Are the days of creation real or are they periods?

Faith & Science Conversation
145

I understand. How do you reconcile the following…

  1. The origin of Sin
  2. What are the consequences of Sin
  3. Why did Jesus die for mankind
  4. Was Jesus death symbolic or real
  5. to answer q4,as Jesus death was physical, for what purpose was that necessary and not merely spiritual and how does it relate to the Old Testament Sanctuary service and the judgement at the end of biblical time
  6. What is the meaning/role of Messiah in terms of Sin and Salvation
  7. To what end did the angels speak in Acts 1:9-11

> 9 After He had said this, they watched as He was taken up, and a cloud hid Him from their sight. 10 They were looking intently into the sky as He was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven.”

  1. What is the purpose of Revelation 21:1-2 (which is a continuation of the prophecy in Isaiah 65)

> Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

The problem with theistic evolution is not the science…that is secondary to the huge theological problems it faces.

146

Just so you know. I’m not going to invest the time to answer all of those questions. In these forums you’ll find responses to many of them. You can slow search the website and find many resources. I’ll give some quick answers though.

What’s original sin? What specific verses are you looking at to support your understanding? I don’t see the phrase original sin in the Bible, or the concept. Adam sinned the exact same way you do and angels do. By disobeying God and doing what’s right in your eyes.

The consequences of sin, I presume you mean the ultimate result of unchecked sinfulness? The wages of sin is death. The death it’s talking about is not the first death we all faced, ifs the second death. The second death is symbolically understood as the lake of fire, as Gehenna ( translated as hell ) it’s the eternal punishment of dying post resurrection and remaining dead forever with no hope of eternal life.

Jesus died because of the hardness of human hearts refusing to obey God. He died to save us from the consequences of sin if we merely submit to him in faith.

Jesus death was real. The genre of the gospels indicate a different style than genesis 1-11.

As for the rest I have two suggestions .

Check out the episodes on heaven and earth by Tim Mackie with the “ Bible Project “ and the book “ surprised by hope “ by NT Wright.

147

The origin of sin is described in a relationship between God and two human individuals God adopted as His children, Adam and Eve. God gave them one of the typical parental commandments like “do not play in the street or you will surely die on the day you do so.” Adam and Eve did not physically die when they failed to follow God’s instructions but they did fall into some very self-destructive habits. Refusing to acknowledge their error they sought to blame everyone and everything but themselves. This is self-destructive and against the principle directive of life itself to learn from ones mistakes. Not only that but it transforms the role of God in their lives from greatest teacher to the biggest scapegoat. And the one thing that will break the relationship between parent and child is when the presence of the parent in the child’s life does more harm than good. So they had live by the consequences of their own efforts in order to learn that blaming other simply doesn’t work. This was their ejection from the “Garden of Eden” where they could have greater guidance of God to navigate the moral landscape of life.

So the consequences of self-destructive habits is that they destroy the integrity of the self and our capacity to make good choices by learning from our mistakes. Thus we quickly went from blaming others to killing others. And God’s gifts of greater life to us were turned into a curse of horror and misery which spread throughout the earth.

Jesus died because He was put to death as a criminal at the demand of so many people. It is hardly a surprise since our self-destructive habits had often led to the killing of those God sent to help us. It was a death Jesus could easily have evaded in any number of way if He was simply willing to back down, and thus we see His reference to the cup of Socrates in His garden prayer. Thus He likewise became a willing sacrifice, but the demand for it came not from God but from us. But from it we could learn many things. How much God loved us and hope of resurrection in a relationship with God.

In this I do not see questions but your own peculiar theology which I do not understand.

Yes Jesus death was physical. A spiritual death can only come about by a surrender to sin. Jesus demonstrated that the life of the spirit was vastly more important than physical life.

The role of messiah was a savior usually in the form of a judge or king who would save Israel from some threat of aggression by their neighbors by calling for repentance and faith. Jesus changed that role somewhat to victory over sin and a restoration of a relationship with God, realizing God’s dream in the OT of a people who had the law of God written on their hearts.

As for Acts 1:9-11 I have seen this used in many peculiar ways by various cults including that of the moonies to say that Jesus’ return would be the same manner as Jesus came the first time, by being born as an infant and growing up among us. I feel no inclination to take your own interpretation of this passage any more seriously than theirs. It frankly reminds me of the way some of the Jewish people interpreted messianic prophesies that would have Elijah returning on a chariot of fire to announce the coming of the messiah. Jesus said John the Baptist was the fulfillment of that prophecy – no chariot of fire!

148

A moot point. Sin is real no matter how old the earth is or who did or didn’t evolve from what. The only reason why it would be an issue is if you’re looking for someone to pass the buck to rather than taking responsibility for it for yourself.

Separation from God. That doesn’t depend on how old the earth is, or on who did or didn’t evolve from what.

To reconcile us to God. That doesn’t depend on how old the earth is, or on who did or didn’t evolve from what.

Real. That doesn’t depend on how old the earth is, or on who did or didn’t evolve from what.

That would take a whole essay, but it doesn’t depend on how old the earth is, or on who did or didn’t evolve from what.

Again, to reconcile us to God. That doesn’t depend on how old the earth is, or on who did or didn’t evolve from what.

The promise of Christ’s return. That doesn’t depend on how old the earth is, or on who did or didn’t evolve from what.

The promise of things to come – a new heaven and a new earth. That doesn’t depend on how old the earth is, or on who did or didn’t evolve from what.

Now a question for you, Adam. How do you reconcile a young earth with Deuteronomy 25:13-16?

13 Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. 14 Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. 15 You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. 16 For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.

And remember: telling me that I’m taking it out of context, that I’m overthinking it, that I’m taking it too literally, that I need to “balance” it against other verses of Scripture, or that it doesn’t apply for any other reason, are NOT legitimate answers as they are effectively demanding the right to tell lies.

7 Likes
149

Despite separation from God being entirely down to Him of course.

1 Like
150

Protection from the brilliance of the sun involves something on our part.

151

Neither Ps 90:4 nor 2 Peter 3:8 have anything to do with the creation account of Genesis. This is all that is needed…

Genesis 1… 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work… 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested.

While the singular word “day” (Hebrew “olam”) is used by many cultures to signify a general period of time (“back in the DAY of Abraham Lincoln”), the plural word “days” is NEVER used in that same idiomatic fashion.

So when God Himself says He created in six DAYS, the plural word “days” - in and of itself - clarifies that He was talking about six literal days… even without Him explicitly equating those six days with the six literal days the Israelites were to work before taking a day of rest.

152

Many people make the assumption that there cannot be “days” without the luminaries. But God created LIGHT on Day 1, and separated that light from the darkness. The light He called “day”, and the darkness He called “night”.

There were three light/dark cycles (days) before God created the luminaries and placed them into the firmament (which He created on Day 2 and named “heaven”).

153

Complete and utter poppycock.

2 Peter 3:8 follows straight on from 2 Peter 3:4-7 which is repeatedly weaponised by young earthists in defence of their whole position on creation and Flood geology and in an attack on “uniformitarianism”:

Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Either these verses have something to do with creation or they do not. You can’t have it both ways.

154

Yet, even though the days in Genesis 1 may be taken as literal days, the story itself may well not be a literal story. Just as when Frost wrote of the road that was not taken in the woods, he was talking about a literal road, but the story is about choices taken in life.

3 Likes
155

The six days of creation are not even part of Peter’s train of thought, James. The passage certainly supports the worldwide flood of Noah’s day, and also the Biblical teaching that the earth was formed out of water and by water. I don’t see how it is an argument against uniformitarianism, since Peter’s words, "everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation", is basically the very principle of uniformitarianism.

Of course Peter isn’t talking about geology any more than he’s talking about the six days of creation. The people to whom he refers are saying, “When exactly is this so-called salvation supposed to take effect, since anyone with eyes can see that the same evil and deception that has plagued mankind from the very creation still occurs today just as it always has.”

And Peter is simply telling them that while it might seem like a very long time from our point of view, God doesn’t experience time as we do, and so from His point of view, He’s handling things at the perfect speed needed for as many as possible to be saved.

They have no more to do with the actual creation account than they have to do with the flood. If he had said things keep going on just as they have been from the birth of Abraham (instead of from creation), the lesson wouldn’t have anything to do with Abraham himself.

1 Like
156

What would the “metaphorical/poetic” story of creation be about then, in your opinion?

1 Like
157

That is quite an onion to peel the layers back, but off the top of my head, some of the messages in the first few chapters are;

  1. Defining relationships. God-mankind, man-woman, mankind-creation, and of course God-creation.
  2. monotheism vs. the polytheism of the prevailing culture. Shows God is creator of all, and refuses to name the sun and moon as those names denoted deities, only referring to them as created lights.
  3. Giving a pattern for the Sabboth. (Man was not made for the Sabboth, but the Sabboth was made for man)
  4. When we get to Adam and Eve, it is an example of a right relationship with God, and how we have messed that up. Also the loss of innocence and the consequences of our actions. Also, the role of man in creation as God’s representative.

Sure I missed quite a few other themes we can learn from. I don‘t believe it tells us anything about the mechanics of creation as that would not be relevant to the purpose of the story, which is first and foremost to teach us about God. It is tempting to do so, and I confess to thinking in the past the “earth bringing forth life” was affirming evolution, but do not think so now.

1 Like
158

I’m not sure how to even answer this. It’s like reading the detailed account of the flood and concluding that the flood didn’t actually happen - it was just a way to teach us about God.

Or like reading a general summary of the Civil War and concluding that the battles never actually happened - it was just the author’s way of teaching us a little more about Lincoln.

159

It’s like reading a detailed account of the animal revolution in the book “Animal Farm” and concluding that the animal revolution of talking animals never happened - it was just an allegory for the Russian Revolution.

2 Likes
160

And what were the accounts of the creation and the flood allegories for?

161

I’ve always thought the Adam and Eve stories were great allegories for growing up. We start out innocent, and then we learn about good and evil. At that point, we can never go back to being children.

The flood narrative was clearly borrowed from other cultures. It is almost an exact copy of the flood story in the Enuma Elish. It even includes details like sending out a dove and a rainbow.

The moral of the story is pretty clear. God doesn’t like sinners, but will protect those who follow God.

1 Like
162

I can understand your difficulty. I can remember when I realized that the physical reality you could see and touch indicated an ancient earth, and later a progressive evolution of the development of life.
If you are a believer, that leaves you with a couple of options: Assume the Bible is literal science and reject physical evidence and the physical appearance of things, with the then difficult question of what kind of God would place all this contradictory evidence in the universe, or accept that the literal historical way you had of reading those parts of the Bible is wrong, and you have to look at things in a new way in order to integrate both scripture and physical reality into a coherent belief system. The third option, and one that is put forth by some in the YEC camp, is that you have to reject the Bible altogether.

163

Oh come on Mike. Verse 5 says, “But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.” If that’s not talking about creation then I don’t know what is.

But on the other hand, if he had said, “But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word Abraham and Sarah had a son although they were a hundred years old and ninety years old respectively” it would have had everything to do with Abraham himself.

In any case, even if we do concede that the link from 2 Peter 3:4-10 to creation is a tenuous one, at least it gives us something in terms of relating the Bible to the fact (and it is a fact, get over it) of deep geological time with its millions and billions of years. The only alternative is to believe that God created deceptive evidence on Earth for 4.5 billion years of detailed history that never happened, and in support of that, the Bible gives us nothing.

164

Obviously He didn’t maliciously, spitefully separate Himself from us, it is inescapable that He is relationally separate from nature as far as nature is concerned. Except in incarnation. And ‘by the Spirit’.