Are the days of creation real or are they periods?

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

Here he used the word evolution in relation to the simultaneous creation of things. Some people think that when we say evolution, what we say is outside the Bible. No, the perfection that we discover in the creation, shows us that there is a God and that everything has followed his plan.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@FLARIMI0701

Extraterrestrials do not exist.

@FLARIMI0701

Aliens do not exist.

Your knowledge of this does not exist.

@FLARIMI0701

Man was created as the lord of the universe through this blessing “rule the earth and subdue it”.

A good demonstration of how you feel free to rewrite the Bible.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

@marta

@adamjedgar

The sun moon and stars referred to in the creation story related only to our region…it does not represent the rest of the universe.

Hi Adam! I’m not sure if we have a lot in common, but that what you mentioned here is something I realized recently. I see nobody else acknowledged it, so I thought at least I will let you know that there are other people who noticed it too. God bless

the stars mentioned in the creation story are not only about our region… they represent the whole universe. Indeed, with our eyes, we believe that all the stars occupy the same position. It is from 1925 that Edwin Hubble could observe through the telescope that there was a shift in their positions. And, he concluded that some are not part of our galaxy. The inspirer of the biblical scheme of creation knew this.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

@jpm

@adamjedgar

The sun moon and stars referred to in the creation story related only to our region…it does not represent the rest of the universe.

Interesting take, but to me that seems like we would be reading something into the text that would be incomprehensible to the original author and audience. They saw the earth sun moon and stars as all part of the original creation, and would not understand that there were billions of galaxies with billions of stars that were unseen in the sky until the Hubble telescope was focused on them thousands of years later. They saw stars a something completely different than we do today, and indistinguishable from the tiny bits of space dust that we see as meteorites when they enter the atmosphere and they considered a fallen star.
The “gap age” interpretation is a good intermediate step in understanding how scripture can be comparable with our knowledge of physical reality, but ultimately is inadequate to fully integrate into a cohesive understanding of both, much as progressive creationism falls short.

Thank you very much, but even in our time, many people do not have the notion of galaxies and think that everything is limited to what our eyes see.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

If you follow these links, it may clear your head.
For those who have not yet followed the thread of my publications in this forum, in our previous publications, I had developed the following themes which are very important to understand the biblical pattern of creation, namely:

• The biblical days were periods ( Cfr : Are the days of creation real or are they periods? ),
• The difference between the spiritual heaven and the physical heaven or space in the verse “in the beginning God created the heaven”. (cfr: : What does “in the beginning God created the heaven” (i) )
• The difference between the earth representing the universe and the earth representing our planet in the verse “in the beginning God created… the earth”. (cfr: What does “in the beginning god created… the earth” mean? )
• The meaning of what “the spirit of God moved upon the waters” means in cosmology (cfr: What does “the spirit of God moved upon the waters” mean in cosmology? - Open Forum / Scientific Evidence - The BioLogos Forum)), and the meaning of “the deep” in the verse “there was darkness in the surface of the deep”.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

@jpm

@adamjedgar

It says, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

If you a concordist or literalist, it says: in the beginning God created the heavens And In the beginning God created the earth. I am not a concordist, so it doesn’t matter to me, but I don’t understand how you are separating them

If you follow these links, you will understand what this first Bible verse means. The sky here does not represent the blue sky we see and the earth does not represent our planet earth.

• The difference between the spiritual heaven and the physical heaven or space in the verse “in the beginning God created the heaven”. (cfr: : What does “in the beginning God created the heaven” (i) )
• The difference between the earth representing the universe and the earth representing our planet in the verse “in the beginning God created… the earth”. (cfr: What does “in the beginning god created… the earth” mean? )

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

You are right, the Bible has only cited the big picture and the final stages. It is well said “God made luminaries” which represent all that we see in the sky with our eyes. Whether new galaxies are discovered in these days, they are all part of the luminaries in our eyes. What did they want the Bible to quote again that would be misunderstood by the ancient people? Every literary language adapts to its time.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

@adamjedgar

I think the Bible very specifically says “Adam named all the animals” in Genesis ch 2.

I would find that a very difficult statement for any Christian to ignore. If evolved over millions of years…then Adam could not possibly have named each one. This would make Moses a liar…and I don’t believe he is telling porkies.
The parallel universe idea I agree could explain a lot of things about the creation story and intelligent life we don’t seem to be able to find.
This doesn’t help the evolutionary model though. I think it’s apart from that.

Yes, you are right, the Bible says very precisely “Adam named all the animals” in Genesis chapter 2. But which animals? They were animals which they could see in the sphere where he lived. Before America was discovered, it was thought that the dry earth was limited to four continents. It was the same with Adam. For him, what they saw was everything. But this verse is to tell us that it is man who gives the names and he continues to do so until today.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

Moreover, their consideration does not change anything in the verse that says “Let there be lights in heaven”. Everything in the sky is presented to our eyes as lights. What did they want the Bible to add?

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

@adamjedgar

he reason theists rally against evolutionary based theology is because in all honesty, in order to reconcile Darwinian theory with Christian theology, one must make some woefully innadequite statements about what are very definately, self evident Bible concepts.
These concepts really are foundational to all Christian belief.
For example, in the Darwinian based religious model, sin did not bring death. In fact death already existed before Adam and Eve.

That is a woeful understanding of the Gospel and indeed the entire reason for the crucifixion. Jesus very definately died to save us from the eternal death that sin brought to this world. There is simply no way to reconcile the literal death part of this narrative with that which is being put forward here. A saviour who dies literally says something very important about the nature of death in Genesis ch 3.
Unlike the 7day creation account, death was not stated as instantaneous. I think if one was to think logically about it…if God killed Adam and Eve instantly, how would that allow for a compassionate creator to enact a plan of salvation? Also, when we consider why sin came to this world, we know it was because of the charge Lucifer made against God in heaven prior to the fall of Adam and Eve. Lucifer claimed God was selfish. If God had of simply killed Adam and Eve, it would have given Lucifer adequate justification for that charge against God to the rest of creation (intelligent life on other worlds). I think this is well illustrated and indeed explained in the book of Job.

I have never seen this development in the book of Job. The people with whom Job was arguing were not speaking from God and they were not prophets. They were even condemned by God at the end through this verse: “Now when the Lord had spoken these words to Job, he said to Elifaz of Teman, ‘My anger is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of me rightly as my servant Job has done’”. (Job 42:7). So, we must not take their words as if they came from God just because they are contained in the Bible.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

@jpm

@adamjedgar

I would find that a very difficult statement for any Christian to ignore.

I agree, as there are thousands of animals all over the world that Adam could not possibly have come in contact with, so a literal reading give’s insurmountable problems that leads one to conclude that something else is going on here.

This verse is to let us know that it is man who gives names to all things. To this day God continues to send us new creatures that we discover in the depths of the oceans or in the middle of the forest and it is man who represents Adam who continues to give names. Even in space, it is always man who gives. Your problem is that you always want to judge the Bible to the letter without putting this text in its context of antiquity. Where Adam found himself, this is what represented the Universe for him. If he sees only chickens and goats in front of him and he gives them these names, what will he say? He will say that I gave the names to all the animals. Did he lie? No, he is telling the truth about what he saw. If we discover others and give their names, should we question this verse?

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

@marta

@MarkD

think the Bible’s creation story is true.

And on today’s episode of “I can’t believe an atheist said that”…
I also think it’s true. Just not in scientific way, and it’s not telling us full story because why should it?

@MarkD

So I find myself wondering whether yesterday, today and tomorrow are not also days of creation?

100% they are. There are new beginnings everyday.

@adamjedgar

I think the Bible very specifically says “Adam named all the animals” in Genesis ch 2.

I would find that a very difficult statement for any Christian to ignore.

I’m not ignoring it, I just think it’s symbolical rather than literal. Naming things could be perceived as a symbol of having power over it.

I already answered him that this verse meant that it is up to man to name everything, because, even until today, God does not stop showing us news and it is man of this day as Adam who still continues to give name. We can’t even argue about this verse. By creating man, God established him as lord of all things. And, Adam, "by naming what was visible in his presence meant to him the naming of all things.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

@Klax

@adamjedgar

I think the Bible very specifically says “Adam named all the animals” in Genesis ch 2.

I would find that a very difficult statement for any Christian to ignore.

What on Earth has that got to do with God in Christ?

The environment in which Adam lived represented the universe for him. What he saw was what he named and this represented for all of creation. So he also had to say that I named everything. If we, we discover more and continue to make nominations in place of Adam, it is always the continuation of this verse; for man was created as lord of the Universe.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

@adamjedgar

self evident Bible concepts…

The “self-evident” descriptor has become notorious, I think. As in, we usually don’t say something like “ Obviously this is the way it is…” unless it apparently was in fact not obvious enough , because here we are needing to say it. I suspect that what “self-evident” really means is “I’ve becomed so accustomed to thinking this way, and this is such a well-worn path or groove in my mind, that I am no longer able to even conceive of any other way of thinking about it.” I know I do that as a teacher who has taught the same subjects for many years now. But every fresh batch of students I face can remind me that my confidence about the self-evident nature of something does not necessarily translate into ‘self-evident’ for them.

The fact that many Christians do just fine basing their faith on Christ rather than on a particular understanding of the Genesis creation accounts indicates to me that they don’t find some of these same things to be ‘self-evident’ that you do.

This text does not deserve to be in this link because it just broke the thread. It deserves its own link because it is a very important subject which has the title “Let there be light! and fossil radiation”

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

This text does not deserve to be in this link because it just broke the thread. It deserves its own link because it is a very important subject which has the title "Let there be light! and fossil radiation"

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

No ‘he’ wasn’t. We’re lords of a few million cubic light years, glorified.

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@FLARIMI0701

This verse is to let us know that it is man who gives names to all things. To this day God continues to send us new creatures that we discover

I don’t think it is quite like that…there is a difference between a previously undiscovered animal and new evolutionary species.
The point of Adam naming ALL the animals in Genesis is that all animals we see today came from those God created on day 6 and which Adam named.

Obviously Adam didn’t name pugs or Dalmatians…these are breeds which are descendants of what God created on day 6.
I personally think that the explanation for this is best illustrated by the Ark Encounter when accounting for how many animals were able to fit into the ark and yet remain consistent with the very obvious scientific observations of animals species that have existed since the flood.

[SkovandOfMitaze (Mi)]

I mean unless you look at the fossil record and see all the species that are no longer here .

How many kinds of animals were on the ark? How many species was there? Also…. Breeds are different from species. Pugs and labs are both breeds of dogs as you mentioned. But they are a different species from wolves… then wolves they came from are different species also from other wolves…. And wolves are different from foxes…. Are foxes and wolves from the same ancestor on the ark or they from separate species on the ark?

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

And then you have penguins and polar bears.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

The penguins would likely win the “who has traveled furthest” award at the open session of the ark welcoming dinner.