Are the days of creation real or are they periods?

Faith & Science Conversation
141

and there is the caveat…“whilst still fairly young”. You made this decision in the immaturity of youth and almost certainly as a result of poor theological understanding and suspect doctrine.

Let me illustrate what I mean as I am not trying to be disrespectful or trash your decision as an individual…

I was once an avid golfer, who spent thousands of hours on practice fairways and driving ranges. I seriously hit thousands of gold balls every week for years…so much so, i had to give the sport away due to repetitive injury to shoulders, hips, knees and ankles.

The irony of my story is this, i never achieved professional status or indeed even A grade status!

The reasons were two fold however the most important, i was practicing bad habits! That is a universal issue across so many Christian denominations…there are huge numbers of individuals who’s theology is utterly crap (pardon the use of such a word). To put a positive spin on this, I think the fortunate thing for all of us is that Jesus simplified the requirements of salvation such that its easy to follow without getting tangled up in the finer points of theology and doctrine. Having said that, his simplification still includes those finer details. For example, He never once said to the pharasees or others listening “don’t keep the Sabbath”! He demonstrated “How to keep the Sabbath”!

So when i read an individual state words to the effect “when i was young i saw the light and turned away from all this nonsense” I immediately become suspicious of the real motivation behind the world view they formerly held but left! This is why I am a member of the denomination I follow currently…its doctines remain very harmonious with the big picture of the bible plan of salvation, biblical history, prophetic timelines, and the Old Testament Law combined with New Testament Gospel.

Once one starts to take away from parts of the Bible, the rest quickly becomes untenable…then individuals lose their way due to an awakening to the insurmountable theological problems that arise as a result. I accept that YECism has a lot of catching up to do with Humanism’s interpretation of science, however, it is very clear that even in just a short few decades of study, YEC scientists are tearing apart the non-christians position in this field. The problems being raised in opposition to Darwinian views are massive and in many many fundamental areas result in the secular humanistic view having only a single answer “we don’t know yet”!

142

I made the decision because I grasped basic science. I stuck with it, because I continued to grasp science. I gave up beliefs I held as a kid that were not in agreement with the real world.

So as a kid, I believed in a mud man split in half that became a woman and they were tricked by a talking snake and kicked out of garden so they could not eat magical fruit.

As an adult, I recognize things like half lives, speed of light from distant stars and things like the fossil record showcasing basal forms diverging into new species. So…. The young beliefs… was the silly ones.

And no the few thousand young earth creationist who have a degree in science are not tearing apart the millions of scientists who can pass a middle school science test.

When there is a gap. Which one is better.

  1. We don’t know yet but are working on it. We see some evidence though this and that. But it will take time for us to continue studying it out.

  2. Magic did it.

1 Like
143

Humbly accept your point above. I do look at things a little differently however, I don’t minimalise the essence of the creation account and 4500 years of biblical history in favour of the modern scientific model that stems from a denial of A God.

The reason why there are only a few YEC’ers opposing hundreds of thousands of humanistic scientists is very obvious. Up until recently, the YEC movement did not attempt to counter the evolutionary view. It instead focused on the traditional Christian view that God will fix this Himself without human input! (a bit like the flat earthers and redneck conspiracy theorists who claim God would never allow man to go to the moon).

In my Scientific search I start way back at the beginning…the fundamental link in the chain…its very anchor point has a huge philosophical problem, the origin of energy!

Humanism does not have, nor do I believe it will ever have, an answer to the question of how did all this actually start? One cannot claim parallel universes (that only makes the problem worse). It is a ridiculous proposition to have people believe that, against all previous scientific claims, energy and matter can be created and destroyed. I find it insulting to my intelligence that a mathematician once attempted to create an equation that put forward the view that if something came into existence for what is essentially a tiny winy period of time, it basically remains nothing and that therefore the big bang coming from “essentially nothing” is rational!

the problem is, we have not once had any success in proving that hypothesis and claim. So if we cannot do it, the law that states that energy and matter cannot be created and destroyed remains.

until the foundation principle of all Science is proven false and man creates something from nothing in the laboratory, I believe the humanistic world view including the Darwinian model is a sham! Actually the words “Scientific Ponzi Scheme” come to mind. I am taking a bit of literary license in labelling it like this obviously and I recognise that the same could be said of YEC Scientists, however in the context of the philosophical debate about the Epsitomological questions that are answered by the Bible, Christians need to ensure that sound theology (including that of self evident biblical writings) matches the science. That is not the case with TEism which has some overwhelmingly difficult and even untenable theological issues in its belief structure

Scientific Ponzi Scheme
**

the incentive to commit fraud is enhanced by the structure of the scientific reward system. Science is an “accumulation process:” success begets resources which begets more success. Through a simplified mathematical model, I argue that this cyclic relationship enhances the appeal of fraud and makes combating it extremely difficult. The Scientific Ponzi Scheme - PhilSci-Archive

**

144

Not hundreds of thousands. Millions.

Science does not stem from the denial of god. Neither does math, English or social studies.

Nothing is about rejecting the Bible. I’m rejecting the interpretation put forth by those who adhere to intelligent design, which includes both old earth and young earth ). Instead of using a concordistic approach, i recognize accommodation.

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?