Are the days of creation real or are they periods?

[Buzzard]

If you ask me, the days of creation are not real and nor are they periods.

[beaglelady]

@jammycakes

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

What about covid-19? Doesn’t that depend on how old the earth is?

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

What would the 3rd Bt. say?

[Buzzard]

What is “the 3rd Bt.”?

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

Ah, so you’re not of the British aristocracy.

[St.Roymond]

One problem: the phrase “heavens and Earth” are an ancient Hebrew way of saying “everything that exists”.

[St.Roymond]

Ancient rabbis, back before Galileo ever set eyes on a lens, interpreted the first five and a half days as “divine days” since God was the only one there who could count time. They also concluded that those days were uncountably long beyond human imagining.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@MikeBoll

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

@T_aquaticus

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.

If simply thinking something could be a fable is the only criterion, then everything in the Bible could be considered allegorical. Is there anything in the Bible that you consider a legitimate historical account? If so, give me an example, and I’ll think it into an allegorical kid’s story for you using your own words: “The moral of the story is pretty clear. God doesn’t like sinners, but will protect those who follow God.”

I could probably do the same with any secular historical account that you believe is legit.

@T_aquaticus

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.

Is it possible that the event actually occurred and that the descendants of Noah kept relating the event down through the generations so that nearly every culture had their own version of an actual event?

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@jpm

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.

You left out an option: Accept the Bible as true without having to reject one iota of physical evidence.

That is the option I have chosen.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@jammycakes

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.

I offer you another alternative: The evidence itself isn’t deceptive. You’ve just been deceived into believing that the evidence can only be interpreted according to one certain paradigm - and further deceived into thinking that your faith-based belief in this one particular interpretation constitutes a fact.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

@MikeBoll

Accept the Bible as true without having to reject one iota of physical evidence.

How does that differ from my second option? I see them as the same, accepting that my earlier understanding was wrong, accepting my failure to understand. Please tell me how that differs.

[Bill_II]

@MikeBoll

You’ve just been deceived into believing that the evidence can only be interpreted according to one certain paradigm

Slight problem with your reasoning. Scientific interpretation is not the same as Biblical interpretation. A few of the differences:

Scientific interpretation:

• Can be reproduced by other researchers.
• Is based on mutually accepted rules.
• When found to be incorrect and a better interpretation is found the consensus changes to the new interpretation.
• Can be used to make predictions which can then be tested to see if the interpretation is correct.

The last point is what really makes a difference in the two “interpretations.”

Biblical interpretation:

• Is rarely agreed to by other scholars.
• Is based on any number of different rules.
• Contains assumptions that direct the resulting interpretation.
• Is unable to make precise predictions for the future.
• Is untestable.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@MikeBoll

You’ve just been deceived into believing that the evidence can only be interpreted according to one certain paradigm

The paradigm that I believe evidence can only be interpreted according to is this:

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. — Deuteronomy 25:13-16

I’m sorry, but if you think that insisting on accurate and honest weights and measures is “being deceived,” then you must be using some strange new meaning of the words “being deceived” of which I was not previously aware.

[Terry_Sampson ([UILA])]

• If a person believes that something can come from nothing, that person can believe that God created the something out of nothing or that everything that exists originated in nothing: Same evidence, two different interpretations. You dispute the theistic interpretation and affirm the scientific materialistic interpretation.
• I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you’re standing on as much nothing as the theists that you criticize are.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@MikeBoll

You’ve just been deceived into believing that the evidence can only be interpreted according to one certain paradigm - and further deceived into thinking that your faith-based belief in this one particular interpretation constitutes a fact.

No amount of twisting and distortion can concoct evidence for a young, flat earth under a solid firmament dome.

[Hercnav (Robert)]

The days of creation are 24 hour days, per plain analysis of the text. The question we YEC ask is, what took so long? God did not need 6 days. Six days was there for man and in fact is our work week today, well for a lot of people. Six days and a day of rest. I realize you professors on university campus have a lighter schedule. Moreover, the Big Bang is starting to collapse under its own weight and from the forum it will be Biologos last to this party. From the time horizon problem, to the sea salt problem, to the total and utter lack of a transitional form, to a geologic column that only exists in text books, to the undeniable evidence of Mt St Helens for rapid layer formation, to the need to say that iron can now preserve a blood vessel for 65 million years, to the almost uncountable counterfeit evidences brought forward that still appear in “science” books, to this final fact, when we get to heaven and I say to the Lord creator who spoke everything in existence that I believed His word as written and authenticated it was 24 hours and the order in which he did it supports the redemptive plan for man, I’m feeling real confident in my position. Besides reviewing all of the facts from God’s point of view. Have a good 24 hour day.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

A good article touching on several of your points relating to biblical interpretation:
https://normangeisler.com/does-believing-in-inerrancy-require-one-to-believe-in-young-earth-creationism/?fbclid=IwAR0RaKSSutwPVYVXzNz6YCj4eakhQVlrCew6nEIhO6vMUt2G0aVyAEGGYUQ
The rest have been addressed and refuted many times, so no need to do so again.

[T_aquaticus]

@MikeBoll

Is it possible that the event actually occurred and that the descendants of Noah kept relating the event down through the generations so that nearly every culture had their own version of an actual event?

Given the evidence, it isn’t possible. The evidence directly contradicts a recent global flood.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Hercnav

when we get to heaven and I say to the Lord creator who spoke everything in existence that I believed His word as written

You YECs keep making a lot of noise about believing God’s Word as written, but are you obeying God’s Word as written? In particular, are you obeying this?

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. — Deuteronomy 25:13-16

Any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1, any challenge to the scientific consensus that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years or that evolution is a fact, MUST obey these verses. Any such challenge or doctrine of creation that does not obey these verses is not scientific, is not Biblical, and is not honest.

@Hercnav

From the time horizon problem, to the sea salt problem, to the total and utter lack of a transitional form, to a geologic column that only exists in text books, to the undeniable evidence of Mt St Helens for rapid layer formation, to the need to say that iron can now preserve a blood vessel for 65 million years

Do any of these claims of evidence for a young earth obey the Bible’s demands for accurate and honest measurement? From what I’ve seen, they don’t.

@Hercnav

to the almost uncountable counterfeit evidences brought forward that still appear in “science” books

To claim that an “uncountable” number of evidences must all be counterfeit is the mother of all conspiracy theories.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that hundreds of thousands of professional scientists would all have collaborated together in tight collusion with each other to fabricate vast swathes of extraordinarily detailed and self-consistent evidence for 4.5 billion years of history that never happened, at the cost of trillions of dollars to their employers and the taxpayer? Are you seriously saying that none of the retired scientists, former scientists who had left the industry and no longer had any skin in the game, or Muslim scientists in Middle Eastern countries would be blowing the whistle on such a thing? Are you seriously trying to tell us that Wikileaks is complicit in it, and that investigative journalists—whose job it is to blow the gaff on shenanigans like that—are complicit in it too? Are you seriously suggesting that scientists working in other fields, competing against it for funding and government grants, would not be kicking up a stink about it either?

To suggest that such a vast conspiracy could possibly have a shred of a basis in reality would make NASA faking the moon landings, 9/11 being an inside job, MI5 being behind the death of Princess Diana, chemtrails, alien spacecraft in Area 51, and the US Navy covering up the existence of mermaids all look like child’s play by comparison. If this really could be happening, then it is difficult if not impossible to think of a conspiracy that could not.

I’m sorry, but conspiracies on that scale simply do not happen. It’s as simple as that.