This is a quote to remind us that one day in the world to us could be very different to God. Reflect to the creation story in Genesis. God bless.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Therefore, all Christians should remember this when reading the creation story and discussing it in charity.
Never give a verse it’s own context. You should read the verse before and the verse after; preferably you should read the entire passage. The passage is referring to the coming of the Lord, and not creation. Why would I go outside the creation story to look for an obscure verse that may or may not apply, so as to contradict the literal historical validity of the book of Genesis? That would be hermeneutical suicide.
I see we disagree here. I respect you; however, I do not totally agree with you. Yes, Peter is writing about the Second Coming; however, his discussion of time most certainly plays a role here with the creation of time. Therefore, I have used scripture correctly. Time and existence are different with God than on earth. There are also different levels of time in our universe. It does not do any harm to the Book of Genesis. The Bible is a single book made up of 66 or 77 different books. The Protestants say 66 and the Roman Catholics say 77. Very educated clergymen compare scripture with scripture to make a point. So my friend, I do not concur with you on this topic. Also, I do not intend to end my earthly life through suicide, intellectually, physically or spiritually. Is God’s time the same as ours? Please answer the question and compare it to II Peter 3:8. That is Peter’s point here, it applies to the whole of time. May God bless you during this day and all others.
It’s not a matter of disagreement. I agree to a certain extent what you are saying. I am saying that if you apply what you said to all of scripture. How could anyone come to knowledge of the truth of the bible? I merely argued using hermeneutical principles. I am not debating the interpretation of the verse. I am debate how one interprets that verse
I respect this answer; however, if one never compares scripture with scripture, how can one find the truth in our Lord’s Holy Word. I shall give an example. In the Synoptic Gospels of Luke and John, it is declared that Jesus had a physical resurrection body. However, in I Corinthians 15: 35-58, the Apostle Paul plainly says that when Jesus appeared to him, His body was spiritual. If we compare Luke and John with I Corinthians 15, does the Bible contradict itself? I say “no.” There are several ways this could be interpreted. That’s why there are so many brands of Christianity. I will propose this to you: when Jesus rose from the dead, he had a physical body; however, the current heaven is a spiritual world it seems. Therefore, Jesus’ physical body was transformed into a spiritual one to be suitable for the Kingdom of God. This is just food for thought. God bless you, Wookin.
…
Yet YECs are adamant that verses 4-5 very much are about creation. You can’t have it both ways.
There’s one other thing that I think is worth thinking. When I read 2 Peter 3:8, and see that it’s also to be found in Psalm 90:4, I tend to view it as a statement about God’s view of time in general, in much the same vein as the verse in Isaiah that talks about the nations being like a drop in a bucket. As such, it applies not just to the coming of the Lord, but also to things such as waiting for answered prayers. This being the case, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t apply to creation as well, and to insist that it can’t is eisegesis, not exegesis.
I agree that it is fallacious to insist that the days of Genesis were literal days. as God is beyond time, according to 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4. However, I do not think Genesis 1 is about science (it’s about Shekinah), and even if these are millions of years, this then leads to the problem that the earth, plants and daylight existed millions (or even billions) of years before the sun.
I tried to bite my tongue in this thread… I do not know who these YEC(s) are, so I can only speak for myself. I do not look inside of 2 Peter to see creation verses. The book of Genesis is clearly sufficient for that. Even if as you say, creationists see creation verses in 2 Peter, they are doing it to support the book of Genesis; whereas your camp takes ONE verse and uses to discredit ALL of Genesis. Do we see a dilemma here? The catalyst of this “confusion” being that as it may, is not another solid creation verse nor another account of the creation process, but a source outside of the bible called, “evolution”
I believe in evolution, but evolution does not coincide with the book of Genesis therefore I must jettison any idea that Genesis could be true, so I will look for any obscure verse in scripture-somewhat indirectly pertaining to creation to validate my already beginning presuppositional bias that Genesis is not true.
They are legion based on the number of times this verse has been quoted here.
Did you mean to apply this reasoning to a EC? If so you are greatly mistaken. For me the reasoning runs like this.
Genesis is true and gives us the reason God created mankind, to be in His image.
God’s creation shows us the earth is old and this informs the way I interpret Genesis.
Notice I said nothing about evolution because it doesn’t apply.
Hello Friends,
I would say that Genesis creation days should be taken as long periods of time. The Rev. Billy Graham, a Southern Baptist, understood it that way. He accepted evolutionary creationism but was still a literalist. I suppose I fit in that vein of belief. I would say that the Roman Catholic Church holds that view as well. Not all Roman Catholics believe that way; however, many do.
James,
Your statement is correct. II Peter 3:8 is about all time, not just the Second Coming.
Even though I am a literalist Old Earth believer, I do not think that the writer of Genesis 1 understood the use of the sun. Therefore, we should not be dogmatic on this theme. God bless.
Notice I said nothing about evolution because it doesn’t apply.
I, myself, am not dogmatic about the age of the earth. I must admit that one would have to do scriptural gymnastics to even see billions of years in the book of Genesis. With that being said, I believe my response was toward Jammycakes. I love that name!
Problem with that, is there is no existence of time before the words, “In the beginning…”
The writer is God.
God is outside of time. Time is relevant to man, not God.
I do not like to debate what men taught or believed. Billy Graham was a Godly man, but was fallible. He had teachings that I did not agree with i.e. way too Arminian. But I digress. You would be hard pressed to see long periods of time in Genesis unless you subscribe to the gap theory, which will run into all sorts of scriptural problems i.e. God rested on the Sabbath. Are we still on the Sabbath? If each day represented a very long period, then it is rational to believe that we are still in the Sabbath.
Wookin, if you think I’m using 2 Peter 3:8 to discredit any of Genesis, you’re completely missing the point. The point isn’t “the earth is billions of years old, get used to it,” the point is, “no matter how old the earth is, God’s Word still stands.” It’s the exact opposite of discrediting Genesis.
In any case, discrediting all of Genesis? Come on! How is the age of the earth supposed to discredit the account of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Genesis is about God establishing His covenant with His chosen people. It’s not about accelerated nuclear decay or Noah having dinosaurs on board the Ark.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.