6 Literal Days or Millions of Years?

Do you believe God created the earth in 6 literal days or "millions of years?" why?Grace,Doug

Hey DougWell Doug when you ask that question I guess it depends on what you definition of a day is. If I understand you correctly, you are asking whether it took six of what we today call a “day”. I am going to assume that you are referring to the dictionary definition of a day when you say “literal days”, that is: • The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset. a.\t• The 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis.b.\tThe period during which a celestial body makes a similar rotation.To begin with, “the earth was formless and empty”, one complete rotation on its axis is meaningless when we refer to a formless object. The other definition (The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset) seems more promising but still, if I understand the scriptures correctly, the sun was not made until the fourth day. Yes the first offspring of divine command was light (let there be light), this was not the light from the sun but was some other form of light, in my opinion a Spiritual light. As Jesus said in John 11, “8His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again? 9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. 10 But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.” I do not believe that he meant that you had to walk in the sunlight, but rather in the light of God, but still he calls those twelve hours of light “day”. Again, does he mean twelve literal hours? Unless you live at the equator (Jesus did not), day and night never balance out that exactly. Even if there were exactly 12 hours of day, I did not believe that Jesus meant that if they walked whilst there was sunlight no one would harm them. He later says in John 12, “2:46I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.” In a sense, spiritual day is in Jesus. As the scriptures say in John 1, “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANYTHING MADE WHICH WAS MADE. 4 In him was life; and the LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN.” We know that everything was made during the day (on the first DAY, the second DAY, the third DAY). That is to say it was made in the light (without him was not anything made which was made). Jesus is the way the truth and the life (and the life was the light of men).So finally, to answer your question, I do not believe that the days were literal days but there was something spiritual about the story of creation. I am even now struggling to explain what I mean so I bet stop before I weave to many webs but a believe the essence of the answer is what is a day to God? John9:4I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.James

How long were the days of Genesis 1?What did God intend us to understand from the words He used?by Russell Grigg First published in: Creation 19(1):23–25December 1996–February 1997Were the days of Creation Week of 24 hours duration or were they long periods of time? This article will discuss the Hebrew 'time' words which the author had available to him and what meaning he intended to convey by his choice of the specific words he used1. Meaning of yômWhen Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word yôm for 'day'. He combined yôm with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day2,3. There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yôm in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long. Let us now consider what other words God could have used, if He had wanted to convey a much longer period of time than 24 hours. Some Hebrew ‘time’ wordsThere are several Hebrew words which refer to a long period of time 4. These include qedem which is the main one—word term for 'ancient' and is sometimes translated 'of old'; olam means 'everlasting' or 'eternity' and is translated 'perpetual', 'of old' or 'for ever'; dor means 'a revolution of time' or 'an age' and is sometimes translated 'generations'; tamid means 'continually' or 'for ever'; ad means 'unlimited time' or 'for ever'; orek when used with yôm is translated 'length of days'; shanah means 'a year' or 'a revolution of time' (from the change of seasons); netsach means 'for ever'. Words for a shorter time span include eth (a general term for time); and moed, meaning 'seasons' or 'festivals'. Let us consider how some of these could have been used. 1. Event of long agoIf God had wanted to tell us that the creation events took place a long time in the past, there were several ways He could have said it: yamim (plural of yôm) alone or with 'evening and morning', would have meant 'and it was days of evening and morning'. This would have been the simplest way, and could have signified many days and so the possibility of a vast age. qedem by itself or with 'days' would have meant 'and it was from days of old'. olam with 'days' would also have meant 'and it was from days of old'. So if God had intended to communicate an ancient creation to us, there were at least three constructions He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these. 2. A continuing event from long agoIf God had wanted to tell us that creation started in the past but continued into the future, meaning that creation took place by some sort of theistic evolution, there were several ways He could have said it: dor used either alone or with 'days', 'days' and 'nights', or 'evening and morning', could have signified 'and it was generations of days and nights'. This would have been the best word to indicate evolution's alleged aeons, if this had been meant. olam with the preposition le, plus 'days' or 'evening and morning' could have signified 'perpetual'; another construction le olam va-ed means 'to the age and onward' and is translated 'for ever and ever' in Exodus 15:18. tamid with 'days', 'days' and 'nights', or 'evening' and 'morning', could have signified 'and it was the continuation of days'. ad used either alone or with olam could have signified 'and it was for ever'. shanah (year) could have been used figuratively for 'a long time', especially in the plural. yôm rab literally means 'a long day' (cf. 'long season' in Joshua 24:7, or 'long time' in the New American Standard Bible). This construction could well have been used by God if He had meant us to understand that the 'days' were long periods of time. Thus, if God had wanted us to believe that he used a long–drawn–out creative process, there were several words He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these. 3. Ambiguous timeIf God had wanted to say that creation took place in the past, while giving no real indication of how long the process took, there were ways He could have done it: yôm combined with 'light' and 'darkness', would have signified 'and it was a day of light and darkness'. This could be ambiguous because of the symbolic use of 'light' and 'darkness' elsewhere in the Old Testament. However, yôm with 'evening and morning', especially with a number preceding it, can never be ambiguous. eth ('time') combined with 'day' and 'night' as in Jeremiah 33:20 and Zechariah 14:7 could have been ambiguous. Likewise eth combined with 'light' and 'darkness' (a theoretical construction). If any of these forms had been used, the length of the 'days' of creation would have been widely open for debate. However, God chose not to use any of these. Author’s IntentionThe following considerations show us what God intended us to understand: 1. The meaning of any part of the Bible must be decided in terms of the intention of the author. In the case of Genesis, the intention of its author clearly was to write a historical account. This is shown by the way in which the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul regarded Genesis—that is, they quoted it as being truth, not symbolic myth or parable5, 6. It was plainly not the author's intention to convey allegorical poetry, fantasy, or myth. And so what God, through Moses, said about creation in Genesis should not be interpreted in these terms. Moses did, in fact, use some of the above 'long–time' words (italicized in the examples below, with root Hebrew words in square brackets), although not with reference to the days of creation. For example, in Genesis 1:14, he wrote, 'Let there be lights ... for seasons [ moed]'; in Genesis 6:3, 'My spirit shall not always [olam] strive with man'; in Genesis 9:12 'for perpetual generations [olam dor]'; in Leviticus 24:2, 'to burn continually [tamid]'; in Numbers 24:20 'that he perish for ever [ad]'; in Deuteronomy 30:20, 'He is thy light and the length of thy days' [yôm orek]'; in Deuteronomy 32:7, 'Remember the days of old [yôm olam]'; and so on. Why did God not use any of these words with reference to the creation days, seeing that He used them to describe other things? Clearly it was His intention that the creation days should be regarded as being normal earth-rotation days, and it was not His intention that any longer time–frames should be inferred. Professor James Barr, professor of Hebrew at Oxford University agrees that the words used in Genesis 1 refer to 'a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience', and he says that he knows of no professor of Hebrew at any leading university who would say otherwise7. 2. Children have no problem in understanding the meaning of Genesis. The only reason why other ideas are entertained is because people apply concepts from outside the Bible, principally from evolutionary/atheistic sources, to interpret the Bible. 3. The Bible is God's message to mankind and as such it makes authoritative statements about reality. If one removes any portion of the Bible from the realm of reality, God may still be communicating truth to us, but the reader can never be sure that he understands it as the author intended. Furthermore, if God's communication to us is outside our realm of reality, then we cannot know whether any account in the Bible means what the words actually say or whether it means something entirely different, beyond our understanding. For example, if we apply this criterion to the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps the words could mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead physically, but in a way beyond our comprehension. When these sorts of word–games are played with the Bible, the Bible loses its authority, we lose the divine perspective on reality, and Christianity loses its life–changing power8. 4. If the 'days' really weren't ordinary days, then God could be open to the charge of having seriously misled His people for thousands of years. Commentators universally understood Genesis in a straightforward way, until attempts were made to harmonize the account with longs ages and then evolution. ConclusionIn Genesis 1, God, through the 'pen' of Moses, is going out of His way to tell us that the 'days' of creation were literal earth–rotation days. To do this, He used the Hebrew word yôm, combined with a number and the words 'evening and morning'. If God had wanted to tell us it was an ancient creation, then there were several good ways He could have done this. If theistic evolution had been intended, then there were several constructions He could have used. If the time factor had been meant to be ambiguous, then the Hebrew language had ways of saying this. However, God chose not to use any construction which would have communicated a meaning other than a literal solar day. The only meaning which is possible from the Hebrew words used is that the 'days' of creation were 24–hour days. God could not have communicated this meaning more clearly than He did in Genesis 1. The divine confirmation of this, if any is needed, is Exodus 20:9-11, where the same word 'days' is used throughout:'Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, not thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.' References and noteshttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2452.asp

Hi all,Presently, I do not firmly hold to any view. Asking how long "yom" is seems to me more like an attempt to satisfy modern curiosity on a modern question than an investigation into the real theological purpose of the creation narrative in Genesis.This preoccupation on the first two chapters of Genesis often lead us to forget that the Book of Genesis contains 50 chapters, not two. If we do so, we just might miss the point that God wants to say.I know this is a controversial issue, I post the following merely to present an alternative view from an evangelical. Again, I do not firmly hold to any particular view at present.On the Edge of the Millennium: Making Sense of Genesis 1 Dr. Rikki E. Watts Regent College, Vancouver, BC Stories of origins are not stories that people hold to lightly. Stories of origins have to do with who we are as people. When people touch our stories of origins they touch us at our deepest core. Coming in as an Australian and watching the dynamics of Canadians as they try to work out what it means to be Canadian over against the people south of the border, one gets the sense of how important origins are in terms of knowing who we are. That's what Genesis is about: It's the story of origins, and it has to do with what it means to be human. Therefore, when we engage with a particular story of origins, we get passionately involved, and that's alright. It's alright to be objective some of the time, but there are some moments (as when you know you love your wife, and some guy is trying to beat her up) to get passionate about one's love. I think it's alright for people to be passionately engaged in their stories of origin. Of course, that means that when we discuss these things, and perhaps some of the views we might hold are being challenged in some way, it becomes pretty difficult. I understand that, and in fact I'll serve you warning that I don't want to come here as the holy hand grenade from Monty Python's search for the Holy Grail. I need to warn you that maybe some of the things I say might engender a bit of a response-as long as you hear I am not intentionally trying to kick your bucket, as it were. That's enough of Australian expressions. It means I'm really not trying to rain on your parade, you understand that? Help me! What's that Canadianese for this? I'm not intentionally trying to do that. I might also add that I'm one of these people who get passionate about what I believe too. I've tried very hard to be quiet when I lecture and it lasts about five minutes. I get excited about the Bible. Is that okay? I think it takes very special skill to teach the Bible and not get excited about it. I don't know how people can do that. Some people I have seen do it, and I think even angels want to look into these things, so I'm going to get passionate about it, and if you can just bear with me on that and just say, "Well, that's just Rikk Watts getting carried away," I won't take that too personally. That would be very kind to me. So, I beg your indulgence before I begin: It is a bit of a difficult issue. How to get started on it? Let me tell you a little story. I used to teach at the Bible College of Victoria. This is in Australia, and as you know, Australians are crude, rude and ugly, except me. We had these sort of inauguration days, invitational days, when the new students arrive and get to meet the faculty. We have a bit of a dinner, and then the faculty have a turn at the podium, and they say some things about who they are and why they like being at the college. I was about seventh or eighth in the line, and following me was a good friend of mine, and he's got quite an interesting sense of humour. Now, I don't know if you understand this about Australians, but one of they ways in which you tell people your like them, is by insulting them. Now I'm not saying that's good--some of you will be scandalized by that, and probably rightly so, but it just happens to be the cultural dynamic. This college is an international college and we had a fair number of Asian students. So, I sit down and my friend gets up and he gets to his bit where he has to say why he enjoys being at the college. So, he says, "Well, my office happens to be opposite Dr. Watts's office, and the reason I enjoy being at the college is that every time I walk past his office I'm reminded of God's grace, because when I look in the door I see what sin can do to a man." These lovely Asian students.... They were just horrified. First of all, they're horrified because one of their lecturers is such a blatant sinner, and they're even more horrified because another lecturer has caused him to lose face in pubic. Is this significant? Of course it is, you understand this. There are all sorts of assumptions that go on in communication, all sorts of assumptions. There are things we call forms of speech that are appropriate in a given culture, and what my friend was doing to the Australians first of all, was actually removing tension. It was affirming to Australian students that the faculty obviously were such friends that they could treat each other like that, because you don't insult people that you don't like, in a situation like that. You can only do it openly and blatantly like that because you're actually very good friends. All the Australian students laughed and felt very comfortable because this was obviously a college where people were free and relaxed and were alive and real and genuine. That's what it meant to them, but not to these Asian students. This is not their fault. No one's right or wrong about this; it's just because you've got two different cultural environments. The same thing actually goes on in the Bible. We will get to Genesis eventually. But how many people have actually tried to read through the book of Isaiah? How many of you have found it like a dog's breakfast? That's another Australian expression but it just means "all over the place." You found that? It's your experience? Come on! Be honest! God knows the secrets of your hearts! How do you make sense of this thing? Or is it just chopping back and forth so that what you do if you're really spiritual is: You find a few purple passages like the Servant Song, Isaiah 53.... "Who has believed our report?" Ah, yes, that we know. We gather a collection of nice little bits but the rest of the book.... Who knows what in the world it's about? I think that one of the reasons is lies in the forms of speech. When I was studying Isaiah at Cambridge, I decided to dispense with the chapter divisions and the verses and to say to myself: How might people have read this back in ancient times? Let's assume--apologies to the Asian students--let's assume that I'm an Asian student reading an Australian Isaiah. What's going on? As you do that, you begin to realize that there are some parts of that book that are what people call "trial speeches" that presuppose a law court setting. Once you learn to pick up the literary markers for that, all of a sudden you go: "So that's why that passage is where it is." As scholars work on this, of course it's not particularly easy to do, because we can't talk to Jewish people who lived nearly 3,000 years ago. So we've got to do some digging, and we try and look around at comparative literature. In the end, you get a feel for this stuff, and I have to say to you that now I actually feel a lot more comfortable about what's going on in Isaiah, because I watch the way these forms of speech sit together. The problem is: Isaiah doesn't have a little tag on the chapter heading saying: "This is a trial speech. Please read this in the context of a law court." He doesn't tell you that. Why not? Because he assumes that his original audience to whom he's writing will understand that. He's not writing to Canadians; that's why he writes in Hebrew. Our problem is: We're not part of the culture, and we miss things. One of the things that does us in is that we read Bibles that are in English. When you read an English text, you and I bring to it all of those rules about genre and form that we've grown up with in terms of reading texts. And it's really easy to slip over and think, "Oh! He's writing to me in Australian, because I'm reading my NIV in Australianese." But he's not! He actually wrote it in Hebrew to people who lived a long time ago in a very different culture, and they operated in different ways. Now I'm not against English translations of the Bible. I'm not at all. But you're trying to make sense of Isaiah, and you think, What's going on here?" And then you suddenly realize that you've got to take that cultural and historical wisdom seriously. Once you do, it starts to make sense. So what happens is this: Some of us will go up in the break, after we've introduced ourselves as faculty, and we'll go and talk to some of the Korean students or students from Singapore and say, "Listen, I noticed you were a little bit concerned about what happened back there. Let me explain what the dynamic was." They're still not quite comfortable. And it's fair enough. They shouldn't be quite comfortable, because you don't leave your cultural world so quickly. But at least they begin to realize that maybe it wasn't quite the dynamic that they thought it was. All of this is crucial when we come to read Genesis. It's probably a very, very old story. Whether somebody did some fine-tuning, a bit of editing to it--maybe 800 years before Christ, or during the exile--doesn't change the fact that those original underlying stories are probably very, very old indeed. That means before the Enlightenment.... So, what are we going to do with this? It's way before our time. We can't simply assume we know what style of literature it is and how we should read it, so how do we approach it? Just imagine that 5,000 years from now somebody comes across a Disney comic, finds it in the rubble somewhere, and comes across a comic with Mickey Mouse in it. Somebody begins to expound, "Oh, they believed in talking ducks back then." They might do that. The reason we today don't conclude this is because we recognize from the form, from the genre and the content, that something else is going on. What's the form that clues us in? First of all, there are plenty of new drawings, and we've learned that things like comics probably aren't real. No one has probably ever sat you down in a class and told you that. You've just absorbed it as you've gone along. Then, on the other hand, you've never seen a duck talk in your life. So, you have a reality check and you have the form of the literature you're looking at, and it begins to give you some idea of how we deal with this: Probably we're not to read Walt Disney as a literal accounting of what people think the world is like today. Now you may try to talk about Walt Disney like that, but somehow you must be very careful when you come to the Bible! I understand that, because most of the people here, if not all of us, have built our lives on what the Bible says and on particular readings of what the Bible says. That's what makes this all the more nerve wracking. This is tense stuff here. Now, what are some things that we can say to get going? First of all, history writing as we know it in the Western world didn't really begin until about the eighth century BC in the Greek world. Heroditus and people like that began to write history in the tradition in which we now stand. Not everybody used to do it that way. Does that mean that people before Heroditus could not talk about their past well? Of course, they spoke about their past but they just didn't use the same kind of stories that Heroditus began to use. There are different ways of talking about your past, and they may not all be the sort of cultural stories that we're used to. They did talk about where they came from, they did deal with questions about what it meant to be human and what the nature of the world was, but they just didn't do it in terms of quantum mechanics. They did it in different ways. Does that mean it's not true? Some people think, "If it's not the way I'm used to telling history, then it can't be true." I think there's a problem with that. Different doesn't mean false. There are different ways of telling the truth, and that's okay. So we've got to be careful that we don't confuse truth and genre. There are different ways of telling the truth; you can do it through different genres. Just because the genre is different, that doesn't mean it's not true. Consider this: "Tiger, tiger, burning bright in the forests of the night." Is that true? That all depends. If you read this as a statement about the propensity of fellow cats to ignite spontaneously during their nocturnal wanderings, you're probably going to say, "No, it's not true. Tigers do not explode into balls of flame in the forests of the night." But, if you want to talk about the essence of tigerness, then it is true, isn't it? You can just see him burning bright in the forests of the night. Now I'm trained as an engineer, and I know there are some engineers who, when you talk about poetry, have no idea at all what's going on. It's a mystery to me how they ever got married. Something happened.... Maybe the good woman took pity on him. You see, it is true, but the question is: What sort of truth is it trying to express? You can have a multi-volume DNA map of the gene on the tiger or something like that, but what's actually going to give you the better impression of tigerness: those massive sets of volumes of all those coding representing the DNA or that little couplet, "Tiger, tiger, burning bright in the forests of the night"? It's poetry, but it's true. But just make sure we understand what sort of truth it is that it's trying to share. We live with this type of thing all the time. Back in the late 50s, early 60s, if you opened up a newspaper, chances were you'd see a picture a few pages in, maybe on the editorial page. In this picture there would be an expansive water, and on one side would be a man, an old man with a white goatee; he'd be wearing some sort of coat with stripes on it; he'd have a big top hat on with stars around the crown of it and all these lines sort of shooting up. Who am I talking about? Uncle Sam. And who's going to be on the other side of the water? A big bear, wearing a cap with a red star on it. Now, this is a newspaper. Newspapers tell the truth. Therefore, if I can just find the right body of ocean, I'm going to see this man with the white goatee on one side and this big bear who runs around with a hat and a five-pointed red star on it on the other side. Now you realize that's ridiculous, of course. But is the picture true? Not if you're looking for literal Uncle Sams, but if you happen to grow up under the shadow of the mushroom cloud, then of course it was more true than you care to remember. There are different ways of sharing the truth. It doesn't have to be the sort of reading we're used to. What does this have to do with Genesis? I think everything. One of the reasons is that I don't think if they wrote histories like we understand them. If that's what they were doing back then, my feeling is that nobody would have known what to do with it, because they didn't tell their stories like that. What we've got to do, is take a step back and try and hear how they told their stories back then. So when God speaks to people in the ancient world, it's no surprise to discover that he doesn't use a MacIntosh with DVD, CD ROM, such as I just got a couple of weeks ago and it's great. But did you notice that God didn't give Moses a CD-ROM? And what's intriguing is when God spoke to Moses and made a covenant with Israel, God did not invent a whole new spiritual thing that nobody had seen before. Do you know why he didn't? Because if they hadn't seen it before, they wouldn't know how to interpret it. You and I know how to interpret movies because we've grown up with them, and we've become aware of genres. We understand what's going on. You've got to understand the genre. Some of you may or may not have seen the Full Monty. For a lot of people this is a scandalous film because it's about some guys who take their clothes off. But it's not about that. It's actually a parable. It's a story about what it means to be male in a world where the only successful males are the guys who look like Apollo and have a job and have all these women chasing them around. Here are five guys that don't fit that, and they want to be accepted for who they are. The great moment in the film comes just before they do their dance routine. One of the guys is going to pull out because he's a bit of a chubby fellow. He comes home to his wife, and the house is ominously silent. He calls out to her, but there's no response. He goes upstairs. Now she has discovered this funny little thing he was going to be wearing in his routine, and she immediately jumps to the wrong conclusions. When he meets her upstairs, he's trying to explain, "No, I was doing this because we're out of work, and I'm trying to earn some money because I love you." And then he says, "We're going to get involved in this strip routine." She looks at him, and she says, "You! A little note of comic relief, which is good. There's a very clever moment. You just need that because there's such an intense scene, to which the whole things been building. He says, "We weren't that bad." And everyone laughs a bit more. He then comments that he is no longer involved. She asks why not. This is the crucial moment of the film because he looks at her and in this broken voice he says, "Who would want to see this dance?" That's what the film's about, folks. It's a gospel film. It is, because there are so many men in the world who feel just like that, and so many women who look in the mirror every morning and say, "Who would want to see at this dance?" The Gospel is about God saying, "In Jesus, I would. I would. You can stand before me utterly open, and I will love you." That's what it's about. Sometimes, what happens, is if we're not familiar with this stuff, our initial response is, "Naked men, oh!" (Although actually, you don't see anything really, right?) Now, some things then about Genesis and how they used to tell stories. Apparently, they didn't have history like we have it, so what did they do? One of the first things we can do, is just look at the document itself, look at Genesis 1. Our question is: what sort of form is this? Is this a trial speech? Is this an Australian greeting? "Every time I look across at Dr. Watts's office I can relate to what sin can do to a man." Is that what it is? Is it a piece of historical reporting? Of all the different styles of literature and forms of speaking that are out there in the second millennium BC, what's going on here in Genesis? Which one is it? We shouldn't just assume we know. Let's look at it and ask some questions. What form is this? As you begin to read through the story, you notice there are some things. There's lots of repetition: "And God said, and God said, and God said, and God said." "Let there be, let there be, let there be, let there be." "And there was, and there was, and there was, and there was." "And God saw, and God saw, and God saw, and God saw." Now if you come from a Pentecostal tradition like I do, you'll immediately recognize what form that is: It's called the chorus. And if you happen to come from my particular brand of Pentecostalism, it means: until you've sung it fifteen times the presence of God can't be there. (Which is not so bad if you're singing one of the great hymns of the Reformation, but it gets a bit tiring when you're singing "Dear Jesus, kick me through the goal posts of life." Right? To be sure, I'm still glad for my Pentecostal tradition.) Do you get the drift? There's all this repetitive language, the same stuff over and over and over again. What does that sound like? It sounds sort of poetic and structured doesn't it? We know what Hebrew poetry looks like, and we know Genesis 1 doesn't look like that. So Genesis 1, whatever it is, is not strict poetry. But neither is it strict narrative. And that's clear just because of the repetitive form of the thing. You hear something like that, and you're going to recognize that somebody's up to something here. There's some sort of literary structure involved. Real history reporting like we know it does not read like that. When was the last time you picked up a newspaper story or read the life of Winston Churchill and you read, "And Churchill said, and Churchill said, and Churchill said, and Churchill said"? You don't get that. Life's not like that. We're just trying to ask some questions about what the form of literature is, how we make sense of it. We notice that there are a number of groups of sevens. That's interesting. Today, in the computer world, sevens are not particularly significant. It's all zeros and ones and tens and hundreds and thousands. Numbers, certain numbers, have significance for us. In the ancient world, other numbers had significance, like 7--not just in Israel, in Egypt as well. So, it's interesting that they pick a number that has this sort of significance. Furthermore, if we have a little bit of a look at it in detail, we'll notice that we have parallel sets of three days. Days one, two and three are paralleled by days four, five and six. How do we know? Because the third and the sixth day (and only those two days) have a double announcement and a statement of approval. That looks like somebody has loaded the dice on this one. It's looking architectonic; it's looking structured; there's some sort of patterning going on at this point. We're not making any comments about whether this story is true or not. We're just looking at the text that lies before us, looking for clues, because this was not written to me. I don't speak Hebrew, I didn't live in the world that then was, many thousands of years ago. I am, if you will pardon me, the Asian student listening to the Australian. On top of this sort of parallel of the various days, you get this seventh day that sort of sits above the top like some sort of cap stone. This day, unlike all the others, has no end. Ever noticed that? There's no evening and morning to the seventh day. That's intriguing. The seventh day has no end according to this story. That's worth noting. Why not? What's going on at that point? And then, if you look at the three days, you'll notice that the first day has one creative act, the second day has one creative act with two parts, and the third day has two creative acts. The same thing is repeated on the fourth and fifth and sixth day. At this point, you're asking yourself what is going on here. This highly structured narrative does not look anything like the random stuff that we associate with normal history recounting. Of course, that shouldn't surprise us. Why not? Because these stories are predate considerably our way of telling history. Of course, it doesn't mean they're not true, it just means they're different. They're telling the truth in a different way. In fact, as you look at this progression through the days, you get this sense of building toward a climactic point. Someone has designed it to have it that way, it seems to me. All of this so far has to do with the form, the genre. But there are some other things to think about. One such thing is: How does this relate to our experience of reality? Think of the Walt Disney example. You've got the form, you've got the content, and you put the content along with the experience of reality and you say, "I've never seen talking ducks, and this form thing... well, I've seen this form before. It has to do with comics, so this is probably not true in the sense of people trying to tell me that there are talking ducks." The same thing happens with Jesus' miracles. You are meant to be amazed at what Jesus does. Your first response is meant to be, "I don't believe this." The problem is: As Christians we are so used to these stories that they don't mean anything to us anymore. So, Jesus stands up in the boat, the disciples are panicking because there's a great storm, and they wake him up. And it's probably not, "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, we hate to disturb you, sovereign Lord, would you please...." It's probably like, "Mate, grab a bailer or do something, we're dying here." And Jesus does, doesn't he? What does he do? He stands up and just says, "Shut up!" That's pretty strong. And you know what it? It does. And then Mark tells us the disciples are more afraid of Jesus than they were of the storm. When was the last time you read that story and shook in your boots? We don't. It has become an normal thing to us. Our first response is, "I don't believe this." Neither did they. They had no category for a human being who can tell the sea what to do. There's only one person who can tell the sea what to do, and that's God. I'm a Christian not because I believe in resurrections. I'm a Christian because I don't. I don't believe in resurrections, but this one happened; that's why I'm a Christian. If resurrections happened all over the place, what's so special about them? I don't believe they happen. Jesus did something like this. He told the sea what to do. That's why I'm a believer. Bultmann, and a number of other people, looked at these things and said, "Goodness, he's talking about a reality that never happened or that doesn't fit in my view of history. Therefore, the gospels must be myth." But there's a problem there, and the problem is the form problem, because the gospels are simply not myth. That's not their genre. So what happens is that people like Bultmann let the historical reality question override what the form tells them. Therefore, they say resurrections can't happen. Strauss says it's all mythological stuff. This means that they have to have the gospels being written in a form or genre that they're not. What we're realizing now is that the gospels are pretty close to ancient biographies, which means they are concerned to tell the truth. If I have some questions about reading Genesis literally, it's because the genre is different. The genre of the gospel is such a thing that it's talking about what I would regard as history. It doesn't give me the option of saying, "Well, the resurrection's just a story. This is a safeguard for some of you who might worry a little about the consequences of what I'm saying. If this is true about Genesis 1, then what about the rest of the Bible? The genre saves us here. Once you get to Genesis 12, things change dramatically. From all of those repetitive patterns it doesn't sound like what we're used to when we talk about literal history. Think about it for a moment: Do you really believe it would take the God you and I worship 24 hours to do anything? Or twelve? Think back for just a moment. Do you really believe it would take him twelve hours to do this? Half a day? In fact, a working day in the ancient Near East. Why couldn't he do it before lunch time? What's so hard about it that he can't do it like that? I put it to you: why not 24 hours and ten minutes? The whole universe--sun, moon, stars--he creates in twelve hours, but why does it take just as long just to put some vegetation on the earth? Now what's going on? Think about it. Just maybe that's not the point. Maybe that's not what Genesis is after. Some people might say, "But excuse me, it says, 'Tiger, tiger, burning bright.'" It does. But the genre tells you that maybe they're not talking about tigers literally exploding. The genre looks like it's not what we're used to as literal history. It doesn't mean it's not true. "Tiger, tiger, burning bright" is true. But don't go running around trying to defend burning tigers. Sometimes--I hope you'll forgive me for putting it this way--I think we're running around trying to argue for burning tigers. It says morning and evening, and therefore it must have been. But what if, given the structure of the thing, it actually looks more like poetry than straight narrative? Just maybe in trying to defend our burning tiger we're not only not defending the Word of God, but we're actually bringing it into disrepute. It's possible. What, then, are we going to do with this Genesis thing? Form-wise and content-wise, I want to suggest to you that the evidence seems to point toward it not being a literal recounting of what happened when the stop watch started. Form wise and in terms of how the content corresponds to our knowledge of God, it just doesn't look like that's the case. And of course, there are problems when you read Genesis 2: You will find in Genesis 2 that there is a statement that there's no shrub or plant yet appearing on the earth, because there's no human being there to do some stuff to them. But you discover in Genesis 1 that the vegetation is there before human beings appear. We don't have much time to go through this in much detail, but if you start reading Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 alongside one another in terms literal history, you'll find there are some problems. Maybe we're also committing a massive act of cultural imperialism: forcing the text to fit our preconceived ideas of how God must speak to us. We get ourselves into all sorts of knots. How can you have light before the sun, moon and stars appear? Once you start reading the literature that people back in the second millennium BC were writing, you realize they were never concerned with these sorts of things. This doesn't even enter their heads. What, then, did they think about? I have all sorts of interesting ideas. Let's just quickly go through some for a few moments. The Sumerians back in the third millennium BC have no great mythic epic poems. They have some brief explanation of origins before they start talking about their society. Why is that important? It's important because if you and I keep telling kids in school that they're nothing but an accident and nothing but a meaningless belch in the vast cosmos, and that it's only the fittest who survive, why should we be surprised that we end up with a society like we have? How can we tell our kids these things and then turn around and say, "Now treat each other nicely." You don't get to the top of the evolutionary ladder by being nice! We wring our hands when business people who've been brought up on this actually begin to behave like it and happily consume and destroy other companies and disregard their employees in the process. Maybe some of you have experiences with that. Here's the point: These people, who lived almost five thousand years ago, understood sometimes better than we do that these stories of origin have a profound impact on the shape of a society. Somehow, to argue in the light of this about whether it took God took 24 hours or not seems to raise the question: What has that got to do with the shape of modern Vancouver? Some of the Babylonian stories, like the Enuma Elish creation myth, actually read a little bit like days of our lives, because you've got all this stuff going on: abortion, matricide, murdering your father, granddad wanting to kill the grandkids (they're making too much noise). This seems a bit like abortion, doesn't it? "This fetal tissue is a nuisance to me. I think I'll just destroy it." The kids hear about this, and they're terrified. So there's a rebellion, and the granddad god gets killed. Then there's Marduk, and Marduk is the super god: he's twice as strong as everybody else, so he has four arms instead of two. Tiamat, the granddad's wife, is now living with a guy who led the rebellion. There is conflict between Tiamat and Marduk. Tiamat comes to destroy Marduk, but Marduk gets all his mates drunk, and while they're drunk he gets a deal that if he gives them victory they will give him everything and he'll be the great king. They do this while they're stone drunk Marduk goes out and fights Tiamat. As she opens up her mouth to destroy him, he shoots an arrow down her throat and she pops. What's interesting is what he does with her body: He takes this goddess of water, and he splits her body into two halves and builds the heavens and the earth out of it. Heaven and earth, made from Tiamat's corpse, becomes Marduk's temple. This is the way you think about creation stories in the ancient world. These stories are talking about places in which people lived. When Baal wins a great victory over the sea god Yam, a similar sort of thing goes on: After gaining dominion, a house or a temple is constructed. That's what they do. Victorious gods build palaces and temples. Marduk does it when he defeats Tiamat: He divides her corpse and stretches out one half like a roof to form the heavens and the rest is like the foundation to his palace. Temple building is what you do when you're victorious and you're establishing your realm. When you think about this for a moment, it makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? How do we have order? What brings order to the ancient world, in the second and third millennia BC? What brings order is the great king who establishes his realm and his palace. We can see this with David. David's not allowed to build the temple to Yahweh. Why not? Because he hasn't finished the conquest yet. When Solomon comes along, and the chronicler tells you that Solomon had his own jacuzzi and they're all sitting under their own fig tree, that it's great peace, then he is allowed to build the temple. This is what they all do. It's the pattern. Palace temple building is the metaphor for bringing order and a place in which people can find peace and rest. All over the ancient world that's what they do. What I want to suggest to you is that maybe these are the sort of spectacles we ought to be reading the Genesis story through, that basically what we have here is a story about the construction of a realm--not by Marduk, not by Tiamat, but by Yahweh. Isaiah and others will pick up on that mythological language from Babylon and say, "No, it wasn't Marduk who did it, it was Yahweh who slew Rahab" (cf. Job 26:12; Ps 89:10; Isa 51:9 ). They're using this mythological language to make their point. Not that they're saying that the myth is true, but they want to say that something is true about Yahweh. So, think about the world of the ancient Near East in terms of a palace, as a temple and great kings building their palace temple. In fact, in Sumerian and Hebrew the word for "palace" and the word for "temple" is the same word. Why? Because the earthly kings imitate the gods. The god has his temple, so does the king. Yahweh has his palace, so does the king. Why does David want to build God a house? He doesn't want to live in this beautiful house with Yahweh living in a tent. He know it's not right. He's living better off than Yahweh. You just don't do that in the ancient world. If this is the basic framework for thinking about creation, all of a sudden some interesting things come to light, it seems to me. When you read the Bible, what do you find in terms of the imagery that it uses? Psalm 104:2ff: "He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters." Isaiah 24:18: "The windows of heaven are open, the foundations of the land tremble." Isaiah 40:22: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the land; its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy and spreads them out like a tent to live in." I could go on and on and on: language of foundations of the earth, pillars of the heavens, gates and bars, canopies. What's the metaphor? It's quite straightforward. Throughout the ancient world the metaphor for creation is temple palace building. All of sudden Isaiah makes sense. "The heavens are my throne; the earth is my footstool" (Isa 66:1). Where do you find a throne and a footstool? A palace temple, of course? Makes perfect sense. There are a lot of Christians unfortunately, who would look after their lounge rooms better than they look after God's palace temple. We would never wreak the havoc in our backyards with toxic waste as we do it to God's palace temple. Why? Because our view of creation is pagan. We don't have the biblical view. If "the heavens are my throne and the earth is my footstool," that means that the earth is also God's palace temple. Temples are sacred things, and so is the earth. I'm not going New Age on you. I'm just going biblical. I'm just being Mosaic. You don't worship the earth. We didn't say the earth was a god but we said it is sacred because it is Yahweh's palace temple. That's why in Revelation he says, "Those who destroy the earth I will destroy." This means that it makes perfect sense that at the end of Revelation we don't all catch the heavenly elevator out of here. We come back because the new Jerusalem comes where? From heaven to earth. That wouldn't make any sense if the earth is just junk to be done away with, but it makes perfect sense if the heavens and the earth are God's palace temple. It's a great pity it took the "greens" to realize that we ought to treat the world with respect. It's actually Christian to do that. You know that? So if you're concerned about the environment and you're doing environmental studies, you know what you're doing? In one sense you're being a priest in the temple of the most high God. Interesting isn't it? Back to Genesis 1. With that sort of metaphor stuff going on, what's happening in the story here? What happens on Day 1? The light appears and God divides between the darkness and the light. This language of "divide," what does that mean? Again, you can't be Australian or Canadian and understand what this means. You've got to go back and think a bit. It's very interesting to notice that that language of "division" is used in two settings. First, it's used in a religious, priestly setting. What does that sound like? Temple, doesn't it? It's also used in a judicial setting. Dividing is what kings do. That's what the law is all about. Solomon is known for rightly dividing, discerning, what's right and wrong. So the language of division has both priestly and royal connotations. Is that a surprise? Not if you understand that creation is a palace temple, because palace has royal connotations, and so does temple. Dividing is exactly the language you want to use if you're going to keep it consistent with the metaphor. What happens on the next day? Another act of division: waters above and waters below. Notice there's this increasing precision or detail in terms of bring order to what was originally an amorphous mass. God is the one who's establishing this space. You need boundaries, defining it, dividing it. Then comes day 3: God gathers the waters, and the dry land appears. Now you can understand what's going on in the exodus story, because this language used to describe dry land doesn't occur very often in the Bible. Here in Genesis you have the wind hovering over the waters. The waters are gathered together, and the dry land appears. That's exactly what happens when Israel stands in front of the Red Sea. And that's when they sing their song about Yahweh being the creator. They suddenly understand that it's not Marduk who destroys Tiamat and divides her and builds a place in which people can live. No, Yahweh is it work. What does He do to the sea? Moses stretches out his staff. What's a staff? It's a sign of judicial authority. That has to do with the law. That has to do with royal prerogatives. He stretches it out, and what happens to the sea? Whoooooosh! The dry land appears. What's going on in the exodus? It's a new creation. God did that to establish a new Israel with a new place in which to live. That's what's going on here. Water is gathered together, dry land appears. What happens on the other days? On the first day God creates the light. What happens on the corresponding fourth day? The sun, moon and stars appear. What's their job? They have a specific task: Their job is to rule the night and the day. Who rules? What does that language apply to? It's kingdom language. It's palace language. It's all part of the same metaphor. So what do they do? God has created the realm, and he has filled that realm with rulers. It fits the metaphor perfectly. That's what they all talk about in the ancient world. The gods built palaces and ruled. They have no other metaphor to work with. In the ancient world, if you want to talk about the emergence of order, you have one metaphor. You know in your experience, it's the emergence of the city and the king with his palace, and it's his law that brings order and enables you then to grow crops and protect yourself from marauding enemies. That's the metaphor you have for the coming of order. Therefore, when God speaks to these people he doesn't give them a CD Rom, but he takes the language they understand. The point is not how long it took. The point is: I, Yahweh, am the one who built this palace temple, not Marduk. I'm the one who creates the realm and then puts the rulers in it. And notice something. Instead of the sun, moon and stars determining what happens to your future, they're right down there at the very bottom of the pile as your servants. They don't rule you. I summon them forth to do my work. Isaiah picks this up; he talks about Yahweh summoning the stars like a shepherd. That doesn't exactly work in twentieth-century Canada, but, then, it's not written to us. And we'll see how it does work in twentieth-century Canada in a moment. What happens on the next day? Birds and fish. Why have birds and fish? Of course, they're filling the corresponding realm of the waters above and the waters below (day 2). Remember all those patterns I talked about? One command, one command of two parts, etc. See how architectonic this is? This is structured. It's trying to tell us something that's true, but it's probably not trying to tell us something in terms of the literal history; it's more concerned with meaning. Because that's how people told their stories back then. Is it true that God created the world? Absolutely. Is it true that the world is his palace temple? Absolutely. Did it take him twelve literal hours? I think not. It's just a work day. God is a worker; he's building his palace. So what does he do? Well, the first day he does this, and the second day he does that, and then He goes home and has tea, puts his feet up and watches MTV with a can of coke. Finally, on the sixth day, corresponding to the third, Adam and Eve are noticed there, discreetly hidden behind some bushes. No Full Monty tonight, folks. Now this is interesting. Suppose you're building a temple. Don't think Christianly or Jewishly. Think like a rank pagan. What's the last thing you're going to stick inside your temple? What's the last thing you're going to put inside it? The carpet? The pews? Flowers? What's the last thing that goes and lives inside the temple? The image of the god. What's the last thing God puts inside his palace temple? Us. Folks, you have got to hear that! It's no wonder this story eventually results in justice and freedom for all! In the Babylonian story human beings are made from the blood of a rebel god, mixed with earth, and they're created because the feet of rebel gods got tired of doing the dirty work. Imagine what a society looks like where that is your story. It's no wonder you end up with a Babylonian king who makes decisions, and everybody's life is in his whim. But if you tell this story where Yahweh builds his palace temple, that means you've got to think twice before you decide to buy out a business and throw fifty people out of work, because only people, and not businesses, are made in God's image! I'm not denying that sometimes you have to make appropriate business decisions. But you know why Israel gets thrown out of the land, even though they're worshipping in the temple? (By the way, Israel's temple is like a mini-universe, designed to look like the universe symbolically.) They're doing all that stuff, they're worshipping, they're praying, they're even having fast periods. So, they're into worship seminars, they're into prayer and fasting, and what does God say? "Who told you to come and wake me up here? Who told you to come in and make this noise in my courts?" Why does he get upset? Because they're selling the poor for a pair of shoes. That's why. Why is that a problem? Because it's not the worship services that were made in God's image. It's not the long time in fasting that was made in God's image. It's not even our wonderful church buildings that have cost us millions that are made in God's image. People are made in God's image. And that's why God throws Israel out of the land. Do you understand what that means? This is radical stuff. In the ancient world, kings would make images of themselves and place them in corners of their realms to demonstrate that they were the ones who ruled the territory. Like all politicians, they liked to have their photographs everywhere. Probably the best analogy is the modern flag. When I first went to the U.S. I had a beach towel that had the Australian flag on it. And for an Australian that's no big deal, but it scandalized my American friends who couldn't believe that here I was lying on the beach and drying myself with an Australian flag. We Ausies thought this was terribly patriotic. But my friends were scandalized. Imagine you're in occupied France in World War II, and you go to Paris. Right there in the centre are the Gestapo headquarters, and there are some very burly guards standing out the front, maybe a platoon of them--really tough looking, mean people. You're there with a friend, and your friend goes and grabs this flag, this swastika, tears it up, jumps up and down on it, spits on it and burns it and then does some other things. What do you think these guards are going to do? Invite him in for schnapps? Why not? It's only a piece of cotton, isn't it? No, it's not. It stands for something else. Friends, you are not only a piece of cotton. It doesn't matter what you think when you stand in front of the mirror, and you think, "Who would want to see this dance?" Genesis 1 says, "I do." Signed "God." Why? Because human beings are made in his image. That means that every act of abuse against another human being is an act of high treason against God. Every time I do some shoddy work to make an extra shekel, every time I have people working in inhumane conditions so I can buy my BMW, what do you think God has to say about that? (Nothing against BMW's by the way, I'd love to have one.) It means every time I come home and I'm a little bit cranky because of a hard day at the office I have to think twice before I let my wife have it, and kick the dog and have the kids run for their lives. Just imagine what it would be like if we had a government that lived on that basis. Would you like to live in a country like that? What does it mean to your economics. It is possible. You just have to remember though that people really matter. And they shouldn't be allowed to fall through the cracks. What if Christians really started to live like that? That's what this story's about. On the last day, the seventh day, God sits finally enthroned in his glory. It's exactly as you would expect. What does Solomon do? He builds his palace and he's at rest . That's what you do. It's the metaphor. I would, therefore, suggest to you that Genesis 1 is really not a story about what order and how long it took. That's not the primary point. I think what it's about in terms of the culture is: It's part of this whole story of conceiving this world as a palace temple, about kings, images of the god. It says: Not Marduk, but Yahweh is the one who gave basic structure to the world. This place has been finely tuned and designed for us to live in. And it's God's palace temple, not mine to treat at my whim. Others and I are made in God's image. If you begin to live that, you're going to know what it means to be truly human. You and I are not accidents. How did God cause this to come about? Did He do it by evolution? That's not the issue. He may have. I happen to think there are some scientific problems with that. He may have. Who knows? That's not the point of the story. The point of the story is its meaning, its significance.

I believe the says were literal days for God went to the trouble to keep stating that it was evening and morning of the first day, or second or whatever. That indicates a solar day.

There are some very respected names on either side of this issue.Old earth: James Dobson, John Ankerburg, Hugh Ross, Norman Geisler(though he is very partial to Young Earth Creationists and as further evidence coninues to mount, I don't see him holding this opinion much longer)Young earth: Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Jonathan SarfatiAs far as the Genesis account goes; I believe the plain reading of scripture is sufficient. Dr. Russell Humphries has what he calls the "Timothy Test." It goes like this:To make these points[of a plain meaning of Scripture] a little clearer, imagine a Jewish Christian of the first century who understands Greek, Hebrew and the Scriptures well. Let's call him "Timothy," since Paul's protege was called that. But let's also imagine that this Timothy knows nothing of the advanced scientific knowledge of his day, such as Aristotle's works. All that Timothy knows is from either everyday expeirience or careful study of Scripture, which Paul says is sufficient for wisdom (2 Tim. 3:15). Now if Scripture really is straightforward and sufficient, then the meaning Timothy derives from the words is probably the meaning that God intended for everybody to get.It's interesting that it's not until the 19th century when the science of the day was starting to proclaim an old earth that we began to see theologians commenting on Genesis saying that the six days of creation were not necessarily six days. To paraphrase A W Tozer he said don't go around worrying about what they say, all you have is one fallen head instructing another fallen head. Science is continually changing. I think if we'll hold on a littly longer we'll see the plain reading of Genesis vindicated :-) .In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

I believe there is a young earth and the world was created in 6 literal days.God created plants on the 3rd day and then the sun on the 4th:Genesis 1:11-19 KJVAnd God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. It only makes sense that these were actual 24 hour days. If God created plants and then waited 1000 years or however long, before creating the sun, don't you think that they would have all died from lack of sunlight? Plants have this process called photosynthesis that requires sunlight in order for them to live. If there was no sunlight for 1000 years before God make the sun, we would have no plants today. And probably no people cause we require the oxygen they produce. God had to make the sun within 24 hours, not years, in order for the plants to live. God make the order of creation the way He did for a reason. Mabye He knew people would come up with this evolution and old earth idea. And he needed a way to prove creation and young earth. Why do we question so much of the Bible? Just take it for what it is. Stop trying to make something out of nothing. God means what He wrote. There are no hidden meanings.

It's interesting that it's not until the 19th century when the science of the day was starting to proclaim an old earth that we began to see theologians commenting on Genesis saying that the six days of creation were not necessarily six days.I think the Timothy Test is a good idea. My own views are shaped around something which is usually called the Gap Theory and which is usually discounted 'because it was only invented to accommodate the great ages indicated in Darwinian evolution.' I don't believe it because it provides a Darwinian accommodation but because I think it is the best scriptural hypothesis. It was held my many solid evangelicals; Graham Scroggie, Campbell Morgan, Oswald Chambers.It is called the Gap Theory because it suggests that there is an gap of indeterminate length between the first two verses; In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [GAP] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gen 1:1-2 KJV)The Theory is based on the idea that Gen 1:1 is all that we have as Divine revelation as to how the ‘heavens and earth’ were created. The word ‘bara’ which scholars often say indicates ‘creation’ is only used in verses 1, 21, 26,27. bara certainly does not seem to be used of human creativity.Of the physical world:Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.Of animal life:Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.Of human life:Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.The Hebrew word ‘asah’ is used more frequently [Ge 1:7,11-12,16,25-26,31,2:2-4,18,] It is said to mean “it means to fashion, or produce, to prepare out of existing material e.g. to build a ship, or a house or to prepare a meal.”Gen 1:2 could legitimately be translated; And the earth became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. There is an example of this is Gen 2:7 where we are told that man ‘became a living soul’. It is the same verb and construction. It is also found when Lot’s wife ‘became’ a pillar of salt. This makes it possible to consider an event which occurred in verse 2 to ‘heavens and earth’ which had been created in verse 1. ["was" is occasionally used with a simple accusative in the sense of "to be made" or "to become"].According to the Gap Theory, the earth (not the heavens) became ‘tohu’ and ‘bohu’. "without_form" is "tohu" (Hebrew)Strongs 08414Ge 1:2 De 32:10 1Sa 12:21 Job 6:18,12:24,26:7 Ps 107:40Isa 24:10,29:21,34:11,40:17,23,41:29,44:9,45:18-19, 49:4,59:4 Jer 4:23Isaiah 34:11 refers to a ruined city; Gesenius defines it as "that which is wasted, laid waste""void" is "bohu" (Hebrew)Strongs 0922Ge 1:2 Isa 34:11 Jer 4:23There are only 3 places where both words are used together; Ge 1:2 Isa 34:11 Jer 4:23. The latter two both refer to ‘ruins’ caused by an outpouring of God’s wrath. The Isa 45:18 says quite specifically that God did NOT create the earth "tohu". If Ge 1:2 describes the condition of the created earth at its very beginning, then it would appear that Isaiah contradicts Genesis. The best-fit hypothesis (to my mind) is that some tragedy or judgment intervened between Ge 1:1 and Ge 1:2. Our first "view" of the earth in Ge 1:2 is that it is baptised, totally immersed. Baptism is always a picture of judgment to death. Of another "baptism" Peter says "being overflowed with water (it) perished" 2Pe 3:6 1Pe 3:20-21A further distinction may be observed in that Ge 1:1 speaks of the creation of "heavens and earth", but Ge 1:2 speaks only of a ruined earth. This accords with Psalm 19 where it is the heavens particularly which declare God's glory, rather \tthan the whole of creation as we find it. The glory of God is in all creation, but it is the heavens particularly which "speak" it clearly. Ps 19:1-6I think this makes Biblical room for an old earth. According to the Genesis account the ‘day count’ began with ‘Let light be’. Whatever the timings of days in the remainder of Genesis 1 may be, Genesis 1:1,2 give no details of ‘creative words’ from God. These verses only state facts, giving no comment on the means. The ‘creative words’ of Genesis begin in verse 3.Just my thoughts…

Hello everyoneI am fortunate to find this conversation open for a change; it would seem I am the only person on the opposite side of the debate! Now, at the risk of infuriating my peers, I must insist that I am unmoved by all of your arguments (no, I am not saying this is an argument). There are too many points for me to address individually and I fear that its opponents will scarcely read a lengthy response so let me just restate my first main points, which have not been addressed directly in this debate. I do however feel it necessary to expand my second point, if you will bear with me:1)A “solar day” cannot exist without the sun; the sun was created on the forth day.2)My initial argument was that there was something spiritual about the story of creation and that we therefore cannot think of time in terms of science, if we do we must take the most valid and up-to-date theory of science i.e. quantum mechanics and relativity. Newton mechanics (the way we measure time, distance speed) is only valid on earth; for example the formula Force = mass x acceleration (F=ma) only works on earth. The only reason Newton mechanics is still used is because the formulae are far simpler and easier to work with. Newton mechanics would have us believe that everything (including time) is absolute- it is not. This is because everything we observe here on earth is taken from our point of reference, this the only point of reference that makes any sense to us. The equation E=mc^2 (relativity) is valid everywhereAt the speed of light time (as we know it) stands still. This is not the only case of altered time. For very large masses, time slows down too. At the atomic level, quantum time kicks in. To measure time you require a point of reference. The period of the Earth (the time for one full rotation) is one day; divide that by 24 and you get an hour, divide that by 60 you get a minute, divide that by 60 and you get one second- the standard measurement of time. We are more accurate these days and we know that the Earth take a little less than 24 hours for a period…the most absolute way to measure time is now the rate of decay of a cesium atom. In addition, while I am on this point, the rate of rotation of the Earth changes with its proximity to the sun. This is because the kinetic and potential energies change according to how close the earth s to the sun (a sun which was created on the forth day). Unless God was standing on Earth, as we know it today, that is earth after creation, this was not his point of reference. One person mentioned light as a prerequisite for photosynthesis. I must dismiss this argument on the basis that the dynamics and biology of the earth was different to what it is now. When the Lord cursed the ground for Adams (Gen3:17) sake, we have no idea what this meant for plant biology (which stem from the ground). This is all speculation and therefore not valid in a debate but to support my point let us consider the longevity of early man. Science, which dismisses photosynthesis without light, would also have to dismiss the human body along with all its complex proteins surviving oxidation (the process by which we age) for more than 200 years as impossible. If you make a scientific argument you must stick with science all the way, you cannot just discard the parts of science which do not agree with your views as this makes you an unreliable source (Jas1:8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.)These are some of the reasons I do not equate science with the bible, it brings up to many complications, which hinder faith. Like it or not, the concept we have of time now is a purely scientific one. We must put God at the center of the universe and as the point of reference (2 Peter3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.) Again, John 4:24God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. With this in mind is it not best to think of time in the Spiritual essence that God exists? Our predecessors believed that earth was the centre of the universe and that the sun revolved around the earth. It was a form of science and astronomy, which turned out to be wrong when telescopes were improved and we were able too see past our point of reference (earth). It is the nature of man to place himself at the centre of the universe and consider what he sees to be absolute and “literal”. Still at the end of the day I think the most important thing that through faith we all agree that the World was made by the word of God (Hebrew11)Your son in Christ James

we find god's word to be Absolute or is it Obsolete.Absolute would mean that we believe what god has to say. his word says that he can not lie. Obsolete why even bother to read a fairie tale other then to pass the time. In the begining was the word and the word was with God and the word was god. modern man can not explain how the world came into being without first spinning a fairy tale they don't have the proof. on the other hand god has a book of remembrance written by holy men of god who wrote as they were moved by the spirit of God. God's ability is in his word. one must enter the kingdom of God as a little child. a child who believes his heavenly father. I believe my heavenly father.

Jimm,While I'm not infuriated at you, I still disagree with you and will very briefly(since it's my bedtime :knockedout:) answer your first point and the first proposition of your second point.1)A “solar day” cannot exist without the sun; the sun was created on the forth day.The first part of this statement is not true. The Sun is not necessary for a day to occur. Should the Earth be covered by clouds so as to completely block out the sun we would know that a day has elapsed not because the sun is or is not shining, but because the earth is revolving. What is necessary for a day is one complete revolution of the earth which takes approximately 23hrs and 56min--and does not require the sun for such a feat. However, there was light and there was darkness, this light did not come from the sun. While it's hard for us to comprehend this because the only source of light we know comes from stars, this should not be hard at all for the Christian to accept since in the eternal period there will be no sun or moon but there will be light. So on the first day we had light and we had darkness and we had one revolution of the earth constituting one day. This blows the roof off of ancient paganistic religions and modern evolutionists who worship stars as the source of life. :-D My initial argument was that there was something spiritual about the story of creation The only thing spiritual about the History of Genesis is that God created ex nihlo the earth and all of the universe. The genre of Genesis 1-11 is history, not poetry and should be read as such. A plain reading of the text using sound hermenutical and exegetical principles can only mean that God created the Heavens and the Earth in Six 24hr days. We should not be moved by the "ever changing" field of science. I mean, come on, we need to give these guys a chance to catch up. They've been working on this for only 2 centuries now;-)? Give 'em some time, since we already have a first hand account from not only someone who was there but the One who did it. :-D There are many scientists already coming around and believing not only in God, but also in a young earth 8-) . (I wouldn't be me if I didn't throw in a little sarcasm ;-) )In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

A “solar day” cannot exist without the sun; the sun was created on the forth day.The first part of this statement is not true.Jeremy. By definition a 'solar' day cannot exist without old 'Sol'. You may want to defend 24-ish hour periods but you cannot call them 'solar' if there is no Sun.The first verse to use the word 'day' should alert us to the fact that this term has a certain flexibility.And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Gen 1:5 KJV)Here 'day' means the 'light' part of the period, but in the second use the word 'day' means the 'light' part of the day plus the 'dark' part of the day. This shows that the word 'day' does not have a discrete value in this verse.day = daybut day = day + night.Gen 2:4 also shows that we need to be aware that 'day' does not always have a discrete value. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, (Gen 2:4 KJV)But which day is this? Day 1? or Days 1 to 6? The use of 'bara' for created in Gen 2:4 suggests that Gen 1:1 is in mind. But the first creative word and the beginning of the creation chronology does not appear until Gen 1:3. This might imply that there was another day before the first Day.Some older readers may recall my strivings with Jake over the issues of creation-darwinianism and be surprised at my position here. But the issue is the same. I opposed Jake because he imposed a dogmatic interpretation on these verses and the chapters that follow. In matters where devout and godly Christians differ we need to be careful lest we draw a circle around our own interpretation which becomes the definition for 'orthodoxy'. This can then have the effect of exluding many from our our family in God. (not that I put Jake's extra-biblical fantasies into the same category as the reasoned discussions of young-earthers!)I yield to none in my love and allegiance to the scriptures. I don't know anyone who has a higher view of inspiration than my own, but inspiration is not in question here but interpretation, and with all such areas 'we know in part'.As regards 'sarcasm'. Go easy my brother. Look at the word and think about its etymology and you will understand why 'sarcasm' has been called 'the devil's wit'. ;-)

Hello againPerhaps I should have defined what I meant when I said “solar day”, as the dictionary puts it:1. Of or pertaining to the sun; proceeding from the sun; as, the solar system; solar light; solar rays; solar influence. 2. (Astrol.) Born under the predominant influence of the sun. [Obs.]3. Measured by the progress or revolution of the sun in the ecliptic; as, the solar year.4. Produced by the action of the sun, or peculiarly affected by its influence.5. 2. The period of the earth's revolution on its axis. -- ordinarily divided into twenty-four hours. It is measured by the interval between two successive transits of a celestial body over the same meridian, and takes a specific name from that of the body. Thus, if this is the sun, the day (the interval between two successive transits of the sun's center over the same meridian) is called a solar day; if it is a star, a sidereal day; if it is the moon, a lunar day.Hence, if there is no sun, there is no solar day. And to clarify I am not the person who came up with the term solar day in this discussion, but since someone coined the term to support a 24 hour day I have resorted to this technicality.Since the format of this thread is already technical, I will continue with another technical allegory. In grandma’s day, skirts were long. Does this really imply that skirts were long for 24 hours? Now I tell you the truth, my grandma would not lie about something like that; we must therefore assume that her statement was absolute. To paraphrase one of my contemporaries in this debate, her statement is either absolute or obsolete. Yes, okay I am being far too literal; forgive me if I have insulted your intelligence with this juvenile word play. I think you can see where I am going with this, my next point; a day does not always refer to a 24-hour period. We all know this fact and so quoting the dictionary would be very facetious. The absolute statements of Genesis are read, and since the only concept of a day we have is 24-hours we cannot look past this “fact”. “Facts” or laws of science do not bind God. He could have indeed, for his own purposes made the days 24 hours long, but he did not have to. In the story of creation, a day could have been seconds (as we understand them) or thousands of years. (2 Peter3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.) The bottom line is that each day was a period of time, which had a definite end and beginning (morning and evening).

Jimm:I can quite follow what you are saying, so do not worry about being the only one on your side of the fence.I am presently inclined towards two different interpretations: one is the form of Gap Theory espoused by Philologos (a form popularised by CI Scofield in his Scofield Reference Bible.) -- there is a "gap" between v.1 and v.2. The other view is to emphasise that the narrative is not a scientific description of the process of creation but a literary statement of the theological significance of creation (the form described in my earlier post quoting Rikki Watts), somewhat similar to your view.But as I said before, I am quite open-minded on this issue. I am more interested in having an interpretation that is consistent with the overall message of the 50 chapters of Genesis. Christians have spent too much time arguing about the first two chapters, and seem to have forgotten that the author have used them as the prelude to the following narratives!Hulsey:First, The "Timothy Test" is definitely commendable. However, the problem is whether Christians could agree on a "plain reading" of Genesis 1. We must not forget that "Timothy" (a reader of the Bible in ancient times) would have a completely different worldview -- his culture, literature, values would all be very different from the modern reader. From this perspective, it is not all that "plain" that "Timothy" would understand "history" at a level of detail the same way as we do.The whole problem is everyone tends to think they have got the "plain reading". The question is by what criteria do we determine what the original reader would have understood what the original author had meant. Rikki Watts quoted in my previous post obviously do not find your reading all that "plain."Second, I find your following statement overly simplistic: "The genre of Genesis 1-11 is history, not poetry and should be read as such." You are right that the genre is the key to understand a passage, because it is virtually a reading contract between the author and reader. We understand poetic statements differently from historical statements.However, the precise problem is that the genre of Genesis 1 is not all that clear. On the one hand, it does not have the typical Hebrew parallelisms and literary structure of Hebrew poetry. On the other hand, the repetitive formulae and the literary structure evident from the correspondence between days 1 and 4, days 2 and 5, and days 3 and 6 (see Watts), indicate strong poetic elements and qualities. Another aspect we have to consider is that language of accommodation quite possibly have been used here. When it comes to matters of creation, it is quite reasonable to assume that it is ultimately beyond our understanding. Hence, God could be speaking in simplistic terms that we are capable of understanding in order to accommodate our limitations. When it comes to things of God, we are more like babies; God quite possibly have resorted to a kind of "baby-talk". When your 3-year-old asked you where babies come from, telling him about sperm, ovary, placenta, uterus, etc. certainly seems a little too much.All I have said thus far is that there are possibilities outside of a literal understanding of the six-days. Of course, it could well be that "yom" really is a 24-hour day. I guess we will find out when we see the Lord; but at present, I find myself open to various possibilities that all seem to make sense to me, and they do not appear to compromise the fundamental Christian faith in God and his written revelation.In the mean time, I do suggest that Christians spend more time contemplating on the spiritual significance of creation in the whole book of Genesis as well as in the whole Bible.

Hie guysThank you very much 001! If you read, my original thread you will note that I was implying the spiritual significance of Genesis to be far more important but I do not think anyone even gave that a second look, and dismissed it as being invalid. In short, we know that the Word (Jesus) is God (from John1) and John spoke of the story of creation as including the Word. Jesus said some very interesting spiritual statements about “day” in the book of John.John 9:4I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. (Creation also took place during the day)In the next verse, just after he has spoken of day and night 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. (This is an opinion, but it seems as if to walk in him is to walk, in the spiritual light or perhaps, spiritual day. Is spiritual day 24-hours long?)11:9Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. (It would be silly for us to think of this as “day time” as we know it. Jesus was referring to spiritual day)To end, I am not the one who said, "The genre of Genesis 1-11 is history, not poetry and should be read as such.” I find the statements you mad about days 1 and 4, days 2 and 5, and days 3 and 6 interesting.Lastly, the point about the language of accommodation could not have been put any better. That is what I was trying to infer when I began to babble on about scientific theories. Our understanding of time is just scratching the surface reality (the spiritual world). Like it or not our understanding of time is a scientific one. I could write a long-winded explanation of how the 24-hour system was put in place, but honestly, what would be the point? In my opinion, it would be to try to show that there is nothing at all significant about the 24-hour day. Other planets have longer days and short days, all characterized with a morning and evening (all planets in this solar system are solar days). Sometimes I think that God put other planets in the solar system to tease us and show us that we are not the center off the universe. Without God (The creator of the universe and of life) on this planet, there is nothing spectacular about earth and our sacred 24-hour day. I will end there for now before I step on anyone’s toes!Your son in ChristJames

Philo,My sarcasm was meant for comedy and not for offense I hope therefore that no one was offended.Jimm, 001I'll give you that a "solar day" requires a sun, but a "day" in this context requires light, darkness, and a revolving earth. All three are present on day one. Therefore 24hr days going by are possible before day 4.Yes I'll completely agree with the different uses and meanings of day because that forces us to look at the context, for it's context that determines the meaning of a word and not its semantic range or possible meanings, and the context here is on my side. I wouldn't argue that there must be water pouring from the ground just because someone said, "It's spring outside," arguing that because spring can mean a source of water coming from the ground. I would know from the context that spring here means a season. Just because it can be used with different meanings doesn't mean all those meanings apply to the context. The context gives it only one possible meaning, and that is a season of the year. The same is true of day(yom) in Genesis. The context will give away its meaning.In Genesis, the word day(yom) has certain grammatical contexts, any of which alone point strongly to 24-hour days: 1.with a numeric(day one, second day, etc.) 2.with evening and morning 3.associated with nightYet Genesis 1 has all three features, so this becomes overwhelming evidence that the days are ordinary-length days. In fact, one must ask: just suppose that God really did mean to communicate creation in six ordinary days, how could He have done so more clearly? Or conversly, if God really did create over millions of years, how could He have been more misleading?While Ross(Hugh Ross)points to other meanings of yom, no creationist disputes that. Rather we point out that yom means a longer period of time only in a context completely different from Genesis 1, for example, with a preposition b(in). Other objections to literal days are mere rationalizations that do not stand up under careful attention to the text.Refuting Compromise, pg105, Jonathan SarfatiIf God created the earth over eons then there are much better ways in Hebrew to communicate such, but if He created it in six days, how much more clear could He make Himself as we see in the plain reading of the text?In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

Philo,I would certainly say there is some trepedation in taking you on when it comes to scripture :-o . I too share your love for the word of God and hold my highest allegiance to it and the defense of it. But all you need for a difference of opinion is two people and enough time ;-) . While we share a difference of opinion, I consider this issue not a test for orthodoxy also, there is much room for charity while at the same time holding strongly to my interpretation of six literal days. :-D Gen 2:4 also shows that we need to be aware that 'day' does not always have a discrete value. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, (Gen 2:4 KJV)But which day is this? Day 1? or Days 1 to 6? The use of 'bara' for created in Gen 2:4 suggests that Gen 1:1 is in mind. But the first creative word and the beginning of the creation chronology does not appear until Gen 1:3. This might imply that there was another day before the first Day.Dr. Robert McCabe, professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park Michigan says:"In Genesis 2:4, "day" appears in a compound grammatical construction. A literal translation of v.4b will assist in explicating the sifnificance of this construction: "in-the-day-of-making by the Lord God earth and heaven." The five hyphenated words in this translation are what constitue this compound grammatical relationship. These five words involve three closely related words in the Hebrew text: the inseparable prepostition ("in"), immediately attached to the construct, singular noun yom("day"), and an infinitive construct ("making").Thus the "day in 2:4 is not simply an example of a singular noun but is part of a compound grammatical construction. When the preposition b("in") is prefixed to the construct noun yom("day") and these words are followed by an infinitive construct, this complex construction forms a temporal idiomatic construction. The temporal nature of this construction is reflected in its more than 60 uses in the OT. When a particular day is in view in a specific context, it may be translated as "on the day when." When te temporal reference is more general, this construction is more generally translated as "when." As a result, rather than translating "in-the-day-of-making" as "in the day of," a more concise English equivalent would be to render it as "when.""So the NIV is correct to translate this passage as "When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

Hulsey,Yes I'll completely agree with the different uses and meanings of day because that forces us to look at the context, for it's context that determines the meaning of a word and not its semantic range or possible meanings, and the context here is on my side.I understand the principle and heartily agree to it. Obviously, I do not agree that the context is so "plainly" and "clearly" on your side. Our difference begins in our understanding of the literary genre of Genesis 1. I see the passage as a narrative with strong poetic elements and a tight and neat literary structure (see my previous posts). Hence I think the whole passage is not meant to tell us "how" the created world come about, but "why" it come about. Literary genre -- this is our first fundamental difference.Second, I also suggested the possibility of a language of accommodation being used here. That God "saw" that it was good, obviously does not mean he has eyes, for God is Spirit -- it is an anthropomorphic language to accommodate for the limitations of human language to talk about God. Likewise, one does not address a three-year-old kid's question about the origin of baby with terms such as ovary, uterus, etc., even if one is a professor of biology. There are indications that such an accommodating language is being used in Genesis 1-3, such as the narrative about God "walking in the garden."If God created the earth over eons then there are much better ways in Hebrew to communicate such, but if He created it in six days, how much more clear could He make Himself as we see in the plain reading of the text?Whether the Hebrew language is capable of expressing millions of years is questionable, though I am not an expert in the language. Nevertheless, it is totally irrelevant if the intention of the passage is not to convey the time God took to create the world in the first place.I can see where you are coming from, and I have honestly considered arguments and reasons put forth by "young earth proponents." But despite much consideration, I respectfully disagree on the basis of my belief that the whole point of this passage is to convey the significance of creation, not a description of the process of creation. What I hate most is for someone to end an argument by claiming the "plain reading" is on their side, as though those who disagree are somehow inferior or blind or complicating things. After all, when a single passage has such a wide range of different interpretations held by Bible-believing evangelicals, it is very hard to conceive it as being all that "plain."

Beloved,I see this issue boiling down to two basic questions:1) Do you believe that YHWH is and was and is to come Elohyim enough to have done this in 6- 24 hour days as we know them?2) Is the purpose of the gap theory to explain the phenomena we find under our feet? (fossil record)Question 1:Is it possible to ascribe to God having done something greater than He is capable of doing? If God is who He claims to be and does what He claims to do- it would be a light thing for Him to have created the cosmos in 6- 24 hour days. I have taught these issues and have told my classes that as far as I'm concerned if God was not able to create this world in its raw form in 6- 24 hour days- how could He possibly hear the prayers of 6 billion people if they all prayed at once and yet maintained His infinitely intricate purposes all at the same time? It seems to me that creating this earth was not near the greatness as tending it day in and day out- and yet dealing with all that the enemy is doing in the heavenlies since the fall? He is even as we speak upholging all things by the word of His power- meaning that this place has to be constantly tended or everything would get out of whack. Our God claims to know all things from the beginning and gives angels names that are beyond our comprehension. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without Him seeing and He knoweth ALL things. That means He knows everything that is to be known- past, present, and future. His ways are past finding out. Again- I fear we have to deal with the pillaging of God's word in the hands of Greek logic. Whenever things don't add up there has to be something wrong with God's word. Could it not be us? No, there is something wrong with our model of thinking. It is far to narrow to be able to handle the plurality of God's Majesty and greatness. Our finite minds are God's creation and we as a people have yet to discover the depths of our own brains.The Hebrew pictures of the earth being void, etc. has been described to me from a Hebrew point of view in classes at the institute. It is a picture of an dove, eagle, or like bird brooding over its nest. The Spirit of God was brooding over the earth. Question 2:I believe the primordial canopy position. Without going into it- it makes the most sense of all in my studies by far. God Bless,-Robert

Hi again everyone001 is expressing things far more efficiently than I am; I am tempted to let him alone in the defense of the nature of the language of Genesis.I think the author of Hebrews (in Hebrews11) said it best when he said, “through faith we understand that the world was formed by the word of God, so that things which are, were not made by things which do appear”. At least we all agree that God made the world. Genesis is not really a historical account because there is far too much data missing. The human brain extrapolates all the information it meets and relates it to memories. In the same way, we see the word “day” and we subconsciously extrapolate 24hours. It is the only logical as far as our brains are concerned. Our sight works in the same way. Sometimes we see something and we cannot tell what it is, not because we are not looking closely enough, or because our eyes have misinterpreted the nature of the light, they are receiving. It is because the brain may have attempted to extrapolate an image with an inappropriate memory. Fortunately, we are able to recognize this most of the time, so if you see a car and you are looking into a forest you might squint your eyes and then you see that it really a tree. It is not the squinting that helps you “see”, rather the fact that your brain has re-extrapolated the information.I read Mr. Husley’s argument in his response to “perhaps the earth was flat” and I must say that the logic was very impressive. I could not help but smile as I read the next thread to do with proficient use of idiomatic expressions. The logic was simply flawless Sir! Therein however, lies what I (in my own opinion) perceive to be the fallacy of your argument. Of you negate the spiritual aspect of the story of creation and equate it to logic you must continue in logic.In the beginning, the earth was “formless and empty”. I suppose it is not irrational to assume that this formless empty object was rotating with a period of 24hours, about the…oh yes of course, the sun does not exist yet.Continuing with logic, we must note that a light was created to accommodate day and night. There is no evidence in this “historical” and “literal” account, that this light was subsequently destroyed. If this light was sufficient to create 24-hour day why then was a sun created? Furthermore, if this “literal”, “physical” light is still in existence where is it now? It would be the best piece of evidence (as far as I am concerned) for this discussion.While on the point of the light, we must also note that that day and night was measure by the initial light. When the sun was created, day and night, as we know it came it existence. Was this the definition of day and night that was used in the previous three days or did the definition change, when the sun came into existence. You may say that it makes no difference, morning and evening is morning and evening right? If it does in fact make no difference then, the creation of the sun was pointless.If you read the thread in the lounge, “Science vs. God”, you will also read that there is no such thing as cold, only lack of heat. Since this “literal”, “historical” account gives no evidence to suggest that a source of heat was not created. As we know, without heat, water turns to ice, and at absolute zero (the coldest temperature possible) plant life would freeze in seconds.I could go on, but this thread is long enough as it is. My point is, God is not bound by what we call “logic”. (2 Peter3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.) I believe God was capabel of creatin the wold in less than 24hours (as we know them).One real problem is that our perception of time is far too limited to accept thisYour son in ChristJames

First I would like to say that I'm thoroughly enjoying this debate. I hope that you don't take me wrong when I disagree with you. I just disagree ;-) .Genesis is not really a historical account because there is far too much data missing.Jimm,How much data is required for an event to become historical? We read that in 6 days God created the heavens and the earth. That's not enough data to conclude that God created the world in 6 days? My propositional statement is more than enough for someone readingn at a later date to rightly assume that I belive in 6 literal days of creation and yet I've left out all to the data included in Genesis 1. If I'm to follow your logic then I must assume that Julius Caesar never existed or Homer never wrote the Illiad, or Shakespear his plays because there is too much data missing.Continuing with logic, we must note that a light was created to accommodate day and night. There is no evidence in this “historical” and “literal” account, that this light was subsequently destroyed. If this light was sufficient to create 24-hour day why then was a sun created? Furthermore, if this “literal”, “physical” light is still in existence where is it now? It would be the best piece of evidence (as far as I am concerned) for this discussion.While on the point of the light, we must also note that that day and night was measure by the initial light. When the sun was created, day and night, as we know it came it existence. Was this the definition of day and night that was used in the previous three days or did the definition change, when the sun came into existence. You may say that it makes no difference, morning and evening is morning and evening right? If it does in fact make no difference then, the creation of the sun was pointless.God can't create light before He creates a Sun? This is one large argument from silence. God is not obligated to tell us what He did with the light that He lit the initial part of creation with. Once again, there will be light in the eternal, there will even be a measurement of months, because the Tree of Life will bear fruit once a month, without a Sun or a Moon. There will be no solar or lunar calendar yet we apparently will be able to measure out months.In the beginning, the earth was “formless and empty”. I suppose it is not irrational to assume that this formless empty object was rotating with a period of 24hours, about the…oh yes of course, the sun does not exist yet.Does the earth need to sun to rotate about its axis? Not hardly. It just needs to rotate.Here is an article from a YEC(young earth creationist) site:How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day?by Jonathan Sarfati We know today that all it takes to have a day-night cycle is a rotating Earth and light coming from one direction. The Bible tells us clearly that God created light on the first day, as well as the Earth. Thus we can deduce that the Earth was already rotating in space relative to this created light.God can, of course, create light without a secondary source. We are told that in the new heavens and Earth there will be no need for sun or moon (Rev 21:23). In Genesis, God even defines a day and a night in terms of light or its absence.‘Progressive creationists’ sometimes use the argument that the days are really long periods, although God could have used words for that if He had really meant that (see How long were the days of Genesis 1?). The creation of the sun after the Earth undermines progressive creationists’ attempts to harmonise the Bible with billions of years. So they must explain this teaching away. Some assert that what really happened on this fourth ‘day’ was that the sun and other heavenly bodies ‘appeared’ when a dense cloud layer dissipated after millions of years. This is not only fanciful science, but bad exegesis of Hebrew. The word ‘asah means ‘make’ throughout Genesis 1, and is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘create’ (bara’), e.g. in Genesis 1:26–27. It is pure desperation to apply a different meaning to the same word in the same grammatical construction in the same passage, just to fit in with atheistic evolutionary ideas like the ‘big bang’. If God had meant ‘appeared’, then He presumably would have used the Hebrew word for appear (ra’ah), as when the dry land ‘appeared’ as the waters gathered in one place on Day 3 (Genesis 1:9). We have checked over 20 major translations, and all clearly teach that the sun, moon and stars were made on the fourth day.The evidence that ordinary days are being referred to is so overwhelming that even liberal Hebrew scholars admit that the author can have had no other intent — particularly when the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are used from the first day. (See The Answers Book Chapter 2, and Six Days? Honestly!)On the fourth day the present system was instituted as the Earth’s temporary light-bearers were made, so the diffused light from the first day was no longer needed. [Interestingly, after writing this article, I found that Calvin had made the same point (see Calvin says: Genesis means what it says). This shows that once again, skeptics just repeat arguments long ago refuted by Bible believing scholars.]NotesThis would have been very significant to pagan world views which tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. God seems to be making it pointedly clear that the sun is secondary to His Creatorhood as the source of everything. He doesn’t ‘need’ the sun in order to create life (in contrast to theistic evolutionary beliefs.)This unusual, counter-intuitive order of creation (light before sun) actually adds a hallmark of authenticity. If the Bible had been the product of later ‘editors’, as many critics allege (see Did Moses really write Genesis?), they would surely have modified this to fit with their own understanding. It is only recently that the astronomical fact has been realized that a day-night cycle needs only light plus rotation. Having ‘day’ without the sun would have been generally inconceivable to the ancients.http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.aspI read Mr. Husley’s argument in his response to “perhaps the earth was flat” and I must say that the logic was very impressive. I could not help but smile as I read the next thread to do with proficient use of idiomatic expressions. The logic was simply flawless Sir! Therein however, lies what I (in my own opinion) perceive to be the fallacy of your argument. Of you negate the spiritual aspect of the story of creation and equate it to logic you must continue in logic.Logic:(Greek logos,"word", "speech", "reason"), science dealing with the principles of valid reasoning and argument. The study of logic is the effort to determine the conditions under which one is justified in passing from given statements, called premises, to a conclusion that is claimed to follow from them. Logical validity is the characteristic of an argument that guarantees that if the premises of the argument are true then the conclusion must necessarily be true.Logic is the proper use of reason; an ordering of thoughts. Your logic has logicaly concluded that since I used logic I have disquailified my arguments regardless of whether or not they were sound and true. This is an ad hom attack which is a logical fallacy. It is also a self refuting argument: you have used logic to show that logic shouldn't be used in interpreting scripture.My opponent has also proposed that I have taken out the spiritual in the text. I would disagree with the conclusions. The faith required in the text is to believe that God created the earth out of nothing. This has never been in question in this debate. What has been under examination is whether a proper exegesis of the text should be used or should the text be "spiritualized" and an allegorical interpretation deduced in order to fit in with the science of the day--which is always changing. If that is the spiritual part that I am leaving out then I am content to go with a grammatical historical reading of Genesis 1 and let the text say what it says.I could go on, but this thread is long enough as it is. My point is, God is not bound by what we call “logic”. (2 Peter3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.)In answer to the first part of your quote. What is God bound to? This is a good question. Is God bound to the law? The Bible says God can't sin or be tempted. So if God is bound by the law then there is something above God, but God is above all? Then He must be arbitrary and has arbitrarrily imposed the law upon us. But that can't be. There is a third alternative, God acts according to His nature. God by nature is pure actuallity. In other words there is no potential for everything in Him is fully realized. Basically we can havewisdom but God iswisdom; we can have love, but God is love. We can be rational, but God is rational, therefore he is logical, not bound by logic, but bound by His nature wich is logical or rational. (Isa.1:18)Jonathan Sarfati explains the second part of your quote this way: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. He is patient with you , not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance (2Pet. 3:8-9)The first thing to note is that the context has nothing to do with the days of creation. Also, it is not defining a day because it doesn't say "a day is a thousand years." The correct understanding, as always, is derived from the context--the apostle Peter's readers should not lose heart because God seems slow at fulfilling His promises about the second coming of Christ. Rather they are to remember that He is patient, and also because He is not bound by time as we are.The text says "one day is like [or as] a thousand years"--the word "like" (or "as") shows that it is a figure of speech, called a simile, to teach that God is outside of time(because He is the Creator of time itself). In fact, the figure of speech is so effective in its intended aim precisely because the day is literal and contrasts so vividly with 1,000 years--to the eternal Creator of time, a short period of time and a long period of time may as well be the same....God wrote the Bible to teach(2Tim. 3:15-17), so he wrote to be understood. Scripture would have no ability to communicate if words didn't mean the same to God and man.And the time that David reigned over Israel was forty years; he reigned seven years in Hebron, and thirty-three years in Jerusalem.(1Kings 2:11)Did God experience the 7 and 33 years in the same way David did? No! Were those still ordinary years? Yes! Therefore, when He said "day," in the context of Genesis, He meant day from our perspective, since we are the creatures in the created space-time dimension who experience time.I believe God was capabel of creatin the wold in less than 24hours (as we know them).One real problem is that our perception of time is far too limited to accept thisThis statement says a lot about how you perceive scripture. You are allowing your experience to shape your theology instead of allowing theology to define your experience. You've got the cart before the horse. You are placing science in a magisterial position to the word of God instead of placing it in a ministerial position. In other words, the science of today, as taught by fallen man, must dictate the way we interpret the inspired and infallible word of God.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

Is Genesis Poetic or is it History? If we are to translate it as poetry it could radically change the way we are to interpret the text as opposed to a historical narrative.Genesis 1-11 as Historical Narrativeby W. Gary Phillips and David M. FoutsMost young-age creationists believe the universe and the earth is young because they are convinced that the Bible makes that claim. There are, however, those who have as strong a belief in the truthfulness of Scripture but who do not accept the claim that the universe and earth is young. Some of these people believe that the creation account is not to be taken literally because it is either poetry (as opposed to narrative) or non-historical narrative (allegory, parable, myth, legend or tale). This essay lists reasons to believe that the creation account is historical narrative.1) Non-historical narrative in Scripture does not include a lot of geographical (Scaer, 1977), genealogical (Scaer, 1977), or cultural detail. The description of Eden in Genesis 2:10-14(Scaer, 1977) as well as the genealogies of Cain, Seth, and Shem (chapters 4, 5, and 11) provide geographical and genealogical details more consistent with historical than non-historical Hebrew literature. In Genesis 2-11 are found “...64 geographical terms, 88 personal names, 48 generic names, and at least 21 identifiable cultural items (such as gold, bdellium, onyx, brass, iron, gopher wood, bitumen, mortar, brick, stone, harp, pipe, cities, towers)...” (Kaiser, 1970:59)—all presenting “...us with the possibility of establish-ing the reliability of our author” (Kaiser, 1970:59). Furthermore, aside from God and the “heavens” (which might even be the physical “heavens”), Genesis One has a surprising paucity of reference to the spiritual world (Berkhof, 1941:150). In short, Genesis 1-11 focuses on details of the physical world in a manner more characteristic of historical than of non-historical literature.2) In Scripture, non-historical literature consistently includes a person who receives or tells the story as well as an interpreter. With the exception of the multiple parables of Matthew13 which are given a single collective interpretation, non-historical stories are alsofollowed by an interpretation. It also tends to be the case in Scripture’s non-historicalliterature that every element of the story is symbolic. (NOTE: The only exception seemsto be the Greek passage of Luke 12:13-21.) God thus does not appear as “God,” but issymbolized by another figure (e.g. landowner, father). Scriptural analogies of singularevents tend to refer to a historical narrative elsewhere in Scripture detailing that event.In Genesis 1-3, however, there is neither narrator, nor interpreter, nor interpretation, andevery element of the account seems to be non-symbolic (e.g. birds, plants, stars)—including God appearing as Himself. Furthermore, if the passage or any part of it is ananalogy of a singular event, then this would be the only Scriptural example where thatevent is not recorded anywhere else in Scripture’s historical narrative. It seems mostlikely then, that Genesis 1-3 is actually historical narrative (Scaer, 1977).3) Numerology, figures of speech, textual symmetry (e.g. Days 1 through 3 vs. 4 through 6)and phenomenological language are found in Genesis 1-11, they are also found in bothHebrew poetry and historical narrative (see Bullinger, 1898; Scaer, 1977). Genesis Onedoes, however, lack the two primary identifiers of Hebrew poetry (Berkhof, 1941:158;Grier, 1977:10)—parallelism of juxtaposed couplets and metrical balance. In contrast,Genesis One does contain elements which identify it as Hebrew prose rather than po-etry,such as a) separation of events into a clear sequential order (Kaiser, 1970:60); the use of waw consecutive with the verb to describe sequential events (Kaiser,1970:59); frequent use of the direct object sign and relative pronoun (Kaiser, 1970:59-60); stress on definitions (Kaiser, 1970:60); genealogical lists; and narrative prose with interspersed poetic lines.4) There appears to be a seamless connection between each Genesis account and the one to follow. This continuity continues through Genesis 11, and then leads seamlessly into the Abrahamic account (Berkhof, 1941:158). This continuity is reinforced by the tôledôt (the Hebrew phrase translated “in the generations of...”). Not only is it used to introduce the Biblical patriarchs of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, it is used to introduce six other sequential blocks of text from Genesis 2:4 up to Abraham’s tôledôt(Kaiser, 1970:59). Since the Abrahamic and succeeding accounts of Genesis are consideredhistorical narrative, the first eleven chapters of Genesis should be considered historical narrative as well (Berkhof, 1941; Kaiser, 1970).5) Adam in Genesis 1-2 was an historical man, not a population:a) ha,adam (translated “man”) is followed by a verb with a singular object suffix (“him”)in Genesis 1:27 and 2:15, rather than by a verb with a plural object suffix (“them”) as wouldbe expected to be used if ha,adam referred to a population (Grier, 1977:13-17);b) In Greek, a definite article is utilized with well known proper names for emphasis. InI Corinthians 15:22 a definite article is utilized with both adam and with Christ (Grier,1977:28-9)c) According to Genesis 2:20-23 and I Timothy 2:13-14 there was a time when therewas man, but no woman. This would be true if adam were a historical man, but would not be true if adam were a population (Grier, 1977:17, 36);d) Adam bears a son at 130 years of age (Genesis 5:3), names his son (Genesis 5:3), dies at 930 (Genesis 5:4-5). In Genesis 3:17 God speaks tothe serpent, the woman, and Adam. In Genesis 3:21 God makes clothes for “Adam and his wife.” Each of these instances seem to require reference to an indi-vidual man. (Grier, 1977:17-18)e) Adam is listed as a name with other names accepted as historical individuals (10patriarchs in I Chronicles 1:1-4; Christ in I Corinthians 15:22; Moses in Romans 5:14; theentire lineage of Christ in Luke 3; and Enoch in Jude 14) (Grier, 1977:18-19, 29-30, 32, 40, 41)f) In Luke 3, Adam is contrasted with all others in the lineage of Christ, by being createdby God—not descendant from other humans (Grier, 1977:40-41)g) Adam is considered a type of Christ in Romans 5:12-17 and I Corinthians 15:22, 45.It would seem that Adam is being considered as historical as Jesus (Grier, 1977:29-31, 34-5)h) Adam is contrasted with all other humans in I Corinthians 15:22 and Romans 5:12-19 (Grier, 1977:30-1, 32-3);i) Several Biblical writers (Hosea, Job, Paul, Luke, and Jude) as well as Christ Himself(in Matthew 19:4-5 and Mark 10:6-8) considered Adam a historical individual (Grier,1977:19-21, 24-42)j) A historical Adam and Eve created with Adam first and then Eve forms the basis forthe doctrine of marriage and divorce (Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:6-8) (Grier, 1977:25-7), theheadship of man and the place of women in the New Testament church (I Timothy 2:13-14)(Grier, 1977:35-6), and the proper adornment for prayer (I Corinthians 11:3-10) (Grier,1977:36-7). A non-historical Adam requires a revision of traditional Christian understand-ingsof Biblical authority, the doctrines of man, sin, Christ, and redemption (Grier, 1977:44-65). 6) Biblical passages which do describe the creation account in the genre of poetry (e.g.Psalm 104:5-9, Psalms 8 & 19, and Job 38:8-11) contrast sharply with the literary style ofGenesis One (Surburg, 1959; Grier, 1977:10). There are even poetic lines found withinthe Genesis 1-11 narrative (e.g. Genesis 1:27: Taylor, 1995; Genesis 4:23-24: Kaiser,1970:60; and Genesis 2:23) which contrast with the remainder of the narrative. This suggests Genesis 1-11 as a whole is not poetry.7) The creation account is referred to in other portions of Scripture as if it were historicalnarrative. Examples: by Moses in Exodus 20:11; by Nehemiah in Nehemiah 9:6; by David in Psalm 33:6-9 (Berkhof, 1941:158); by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6 (Surburg, 1959; Scaer, 1977; Grier, 1977:27-8) and Mark 10:6-8 (Grier, 1977:27-8); by Paul in Acts 17:22-29 (Scaer, 1977) and Romans 1-2 (Scaer, 1977), Romans 5:12-19 (Surburg, 1959), I Corinthians 15:45 (Surburg, 1959), Ephesians 5:31, and I Timothy 2:13-14 (Surburg, 1959).8) “Throughout the ages, both Jewish and Christian expositors, especially up to the time ofrationalism, with few exceptions, regarded the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts of creation asfactual and historical” (Surburg, 1959:47: NOTE: Surburg’s conclusion has not gone undisputed by some Jewish scholars)9) English translations often tend to read more poetically to an English reader than the original text would have read to a Hebrew reader. The King James Version, for example, partly because of its age, sounds more poetic to the modern ear than is the Hebrew (Taylor, 1995). Another example is when Hebrew nouns (e.g. shamayim, mayim, yammim, and tôledôt, translated heaven(s), water(s), and sea(s), and generation(s), respectively) which only come in plural forms (even when they denote a single object) are translated in the plural form in English they tend to sound more poetic than they truly are (Taylor, 1995).10) As far as we know, aside from the modern New International Version, Genesis One hasnever in translation been cast in verse form. There is one known Hebrew manuscript which does so. With the possible exception of the single verse Genesis 1:27, we lack any direct evidence that the Jews understood Genesis One as anything other than his-torical narrative.11) One can argue that all of theology is based on history (Scaer, 1977). For example, thedoctrines of Scripture (e.g. true and unchanging), eschatology (e.g. heaven is comparedwith the original creation; heaven is a rest), man (created in the image of God; fell afterbeing created in a perfect state), marriage (its permanence; the headship of the hus-band),salvation (man needs salvation because he fell from perfection), and God (e.g. true; good; merciful; and fearful in judgment) are all based on the historicity of the creation account in Genesis. In short, there are numerous grammatical, contextual, and theological reasons to believe that Genesis 1-11 is Hebrew historical narrative. Included among the implicationswhich follow from such a position are that 1) humanity’s origin is taken back to Adam onDay Six of the Creation Week; 2) the age of humanity is directly tied to and derivable from the historical “chrono-genealogies” in Genesis 5 and 11; and 3) the burden of exegetical proof rests on anyone who interprets the days of the creation week to mean anything other than 24 hour days.ReferencesBerkhof, L., 1941, Systematic Theology, 4th Edition, Eerdman’s, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 784.Bullinger, E. W., 1898, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated, E. &J. B. Young & Co., New York, NY, p. 1104.Grier, James Murray, Jr., 1977, “The Historicity of Adam and its Significance in SystematicTheology”, Master’s Thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA, p. 82.Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., 1970, “The literary form of Genesis 1-11”, pp. 48-65 In Payne, J.Barton (ed.), New Perspectives on the Old Testament, Word Books, Waco, TX, p. 305.Scaer, David P., 1977, “The problems of inerrancy and historicity in connection with Gen-esis1-3”, Concordia Theological Quarterly, 41:21-25.Surburg, Raymond F., 1959, “In the beginning God created”, pp. 36-80 In Zimmerman,Paul A. (ed.), Darwin, Evolution, and Creation, Concordia, St. Louis, MO, p. 231.Taylor, Charles V., 1995, “Translating grammatical number in the creation Account”,Cre-ation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 9(1):42-4.http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0100.pdfWayn Grudem writes:...[T]he strongest argument against the framework view, adn the reason why comparatively so few evangelicals have adopted it, is that the whole of Genesis 1 strongly suggests not just a literary framework but a chronological sequence of events. When the narrative proceeds from the less complex aspects of creation (light, darkness, waters, sky, and dry land) to the more complex aspects (fish and birds, animals and man) we see a progressive build-up and an ordered sequence of events that are entirely understandable chronologically When a sequence of numnbers-1,2,3,4,5,6-is attached to a set of days that correspond exactly to the ordinary week human beings experience, the implication of chronologial sequence in the narrative is almost inescapable. The sequence of days seems more clearly intended than a literary framework which is nowhere made explicit in the text, andin which many details simply do not fit.-Systematic Theology pg303.The evidence shows that Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative, not peotry.What I hate most is for someone to end an argument by claiming the "plain reading" is on their side, as though those who disagree are somehow inferior or blind or complicating things. After all, when a single passage has such a wide range of different interpretations held by Bible-believing evangelicals, it is very hard to conceive it as being all that "plain."Many "Old"-earthers will readily admit that a surface reading[ie. plain reading] of the text implies a young earth and 6 literal days of creation.Gordon Fee in "How To Read The Bible For All It's Worth" states that "What scripture meant when it was written is what it means now." In other words it can never mean what it never meant. One of the basics of Biblical hermenutics is to try to understand the scriptures the way that the original readers would have understood them "The Timothy Test." "If the plain sense makes sense, then any other sense is likely non-sense."However, if this is not enough then the principle of "scripture interprets scripture" can be applied. Exodus 20:8-11 makes a propositional statement that the Lord made the earth and the heavens and all that are in them (the Hebrew way of saying everything that has been made) in 6 days and rested on the 7th.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

A good article on the history of Genesis can be found here:GENESIS 1-11—MYTHICAL OR HISTORICAL?Here are a few quotes:“If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46- 47).Edward J. Young declared:Genesis one is not poetry or saga or myth, but straightforward, trustworthy history, and, inasmuch as it is a divine revelation, accurately records those matters of which it speaks. That Genesis one is historical may be seen from these considerations: (1) It sustains an intimate relationship with the remainder of the book. The remainder of the book (i.e., The Generations) presupposes the Creation Account, and the Creation Account prepares for what follows. The two portions of Genesis are integral parts of the book and complement one another. (2) The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking. There are poetic accounts of the creation and these form a striking contrast to Genesis one (1964, p. 105).Concerning Dr. Young’s final point, Raymond Surburg wrote:To discern the difference between the historical narrative of Genesis 1:1-2:3 as a prosaic account and a truly poetic version of the creation miracle, the reader needs only to compare Genesis 1 with Psalm 104:5-9; Psalm 12; Job 38-39; Proverbs 8:23-31. These are extremely poetic in character. In Psalms 8 and 19 poetic statements describe the heavenly bodies but there is a real difference between these statements and Genesis 1-2 (1969, p. 2).In his book, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, Henry Morris commented:Genesis 1-11 is certainly recorded as serious and sober history, and it leads directly and naturally into Genesis 12 and the rest of Genesis. Genesis in turn is the necessary foundation for all the rest of Scripture. If these first eleven chapters are not historical, then our entire Biblical foundation has been removed (1984, p. 116).

RobertW:1) Do you believe that YHWH is and was and is to come Elohyim enough to have done this in 6- 24 hour days as we know them?Question 1:Is it possible to ascribe to God having done something greater than He is capable of doing? If God is who He claims to be and does what He claims to do- it would be a light thing for Him to have created the cosmos in 6- 24 hour days. I have taught these issues and have told my classes that as far as I'm concerned if God was not able to create this world in its raw form in 6- 24 hour days- how could He possibly hear the prayers of 6 billion people if they all prayed at once and yet maintained His infinitely intricate purposes all at the same time?.....This is precisely the point that I believe all of us who had participated in this discussion all agree with. There is absolutely no doubt that God is all-powerful, and if he choose to, he could make the whole creation in a second.From my perspective, the issue is not whether God is able to create this world in six 24-hours. I have no doubt that if the sovereign God choose to, he could certainly do so. Rather, the issue is whether this is what Genesis 1 was meant to be understood.I take issue with the line of thinking that whoever disagrees with a literal six-24-hour-day creation are involved in "the pillaging of God's word in the hands of Greek logic. Whenever things don't add up there has to be something wrong with God's word." Obviously, if you had assumed a priori that this is the case, then you will always be right, and whatever others say will always be "Greek logic"! In terms of the relation between Scripture and science, we must be careful not to use the same line of logic employed by the Catholic Church to support the false idea that the sun orbits around the earth against Galileo's heliocentric view. To them, Galileo was a heretic. Obviously, by now, we know the problem came from the Catholic Church's own misinterpretations of Scripture due to their unconscious act of imposing their own worldview into the Word of God.As Alister McGrath had written, the real issue here is not a conflict between science and Scripture, but really differences in the interpretation of Scripture and the worldviews that influence these processes.We have to be careful not to be premature in judging our beloved brothers' interpretations as "Greek logic," lest we end up becoming as dogmatic as Galileo's Catholic Church.

What would happen if we didn't have any chapters or verses ? would it change anything ? Just throwing it in.

Hulsey,You claimed that yours is the "plain reading" of Genesis 1, and cited one line from Gordon Fee's book to support your understanding, i.e. "What scripture meant when it was written is what it means now." Yet you conveniently neglected what was said in the introductory chapter of the same book (How to Read the Bible for All its Worth by Fee & Stuart). I quote:The need to interpret is also to be found by noting what goes on around us all the time. A simple look at the contemporary church, for example, makes it abundantly clear that not all "plain meanings" are equally plain to all. It is of more than passing interest that most of those in today's church who argue that women should keep silent in church on the basis of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 at the same time deny the validity of speaking in tongues and prophecy, the very context in which the "silence" passage occurs. And those who affirm that women, as well as men, should pray and prophesy on the basis of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 often deny that they should necessarily do so with their heads covered. For some, the Bible "plainly teaches" believers' baptism by immersion; others believe they can make a biblical case for infant baptism. Both "eternal security" and the possibility of "losing one's salvation" are preached in the church, but never by the same person! Yet both are affirmed as the plain meaning of biblical texts. Even the two authors of this book have some disagreements as to what certain texts "plainly" mean. Yet all of us are reading the same Bible and we all are trying to be obedient to what the text "plainly" means...Even among more theologically orthodox people, however, many strange ideas manage to gain acceptance in various quarters. For example, one of the current rages among American Protestants, especially charismatics, is the so-called wealth and health gospel. The "good news" is that God's will for you is financial and material prosperity! One of the advocates of this "gospel" begins his book by arguing for the "plain sense" of Scripture and claiming that he puts the Word of God first and foremost throughout his study. He says that it is not what we THINK it says but what it ACTUALLY says that counts. The "plain meaning" is what he is after. But one begins to wonder what the "plain meaning" really is when financial prosperity is argued as the will of God from such a text as 3 John 2, "Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth" (KJV) -- a text taht in fact has nothing at all to do with financial prosperity... One may rightly question whether the plain meaning is being sought at all; perhaps the plain meaning is simply what such a writer wants the text to mean in order to support his pet ideas...The authors of this book labor under no illusions that by reading and following our guidelines everyone will finally agree on the "plain meaning," our meaning! What we do hope to achieve is to heighten the reader's sensitivity to specific problems inherent in each genre, to know WHY different options exist and how to make common-sense judgments...~ End of Quote ~The last paragraph is certainly important. It points out the importance of being sensitive to the literary genre of the passage in question.What I have observed earlier about the literary genre of Genesis 1 is that:(1) The chapter is in a narrative form, since there is no Hebrew parallelisms and poetic structures typically found in Hebrew poetry. Hence it does have some historical significance.(2) The chapter possesses poetic elements and qualities that indicate it is not strictly historical and its literary features must be given due consideration.(3) The chapter at times use a language of "accommodation"; hence this factor must be given some consideration.What we see here is that the evidence is not all that clear-cut. There is room for debate on the literary genre of the chapter. This explains why evangelical scholars seem to be rather diverse along the interpretive spectrum. (contrast Rikk Watts vs. Edward Young).That is the reason why I have not yet committed to one form of solution. And even if I do, I will certainly keep an open-mind.

Thus the "day in 2:4 is not simply an example of a singular noun but is part of a compound grammatical construction. When the preposition b("in") is prefixed to the construct noun yom("day") and these words are followed by an infinitive construct, this complex construction forms a temporal idiomatic construction. The temporal nature of this construction is reflected in its more than 60 uses in the OT. When a particular day is in view in a specific context, it may be translated as "on the day when." When te temporal reference is more general, this construction is more generally translated as "when." As a result, rather than translating "in-the-day-of-making" as "in the day of," a more concise English equivalent would be to render it as "when.""Hi JeremyI have hardly any Hebrew, so I hope I am understanding this properly. A 'temporal idiomatic construction' implies that already by Gen 2:4 we are encountering a cultural context for this account of creation. This does not weaken inspiration for me as I believe God superintended Hebrew cultural development to serve as a vehicle for communication. However, it does indicate that we are not in our own modern (as distinct from post-modern) scientific culture.This was the point I was trying to make with my reference to 3 quite different uses of the word 'day' in the first few verses of the Bible. Let me illustrate with something like the word 'Ruach' - Hebrew for Spirit. You sometimes hear preachers say 'it can also mean 'wind' or 'breath'. This is not strictly accurate; it DOES mean 'wind' and 'breath' AT THE SAME TIME. When we English speakers, read of wind or breath in Ezekiel 37 we have to make a conscious link; for the Hebrews it was no so. For them the word meant 'wind/spirit/breath' AT THE SAME TIME. We have to be extremely cautious in insisting that the word 'yom' can only mean exactly the same as the English word 'day'. This is why translation is always such a delicate balance. An absolutely literal translation may be a serious mistranslation.The word 'day' in Genesis 1,2 seems to be one of these words which AT THE SAME TIME, does mean 'period', 'solar day' or 'era'. Everyone who says "it means x" is correct. The danger occures when someone says "it does not mean y". It does mean 'x' AND 'y' AND 'z'. I am quite convinced that God has built ambiguity into revelation. The use of 'seed' in the promises to Abraham is an example.This is why I have grown cautious in interpreting Genesis in a literal-scientific way. I am not even saying I am right, so I am not trying to gain converts. All I am saying is that having once been a passionate Whitcomb-Morris young earther, I am no longer convinced. I am however a convinced 'creationist', although there is a tendency for young-earthers to claim this designation exclusively for themselves.With many of the truths revealed in Genesis 1 and 2, I have to say 'I don't know what that means in literal/scientific terms'. I find it suggestive that the creation narrative makes a fresh start in Gen 2:4 with the phrase 'the generations'; this phrase is used in Gen 5:1, 6:9, 10:1 as a 'recap'. In doing so it provides a new starting point for the story; almost a 'new readers start here' function.While I am unconvinced regarding a literal 6x24 creation with its implications of a young earth, I am absolutely convinced that we have young human race, whose beginnings are recorded as being on the 6th 'day' when God breathed into the man, whom He had formed, 'the breath of lives' and man became a living soul. This man is the man Adam; all human history begins here.just my thoughts...

Robert, you write1) Do you believe that YHWH is and was and is to come Elohyim enough to have done this in 6- 24 hour days as we know them?2) Is the purpose of the gap theory to explain the phenomena we find under our feet? (fossil record)Answers.1. The question is not 'could He?' but 'did He?'2. The question is wrongly expressed. I do not believe that the 'purpose' of the Gap Theory is to 'explain' anything. In my view one 'purpose' of the Gap Theory is to expound why Isaiah 45:18 says that God did NOT create the earth 'tohu'. Isa 45:18 says quite specifically that God did NOT create the earth "tohu". (If Ge 1:2 describes the condition of the created earth at its very beginning, 'tohu and bohu', then it would appear that Isaiah contradicts Genesis. The best-fit hypothesis (to my mind) is that some tragedy or judgment intervened between Ge 1:1 and Ge 1:2.)

Gordon Fee in "How To Read The Bible For All It's Worth" states that "What scripture meant when it was written is what it means now." In other words it can never mean what it never meant. One of the basics of Biblical hermenutics is to try to understand the scriptures the way that the original readers would have understood them "The Timothy Test." "If the plain sense makes sense, then any other sense is likely non-sense."Hi JeremyI am not a strong supporter of Gordon Fee for other reasons but I would be very surprised to hear that he was a 'young earther'. Are you sure he shares your views?

I am not suprised that this discussion has gone the way it has. This past weekend I heard Ken Ham speak at our local New York State HomeSchool convention and was curious to see the beliefs of the members on SI on young and old earth. As the moderator I was curious the outcome.Here are some points that Ken Ham makes which I think are important.1. The foundations of scripture are being questioned and the authority of scripture are being attacked when evolutionary ideas and "millions of earth" have been introduced. I know that for myself I have doubted the scripture if we are not sure of the beginning of the story.2. The Axiom or the foundation of scripture should be "six literal days" and not "millions of years" which is a evolutionary idea. When the axiom or the foundation of scripture is "six literal days" then we know that God is truth.When we make evolution the axiom, then man can invent truth and man is the center.As a result scripture and the Bible is not believed or trusted and man can do what he wants because the Bible is not relevant or true any more. Man makes up his own truth.3. Science proves that the Bible is true, not the other way around.Some more ideas to discuss.Grace,Doug

Beloved,Since the concern is not to have contradiction between Genesis 1:2 and Isaiah 45:18- then is it the position of the 'old earth' (gap theory) proponents that God originally created the entire cosmos in perfect symphonic equilibrium in one step and in a infinitely short period of time at some unknown point in the eternal past? I don't believe it is necessary to take the position that Isaiah 45:18 contradicts Genesis 1:2 due to the fact that all living organisms begin very simple and move on to become complex. On the 7th day God rested and called the creation 'very good.' That's our apologetic for the issue- from there we can move on to other questions.The Holy Spirit through inspiration started in Genesis 1:2 showing us a picture of the care He took in His role in creating the earth from the simple to the more complex; brooding over the earth as would a bird their nest. It was all part of God's purpose in both 'taking His time' creating the earth and revealing himself as a God of love. When He was finished He called it 'very good' and it was in fact 'habitable.' Not only habitable, but it was in perfect equilibrium. An oasis of unimaginable harmony and perfection. Everything worked together in perfection and purpose. Biological and ecological codependence and synchronization beyond our understanding. We will see this again when Christ 'makes all things new.' Since the earth magnetic field has a half life of 1500 years- we know that life could not have existed here for millions of years. The whole argument about 'time' must bare in mind that 'time' is also a creation of God. We exist in 3 deminsions of space and 1 demension of time. This whole issue is tied directly to the account of the deluge. According to scripture, the flood was a global flood rising to 15-22 feet above the highest mountain top before the waters subsided. That would be roughly 29,000 feet of water seeping slowly over a period of more than 1 year. If it came down at a steady pace it would be raining at a rate of  726 feet per day or 6 inches per minute. That means the average person had roughly 10 minutes to cry out to God for mercy for their soul. Beloved, when you consider the devastation of flash floods, Tsunamis, and other water related disasters- a great portion of the earth's crust would have been floating in the water coming down at a steady rate of 6 inches per minute. This is why we find fossils on the top of mountains. Fossils happen when they are rapidly buried in sediments. The process is called Permineralization. The 'gap theory' has many flavors- but if God wanted us to believe that the earth was destroyed by sin or evil before Genesis 1:3 and was recreated- He would have written Genesis 1 to be understood that way in a plain sense. To see a 'gap' in the text to me is clearly eisogesis and has no support in antiquity. Did any of the reformers or revivalists probigate such a notion? Thanks to Chalmers, Scofield, and Dake, we get to talk about this. But it clearly is a challenge to the biblical flood account as it offers a convenient explaination for the fossil record no matter WHY it is supported. That simply cannot be tolerated biblically in light of 2 Peter chapter 3. We cannot contribute to the willfull ignorance of people looking to explain away God's judgments. To do so would be to be carried about with the error of the wicked and be in danger of falling from our own steadfastness. God Bless,

Doug,I question your underlying assumption that all alternative interpretations to the "six-literal-day" interpretation are tied to evolution. I do believe this is a false characterisation.For instance, arguments based on a different take on the literary genre are not necessarily motivated by evolution or any other perceived contradictions between science and the Bible. They are often based on the well-established principle of interpretation that the literary genre constitutes a reading contract between the author and the reader. Therefore, a different understanding of the genre type in question could change the way we read the passage.I find discussions on Genesis 1 very difficult with some "young earth" proponents because they assume a priori that anyone with an alternative interpretation (even Bible-believing evangelicals who are sincerely seeking the truth)is "challenging the Word of God."The reality is, the trustworthiness and reliability of the Word of God is not in question here. Nor is the omnipotence of God being challenged. The only question here is what the intended meaning of Genesis 1 is; and as the discussion has revealed, this is not an easy one, even among Bible-believing evangelicals. Unfortunately, the way these arguments are often shaped, those who adhere to alternatives to a "six-literal-day" interpretation are often given the impression that they have "sold out" their faith by compromises, that the integrity of their faith in God and his written revelation is to be doubted. It is as though by virtue of a different view, all of a sudden we are cut off from Christian orthodoxy! All of a sudden, we are among the group characterised as carrying "the error of the wicked" and is "in danger of falling from our own steadfastness" (quoting RobertW)!

Beloved,I do not question the Spirituality of old earth scientists. I believe their position gives sinners an excuse to keep on believing God will never judge the earth by accounting the fossil record to be the result of millions (or billions) of years of history. I personally have followed Hugh Ross's ministry for over 12 years. I have used some of his materials and have used shared his books with my scientist friends. However, on the issue of the creation account- he and I must part company in our agreements. I have also held to the position that it makes no difference if the earth were billions of years old there STILL would not be enough time for macro evolution. You are looking at odds as low as 10 to the -40,000. Hugh's ministry serves a purpose in demonstrating a lot of valuable truths. However, I cannot agree with him on the age of the earth. That may seem to be a contradiction to some- but, I have never felt it necessary to divide over issues that were non-essentials. The point is this- the fossil record was caused overwhelmingly by the deluge- to suggest otherwise is to endanger yourself to 2 Peter 3. The below quote is from 2 Peter 3the error of the wicked" and is "in danger of falling from our own steadfastness" (quoting RobertW)!The full text:II Peter 3:1Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder),3:2that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,3:3knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,3:4and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."3:5For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,3:6by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.3:7But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.3:8But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.3:9The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.3:10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.3:11Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,3:12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?3:13Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.3:14Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;3:15and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,3:16as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.3:17You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;3:18but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

Philo,I'm not sure about Fee, but Grudem, and W. Gary Phillips and David M. Fouts are all "old" earthers. My purpose in quoting them was not to establish whether or not the Bible teaches a young earth but to show evidence that the literary genre of Genesis 1-11 in particular chapter one is historical narrative. While they believe in an old earth they also believe--because of the Hebrew construction--in six literal days of creation.I would also like to add that while the debate can get spirited, I hope that no one is getting angry. I certainly have not been offended by the positions of 001 and Jimm. I just have a different position than they do that I believe is right, just as they believe theirs is. I hope that we can continue in a spirit of brotherhood.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

I don't believe it is necessary to take the position that Isaiah 45:18 contradicts Genesis 1:2 due to the fact that all living organisms begin very simple and move on to become complex.That statement has certain darwinian connotations that would make me rather uncomfortable.The 'gap theory' has many flavors- but if God wanted us to believe that the earth was destroyed by sin or evil before Genesis 1:3 and was recreated- He would have written Genesis 1 to be understood that way in a plain sense. To see a 'gap' in the text to me is clearly eisogesis and has no support in antiquity. Did any of the reformers or revivalists probigate such a notion?It depends on the purpose of the Bible. If the Bible were intended to be an Encycopaedia of God and his works it would need to be somewhat larger than at present.The Bible only has passing interest in anything that is not linked to man. Consequently we have minimal information on the fall of the angels. Only where their story touches ours does God give us any information. I wonder what happens after Revelation 22. We have only the slightest biblical data. The same is true for what happened before Genesis 1. It is dangerous to extrapolate from man to other creations.As regards ancient supporters of these themes. How far back does the canopy theory go? You are probably aware that pre-Whitcomb and Morris, the prevailing view among evangelicals was for an old earth and a young human race. I am old enought to remember the arrival of Whitcomb and Morris on the stage of biblical exposition. As regards 'revivalists' I'm not sure. As regards bible students; Thomas Newberry and many early brethren held views which included some aspects of the Gap Theory. In more modern times, Graham Scroggie, Oswald Chambers, Campbell Morgan, Christopher Wordsworth. If many are now unaware of these names please accept my assurance that some of these men can still be regarded as the most conscientious bible students ever, and that their work is still appreciated by many scholars. These students did not 'propogate' this theory but it clearly undergirds some of their teaching. eg "the restoration of creation came by the ministry of the Spirit, brooding upon chaos, and producing cosmos." Campbell Morgan on Acts.Ultimately, antiquity is not the test.

I would also like to add that while the debate can get spirited, I hope that no one is getting angry. I certainly have not been offended by the positions of 001 and Jimm. I just have a different position than they do that I believe is right, just as they believe theirs is. I hope that we can continue in a spirit of brotherhood.Hi Jeremy,I am 100% with you on this one. If sermonindex can maintain a spirit of open enquiry, brotherly love and allegiance to the inerrancy of the scripture, AND discuss this topic it may well be a web first!Most forums would have degenerated into into imprecatory oaths and prayers long before this. The key, I think, is mutual respect. emails are notorious but if we genuinely love and respect each other we will not attempt to brow beat another into our own view, and the exposure to different views held by different brothers is one of the hallmarks of sermonindex.

I'm not sure about Fee, but Grudem, and W. Gary Phillips and David M. Fouts are all "old" earthers. My purpose in quoting them was not to establish whether or not the Bible teaches a young earth but to show evidence that the literary genre of Genesis 1-11 in particular chapter one is historical narrative. While they believe in an old earth they also believe--because of the Hebrew construction--in six literal days of creation.Hi JeremyI am almost sure that Fee is an 'old earther' (he may even be worse! ;-)) I drew attention to this because I presume he applies his own principles to Genesis 1 and has not found it necessary to believe in a young earth. This suggests that in applying the principles there is a certain subjectivity which should be acknowledged.

I first want to say amen to Hulsey:I would also like to add that while the debate can get spirited, I hope that no one is getting angry. I certainly have not been offended by the positions of 001 and Jimm. I just have a different position than they do that I believe is right, just as they believe theirs is. I hope that we can continue in a spirit of brotherhood.Bro Ron wrote:That statement has certain darwinian connotations that would make me rather uncomfortable.As a point of clairification- there is no such thing as 'simple' to 'complex' in a Darwinian macro evolution sense; but rather complexity exists from the beginning and unfolds as does a plant from a seed. Dr. J. Vernon McGee was also a proponent of a universe that was billions of years old and I consider him to be one of the great ministers of our times also. I can't agree with him on it; but I think no less of him. He comes (came) from the angle that God is so awesome that 6 days cannot contain His majesty (in a matter of words). Sometimes we just seem to talk past each other to no profit. We all have our views and the reasons- God will ultimately sort it all out. Personally I just want to believe and know the truth- no matter what that truth might be. I don't mind being wrong as much as I mind believing falsehoods. I stand ready to be corrected by the truth. :-)This thread has been a good discussion. I feel pretty good about it actually!God Bless,-Robert

RobertW,Of course, I know 2 Peter 3:18. The problem is, I fail to see the connection between those who do not adhere to a "young earth" view with "the error of the wicked." It is hard not to sense a condescending attitude here that relates alternative understandings of the creation account with the scripture-twisting done by the "untaught and unstable people" (v.16). Likewise, it is hard not to see the implication that as those "being led away with the error of the wicked" (v.17), we have not grown "in the grace and knowledge of our Lord" (v.18). All this could hardly justify your earlier statement, "I do not question the Spirituality of old earth scientists." (And "old earth scientists" is a misnomer; there is much room for an alternative understanding of the creation account independent of a commitment to any branches of science).Furthermore, your use of 2 Peter 3:17 is still predicated upon the faulty premise that all alternative understandings of Genesis 1 are compromises to accommodate certain current scientific knowledge with the so-called "plain sense" of the biblical account. Also, your argument that these alternative positions might give excuses to sinner for not believing in God's judgment is weak. For instance, Philologos' gap theory would indicate that God's judgment had already dawned on the earth between v.1 and v.2. In that case, the fossil records are actually evidences of those who were under judgment of God. Finally, see my long quote from Gordon Fee & Douglas Stuart's How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth a few posts back to see the problems associated with claiming that one has definitely got the "plain meaning" of the text. We must be aware that we all look at the biblical texts through the lens of our own interpretive grid, which may or may not be, that demanded by the Bible. See also my first post in this thread, where I included a long quote by Rikk Watts from Regent College. His is not the "young earth" view (not even "old earth" view, strictly speaking). It is quite evident that the author is more concerned about reading the creation account according to its literary genre than reconciling perceived discreptancies between the Bible and science. However, I have a feeling that his views would just as easily be classified as the "errors of the wicked" by some.I am actually quite open to the "young earth" theory, the gap theory, and the genre analyses along the same line as Watts. As far as I could see, these views all have their strengths and weaknesses from an evangelical point of view, and I am not ready to pass judgment on any of these views (admittedly, the dogmatism shown by some "young earth" adherents is difficult to swallow). Moreover, I have full assurance that I will see proponents of each view in heaven, and by then, we shall know about these mysteries in a way we could never know today. I suspect by then we would find these discussions not quite necessary, apart from learning to love our brethren and to appreciate one another's high regard for the authority and trustworthiness of the written revelation of God.

Hello I think 001’s last two posts are VERY good points. No one is challenging the omnipotence of God here. We ALL agree that he can do anything. One problem we have as human beings is assumption, in many ways it is simultaneously the greatest strength and weakness we have. For example, I (or anyone else) have not expressed any of our views on evolution, but because I am against the six literal days, the natural assumption is that I love science and evolution. Again, I say that I do not believe the days are literal; hence, the assumption is I believe that it took place over millions of years. I say that I don not think the genre is literal, and so the assumption is I believe that the book of Genesis is a lie. To clarify brethren, I do not believe any of those things, which many of you have perceived in me.Moving along with this topic of assumption, many statements have been made about the intent of God. To begin with, Rom11:34“For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?” A lot of us say, “Well if God wanted to do this, then he would have…” Paul says again, 1Col1:25 “because God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength.” Let us therefore not assume God’s intent when making arguments to do with scriptures. To show the futility of this I will make a few arguments in the same style, to show how this can get us in trouble.Thankfully, none of us believes in evolution. We must therefore assume that the first people on the earth were in everyway the same as us. We tend to talk down at them as if their intelligence was inferior. The only thing they lacked was information not intelligence. If God wanted the people to know specifics about creation, he could have been far more literal than Genesis 1. An entire book could have been written entitled “the creation”. In such a book, he could have easily outlined the way the earth revolves around the sun in a way that is easy to follow, and because it is the word of God, everyone would have believed it. We know that God is omnipotent. He therefore knows more science than we will ever know. We tend to assume that science is evil. Science is neither good nor bad, it is just a term we use to explain observations we have made about what God has created. Yes I know, not all scientists believe God created the world, but what they think is irrelevant. There is a difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. It is usually scientific theory that infuriates us as Christians, not science overall. For example, the time in Houston right now is 10:42 a.m. - that is scientific fact. Plants with chlorophyll photosynthesize, that is scientific fact. God is omnipotent; he knew that there would be people who do not believe the bible. A good way to stop that would be to load the bible with scientific facts, which is not beyond God. We can assume countless things about what God could or could not have done; or what he thought or may not have thought. What we think irrelevant. The real question is, is Genesis a scientific historic journal, or an account to show things of spiritual significance. I believe the spiritual significance of genesis is far more important whether things are “literal” or not.Your son in ChristJames

In my view one 'purpose' of the Gap Theory is to expound why Isaiah 45:18 says that God did NOT create the earth 'tohu'. Isa 45:18 says quite specifically that God did NOT create the earth "tohu". (If Ge 1:2 describes the condition of the created earth at its very beginning, 'tohu and bohu', then it would appear that Isaiah contradicts Genesis. I'm sorry. I'm not quite understanding where you are getting it when you say Isaiah says God did not create the Earth. Am I reading something wrong? Isaiah 45:18 KJVFor thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. What I get from Isaiah 45 is that God created the heaven and formed and made the Earth. He made it for people to live on.Not that this has anything to do with the 6 days of creation. I was just wondering where you got that God didn't create the Earth.

DelightedInU,LOL, Philo did not say that God didn't create the earth-I know he's crazy, but he's not that crazy :-P .Isaiah 45:18 KJVFor thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not tohu (in vain)What he was doing was citing the Hebrew word for in vain.001My use of the plain sense reading of scripture is not intended as an irrefutable proof of my position. My intentions were not to say that because a surface reading implies (I used this word one of my posts about a plain sense reading) a six literal day creation your position was in vain. The only point I sought to make was that an initial reading of Genesis 1 would lead the reader to believe the text teaches six literal days. Grudem (an old earther) in page 308 of his Systematic Theology goes even farther and says that "Scripture seems to be more easily understood to suggest a young earth view." I'm not trying to make the satement of "plain sense reading" mean more than it is. Neither am I saying the because this is such we should then ignore the Hebrew construction, the culture, or timeframe in which it was written. My point can be summed up as such: If I were to take my Bible and hand it to any average Joe on the street who did not have much of a background in Biblical literature but could read and ask him to read Genesis 1 and then ask him what it meant, he is likely to say that it says God created the world in six days.That would be a weak position for sure to try to defend saying that it sounds like it's teaching six literal days. That's why I followed with posts that demonstrated that Genesis 1 according to Hebrew grammatical structure is historical narrative without even showing that the use of the waw consecutive in Genesis 1 is consistent with that of historical narrative and not poetry. Jimm,I hope you don't think that I am questioning your beliefs or accusing you of believing in evolution or saying that you have an inferior love of Scripture because you believe in a long age as far as creation goes. I'm not doing that, I'm just questioning the ideas proposed to support anything that opposes a six literal day creation account. I support a six literal day account, I guess you could say I am dogmatic about it. Please don't misconstrue the term dogmatic and assume that I arrogantly oppose any other view. This is not the way I'm defining dogmatism. I mean that, after looking at and holding to many sides of this issue, I've become convinced that an historical grammatical interpretation of the text as actual history is the best one. I'm using the principle that if there is only one intended meaning in a literary work then, while there may be many interpretations and many that even sound plausible, there can only be one that is correct. Which is the same principle that you are using in saying that my interpretation is likely incorrect.Just my thoughts for this evening, I'll post more tommorrow after I get off of :-(work :-( In ChristJeremy Hulsey

Oh Mr. HusleyYou almost persuade me of the six literal day position, by your conviction alone. It is unfortunate that I cannot convey tone in my threads, because if I could, you would see that I am not at all offended by anyone’s opinion. The fact is, as much as I am enjoying this discussion, what we conclude or do not conclude at the end of it is not going to save the fact that we are all saved. This (story of creation) is not a pivotal point of the faith, but it is a very enjoyable discussion for me anyway.Being bilingual I understand the difficulty in translating anything form one language to another. For example, I can translate a joke from Shona (my native tongue) to English so that you would have the exact meaning but it looses something else in the translation. More often than not, it simply is not funny in English. It would not help you to have a thousand Shona dictionaries and translations because even if did finally get it after research you still would not quite get it in a way that would make you laugh. More things go into it; the cultural background, traditions, values and just the Shona way of thinking in general. It is for this reason that I am unmoved by the literal Hebrew translation for the word “day”.Quote:If I were to take my Bible and hand it to any average Joe on the street who did not have much of a background in Biblical literature but could read and ask him to read Genesis 1 and then ask him what it meant, he is likely to say that it says God created the world in six days.Now Sir, am I to understand that the average Joe on the street is our yardstick Biblical interpretations. 2Peter1 “20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” How for example, would the “average Joe” (who I assume to be a person who has never heard of Christianity or the story of creation) interpret this scripture, John9:4 “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.” Alternatively, John11”9Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. 10But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him.” Would he not perceive literal night time? And as I am on this point, God (Jesus) himself spoke of Day and night in theses verses and yet he did not mean the 12 literal hours of day and night.James

Hulsey:I am aware of your other posts. I have to read them again carefully to make an informed response, but upon a "surface reading," I disagree with the conclusion that Genesis 1-2 are strictly historical in genre (Moreover, "historical" in the ancient Jewish sense is different from "historical" in the modern sense). As I have outlined before, for me the literary genre of Genesis, is not that straightforward. Perhaps I would characterise it as a historical narrative (in the Hebrew sense) with strong poetic qualities (in structure and repetitions) and signs of accommodating language (due to the limitations of human language to describe God's creative activity). I believe genre analysis is the major departing point of our respective positions. If we could agree to disagree on this point, without somehow having me characterised as "compromising" the authority of the Bible, then I am already quite happy--I have received very harsh words from "young earth" enthusiasts in some other occasions. Yet, it is precisely because I hold tenaciously to the scripture's authority that I have insisted on a careful handling of its first chapters.The only point I sought to make was that an initial reading of Genesis 1 would lead the reader to believe the text teaches six literal days.Obviously, from my point of view, it is the modern reader who would see it this way. I suspect the original readers would have focussed on its theological purpose more than the precise time and process (as even the writers of the Gospels seem to view historiography differently by changing the chronological sequences around--Is it still historical? Yes, I think so; just not the same way as we read a description in the newspaper). The plain sense of the modern reader could be substantially different from the plain sense of the original reader.

Hi JeremyDelightedInU,LOL, Philo did not say that God didn't create the earth-I know he's crazy, but he's not that crazy .Isaiah 45:18 KJVFor thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not tohu (in vain)What he was doing was citing the Hebrew word for in vain.er thanks, I think! ;-) Yes, delightedinU, Jeremy is right. I was really trying to say that Gen 1:2 says that the earth 'became/was without form'. Isaiah says God did not create 'the world without form'. So there is at least the possibility that there is a GAP between verse 1 and verse 2 and what we call the creation narrative really begins in verse 3.as a separate comment. Reference was made to Heb 13:3. The word translated 'worlds' by the KJV is really 'eons'. This is not a reference to the physical creation of our world but to God's ordering of events in time. The Bible is the unfolding record of the eons that God shaped before time began.

Jimm you posted:((( Oh Mr. Husley, You almost persuade me of the six literal day position, by your conviction alone. ))) Ok all, I hope this will make this topic even more interesting ... I subscribe to 2 Pet.3: [8], "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", as the length of the creative days spoken of in Genesis, and this is how it's put down in my novel "The Called" ... https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2289&forum=41&1Now you may ask why I subscribe to this belief and it's mainly because of this ... God told Adam that in the DAY he ate from the forbiden fruit he would positively die ... Now we know that Adam (and Eve) were created in the tail end of the 6th creative day, and did not sin until they both were in the 7th day of God's rest ... According to Gen.5: [3], "Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth": ... So in this 130 year period Adam and Eve spent some time in the 6th creative day, then transited on over into the 7th. creative day, sinned, was ousted, and had by then 3 recorded children (Cain, Abel and Seth) ... And then the Bible goes on to say in verse [5], "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died" ... But God said that in the DAY that Adam ate from the tree he would positively die (although some scholars interpret this as "begin" to die) ... It seems to me that in order for Adam to live 930 years of days, the day Jehovah was talking about had to be a lot longer than 24 hrs ... Adam missed living 1,000 years (God's day) by at least 30 years, since we don't know how long he was in the Garden during the ending of the 6th. creative day ... The other thing is that it would seem to me to have taken a lot longer than a literal 24 hour day for what God created to procreate to begin His mandate of "be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth" ... My two cents in this great discussion!

Dear friend, as a newcomer onto this website and this forum i do not with to offend you in mattersa spiritual, yet it seems to me that someone has to point the errors of your way in the matter of God informing Adam that he would die on the day that he ate of the tree.As you have shown, God did not indeed kill Adam after he willingly ate the fruit that was forbidden, especially as he lived for quite a while afterwards.I then think that the death that God was reffering to would be a different form of death than a physical death and in this instance God was reffering to the spiritual death that man would suffer because of his own disobedience.As we know that from the moment that Adam took of the fruit that he was in fear of God when he hid from Him that the relationship between them had been severed. Also, Adam was punished for this act of sin by being placed outside of the garden and henceforth seperated from God himself.This was the death that God was reffering to, that man in his sin would suffer a fate worse than physical death itself, the very death of his own relationship with God the father, his own spiritual death.Now i hope that i have helped in this matter as i am not very bright when it comes to such matters of faith, yet i may add that i still know that this death God was on about was spiritual and not physical.Yours in ChristD...

No brother Daniel I'm not offended, you bring up some very good points ... We're all seeing thru a glass darkly on this issue, which is why there are so many theories, 6 literal days, 6 one thousand year days, Gap theory, etc. ... As I stated at the bottom of my last post, I'm just tossing in my two cents into this great discussion, and am always open to further learning .... You posted:((( I then think that the death that God was reffering to would be a different form of death than a physical death and in this instance God was reffering to the spiritual death that man would suffer because of his own disobedience. )))Yes, that's why I also stated some scholars interpret God's statement to Adam to mean that in the day he ate of the fruit he would positively "begin" to die ... But in all sincerity let me ask you this in hopes of your helping me further to understand this matter, do you think Adam knew what you know, and if so how? ... Do you think that Adam really understood the graveness of the consequences of his disobeing God before he did it? ... Did he know what physical death was? ... Did he know what spiritual death was? ... Did he know the difference between physical and spiritual death so as to clearly understand the dire implication of disobeying God's edict, and if he didn't do you think God explained it to Him? ... Thanks,Brother R

Dear friend, as a newcomer onto this website and this forum i do not with to offend you in mattersa spiritual, yet it seems to me that someone has to point the errors of your way in the matter of God informing Adam that he would die on the day that he ate of the tree.As you have shown, God did not indeed kill Adam after he willingly ate the fruit that was forbidden, especially as he lived for quite a while afterwards.I then think that the death that God was reffering to would be a different form of death than a physical death and in this instance God was reffering to the spiritual death that man would suffer because of his own disobedience.As we know that from the moment that Adam took of the fruit that he was in fear of God when he hid from Him that the relationship between them had been severed. Also, Adam was punished for this act of sin by being placed outside of the garden and henceforth seperated from God himself.This was the death that God was reffering to, that man in his sin would suffer a fate worse than physical death itself, the very death of his own relationship with God the father, his own spiritual death.Now i hope that i have helped in this matter as i am not very bright when it comes to such matters of faith, yet i may add that i still know that this death God was on about was spiritual and not physical.Interesting, I've heard this before, however, I believe according to scripture that you are in error;-).1Co 15:21 For since death is through man, the resurrection of the dead also is through a Man. 1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive.This passage makes it clear that the death Adam brought was contrasted with the bodily ressurection brought by the Last Adam, "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man." If Adam died only spiritually, then, logically, Jesus must only have needed to rise spiritually. This goes against the whole tenor of Paul's chapter, and a non-bodily resurrection would have been nonsense to Jews.Gen 3:19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall returnReturning to the dust can only mean pysical death, and there would be no point to this punishment unless there was no physical death before. Otherwise, Adam could have said, "So what? That was gonna happen to me anyway."Actually, in one sense, the Curse of physical death has a benefit to man, in that it prevents an even worse evil: living forever in a state of sin. And it provides the means of redemption, via the physical death of the God-man Jesus Christ on the Cross. (Refuting Comprimise pg. 202: Jonathan Sarfati)Gen 2:17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.'(Youngs literal translation)This doesn't have to mean that he was going to die that very day, but that from the day that he first ate from the forbidden fruit death became certain. In the geaneologies the judgement of death began to make itself known by the time of Enosh--his name means mortal. People began to realize that God meant what He said and many began to call on the name of the Lord as a result.Keil and Delitzche put it this way:The reason why the life of the man did not come to an end immediately after the eating of the forbidden fruit... [was] that the mercy and long-suffering of God afforded space for repentance, and so controlled and ordered the sin of men and the punishment of sin, as to render them subservient to the accomplishment of His original purpose and the glorification of His name.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

Exodus 20:11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.Seems very simple to me. :-P

Hi JeremyThis doesn't have to mean that he was going to die that very day, but that from the day that he first ate from the forbidden fruit death became certain.I think I would have to disagree with you here. Physical death is the ongoing consequence of the Death that Adam plunged our race into. I think he DID die, right then; and Eve died with him. It was to Adam that God had said 'thou shalt die' and although Eve's sin did not spread Adam, Adam's did spread to Eve, and the whole human race in that moment. In the moment of Adam's disobedience Sin entered into the world, and Death spread to the whole race. (Rom 5:12ff) It is because this Death has taken place that people whose sins were not reckoned nevertheless died physically; from Adam to Moses. They did not sin 'after the similitude of Adam's transgression' nor was the sin 'reckonable' during the time before the Law; nevertheless they people did die physically because as a direct consequence of The Death that spread to all men, when The Sin entered the world through Adam.I have tried to develop this thought elsewhere. Please see Chapter 2: Death.

Beloved,I've been meditating the past two days about the terms of endearment Christ sometimes calls us like "beloved", and "little children", and just being baptised in the emotion that comes over me when I do ... Isn't it amazing that we're so loved both personally and collectively by the Creator of the universe, "Lord who am I (are we) that you are mindful of me (us)" ... Anyhow, you may find this link interesting in light of our discussion ...AFTER THE FLOOD:http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/after/http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/after/contents.htm

Philo,Very interesting. I read the first part of your article and enjoyed it. I would have read on but I have to go to work :-( .Would I have been more correct in saying that Adam did die spiritually and began to die physically? Or was his physical death immediate in the sense that he became mortal?In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

Would I have been more correct in saying that Adam did die spiritually and began to die physically? Or was his physical death immediate in the sense that he became mortal?Hi JeremyI think he began to die physically from the moment he died spiritually. After natural death, the processes of death set in; decay putrification. I think after Adam's spiritual death the processes of that death set in.It is interesting that Romans regards the Death that accompanied Sin into the human race as a Reign rather than a crisis event. I think this is significant. This Death is not the absence of life, but the presence of a destructive dynamic continually energised an alien spirit.And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (Eph 2:1-3 KJV) shows that this death is dead but won't lie down. ;-) This is Death walking and working. I note that Paul draws attention to this state as 'in time past'.

Hello all!First off, welcome to you “Soulsrus”, it is great to have your words on the forum. I agree with you about the spiritual significance of the story of the original sin. This is debate that has a life of its own and I would like to here more of your views on it but, we should probably continue it on a different thread so as not to contaminate this thread. Look for the one titled “original sin”Now then, I hope you will all bear with me while I make a very carnal illustration. If any of you have watched “The Matrix”, you will know about the “system”. The question was asked, “What is the Matrix?”- The world that has been pulled over you eyes to blind you from the truth.With this in mind, let us go back to the story of creation. In the beginning, in the very beginning, was God; omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal; the one that is He- God. He existed outside the confines of time. He decided to create an offspring after his own likeness, for the purposes of fellowship. The design vessel in which this fellowship would occur was the earth as it was. I say, “as it was” because after the original sin something happened to the entire creation: Romans8 20For the creation was R374 subjected to futility, R375 not willingly, but because R376 of Him who subjected it, in F145 hope 21 that the R377 creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans R378 and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.In the beginning, the physical world and the spiritual world communed in harmony. I believe that if Adam had not eaten the fruit, he would have lived forever, that is to say- he would have been eternal. Continuing without interruption, perpetual man would have been as God, existing outside the confines of finite time. The very concept of time is existence in which we now live breath and have our being. Everything we have ever met in this world has an end. I say, “this world”, again because the world is not as was in the beginning. You just have to look at the story of Adam and Eve; there were, in the original creation trees with both physical and spiritual attributes, that is, the tree of life and that of knowledge. Such things simply do not exist in this world. The world that has been pulled over our eyes to blind us from the truth. When the world was made, time as we know it today (24hours) was as much of a paradox as the concept of eternity is for us today. What is one day in eternity? Light has its reign in the state of day. When darkness reigns it is night, it is a period in which God does not work for a time. When God is at work it is day, he is the true light. (I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work John9:4). Again, I point to the spiritual significance of the story of creation. This is something our “literal” eyes do not always see. I believe, that the six days of creation were not six days as we know them today, that is not to say that I believe it was millions of years either. Time is not the issue here. Time is a concept of the world as it is today, not as it was in the beginning. James

I gigure it was literal days, jus that literal days for God can be a long or as short as He wishes coz time is His toy. I think as humans living in a realm where everything is limited, the task of grasping a God who's power knows no limits is impossible, hence the need for faith. our intelect can take us so far in understanding God, faith takes us the rest of the way. My faith says it was 6 days whether it was or not is of no consequence, it has been done already, let's jus enjoy it!

There's an excellent book by Ken Ham (of Answers In Genesis) titled Why Won't They Listen? It explains why Christians must believe in the literal creation account as found in Genesis or all of the rest of the Bible's primary truths (the fall, the flood, the Law, the atonement, the resurrection, Jesus' return, etc.) have no foundational basis. There is no place for the marrying of God's word with that wicked worldly philosophy called "evolution."

I came across this the other day when reading the biography of Campbell Morgan. It was part of one of the tributes at the Memorial Service on May 28th, 1945. It came from John Hutton, a lifelong friend and colabourer..."Morgan was content with the Bible's 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' If anyone should have claimed for time a million years... a hundred million years or even of light years, I believe my old friend with a gay voice would have said, 'Take your time and welcome! So long as you leave God where the Bible places Him, at the beginning'.

I've mentioned this quote in another "creation" forum, but here goes again."I'd rather believe that it took six days because it stretches my faith more." - Anonymus:-)

"I'd rather believe that it took six days because it stretches my faith more." - AnonymusFaith is based on revelation, trust without revelation is superstitiion. There is now virtue in 'stretched faith' unless it is God who is stretching it.