought out evil. They never evolved nor are they evolving now.

I believe that the day will dawn and the day star will arise in our heart and so we should expect more understanding in general.2Pe 1:19

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Old Pilgrim, again, you're trying to read too much into it. You say it CAN'T be a literal 14-hour, 7-day week. By what basis can you say that? The plain, clear reading insists it must be that.

What was the light created on day 1? Was it the showing forth of God's light? Maybe, but I don't think so. What did we have present at that point? God, the earth, which was water, or at least, only water showing, and darkness. It has been shown that when water is subjected to certain sound waves, it will produce light. For all we know, the light came from the sound of God's voice, saying "Let there be light", causing the water to literally glow. For God to separate that light, from whatever source, from the dark, and create a day/night cycle, is not problem for a God who can do all else He does. He is a God of order, and the first order of business was to create the basis for time, to which all else of His physical creation would be subject. Not seeing the problem here.

 

It really seems like you are fighting and struggling to find some other way to interpret the creation, as though because so many believe it to be literal and a young earth, somehow that means its wrong. Its so simple, so plainly written, that to deny it would mean to stretch.

I have dealt at length with some gap theorists recently, and what I found to be their main focus was a re-interpretation of a single verse in Hebrews, and insistence that while they consider themselves KJV-only, yet ALL the English translations have gotten two tiny details in gen 1 wrong, and somehow, from these tiny, insignificant examples of what they claim to be wrong in translation, this proves that Lucifer ruled a pre-Adamic world for millions of years, and that his sin brought death into the world, not Adam's.  no real scriptural proof. And you provide no proof for your stand, you just seem like you just...don't want to accept it.

Edited by Ukulelemike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree That Genesis is literal. I believe it is historical  in our scientific sense of the word from At least chapter 2 I didn't see anything in those verses which deny what I am saying, I think one of the earliest mentions of the Sabath is  Ex 35:1 And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them. Ex 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.  This might have been about the time when a seven day week was established, Adam might have passed some history down to Moses time, But would Adam have had the revelation of Gen 1 which God Gave to Moses? The principle of one man and one woman seems to have been passed down to some degree either by Adam & Co or simply nature, but was perhaps being lost sight of by the time of Moses.

Conjecturing that Adam may have observed a Sabbath or passed down the revelation is unnecessary since Moses received the revelation from God Himself. Truly, it's irrelevant to the point.

    I understand a certain uneasiness about moving to a theological  position which seems to be closer to the worlds, but why should we fear them, they are but the hand and the sword of the Lord?

It's not about uneasiness, it's about staying faithful to what the Scripture says because that's what it says. Moving to the theological position that is closer to the world only serves the purpose of capitulating to an atheistic worldview. The only  reason the six 24-hour day creation view was ever reconsidered was to try to harmonize the Bible with the atheistic worldview of uniformitarianism/evolution. To accept anything other than what the Bible plainly says is to consciously deny God's eye-witness account of creation in favor of man's theory that presumes God doesn't exist. It is no different than denying that homosexuality, or adultery, or divorce, or blasphemy, or idolatry are sins. The Bible plainly declares them to be so. Such is the case with the Creation account.

    I would say the third Commandment rests on the faith of the revelation of God to Moses, confirmed by the Prophets the Lord and the Apostles. I affirm that God Created Man Adam, male and female made he them, upright and they sought out evil. They never evolved nor are they evolving now.

I would say the third commandment rests on the fact that God created everything in existence over a 6-day timespan. It's right there in the verse:

Ex 20:11 - "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Both "For" and "wherefore" are statements of purpose that explain the reason for the commandment. You may have to accept the commandment by faith, but it's efficacy rests upon the fact of a 6-day creation.

I'm glad you don't believe in evolution, but you're straddling the fence between God's Word and man's denial of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...