Creation in Six Days?

[ccdnt]

I asked this question in another thread under a different title. Since it never was answered I thought I would ask it in a thread of its own (modified a little):

If one just read the Bible and did not know what "long-age" evolution teaches, then what would this person probably believe about how long God took to create, whether there was a "gap" of some kind, etc.?

 

[Hope of Glory]

I asked this question in another thread under a different title. Since it never was answered I thought I would ask it in a thread of its own (modified a little):

If one just read the Bible and did not know what "long-age" evolution teaches, then what would this person probably believe about how long God took to create, whether there was a "gap" of some kind, etc.?

It would depend upon the translation (or even original languages), and how well they studied and paid attention.

For example, there are things spoken of that came about before Genesis 1:2, but you have to compare Scripture to Scripture.

Also, in the original languages, the so-called gap theory is plainly evident. In some literal translations, it's also evident. In others, it's not evident and in some, it's completely obscured.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It seems apparent that Hope of Glory does not read the biblical languages. The Gap Theory is not found in Gen 1:2. Westin Fields clearly answered this in Unformed and Unfilled.

The answer to the original question is that if people read the Bible, they will believe what it teaches ... That God created the earth is six successive twenty four hour days.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Funny that the majority of those who do study the original languages do see the distinction, even if they still lump it all together.

But, the controversy is the reason that most translations completely obscure the issue. It's easier than taking a stand.

However, most translations (not paraphrases) that do take a stand, do make the distinction.

That's why I give info on both sides of the issue.

Pastor Larry, however, knows more than all the experts combined.

 

[Darron Steele]

The original language text's meaning is debatable.

As for what I can read in translation, God may have created the earth and the space around it "In the beginning" (KJV, ASV, others), and allowed the earth to remain "disordenada y vacía" (RVR 1909) = "disordered and vacant" with "trevas sobre a face do abismo" (Almeida ERA and ERC) = "darkness over the face of the abyss." In other words, the earth was without any structure/order and empty, and the only thing in space was empty darkness, and He hovered around the earth in this state.

However, I would not believe that the events of Genesis 1:3-1:31 happened on any other timetable than six literal day/night periods.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Funny that the majority of those who do study the original languages do see the distinction, even if they still lump it all together.

See what distinction? Have you read Fields? Are you familiar with waw consecutives?

But, the controversy is the reason that most translations completely obscure the issue. It's easier than taking a stand.

No it's not. It is "obscure" because it doesn't exist.

Pastor Larry, however, knows more than all the experts combined.

No, but I do know what the experts say.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The original language text's meaning is debatable.

No, not really. It is pretty clear that consecutive, 24 hour days were intended. It is what the words mean. As you say, "However, I would not believe that the events of Genesis 1:3-1:31 happened on any other timetable than six literal day/night periods."

 

[J. Jump]

The original language text's meaning is debatable.

Great point, which was brought about in the last thread. Whether or not there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is not won or lost on the language, because the language itself supports both views. It is the repeated theme of Scripture...comparing Scripture with Scripture that tells one which view is correct.

However, I would not believe that the events of Genesis 1:3-1:31 happened on any other timetable than six literal day/night periods.

Another great point. I know people argue that these were not or can not be literal 24-hour days, but personally I don't see how they can't. The text as far as I can see doesn't support anything other than 24 hours when comparing Scripture with Scripture and science itself is in agreement that it can't be ages of time.

The main theological question however is what is being discussed in the six days with a seventh day of rest. This is the foundation of Scripture. And if the foundations be destroyed what are the people of God to do.

Well we have all kinds of theological errors running amuck in Christendom today and I think a number of them can be traced back to an improper view of These first several verses of Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

I asked this question in another thread under a different title. Since it never was answered I thought I would ask it in a thread of its own (modified a little):

If one just read the Bible and did not know what "long-age" evolution teaches, then what would this person probably believe about how long God took to create, whether there was a "gap" of some kind, etc.?

In "SIX days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them". Rev 20:18-11.

On Day 4 we know that he made "TWO great lights" the Sun and the Moon.

So this is primarily a reference to all life on our Earth and the Sun and moon of our Solar system.

Gen 2:3-4 God did BOTH "He created AND MADE" these things in that 7 day week.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The original language text's meaning is debatable.

As for what I can read in translation, God may have created the earth and the space around it "In the beginning" (KJV, ASV, others), and allowed the earth to remain "disordenada y vacía" (RVR 1909) = "disordered and vacant" with "trevas sobre a face do abismo" (Almeida ERA and ERC) = "darkness over the face of the abyss." In other words, the earth was without any structure/order and empty, and the only thing in space was empty darkness, and He hovered around the earth in this state.

However, I would not believe that the events of Genesis 1:3-1:31 happened on any other timetable than six literal day/night periods.

Gen 1:2-2:4 had to be in a literal 7 day week according to Exodus 20:8-11.

At least we agree on something.

In 1:2 we find that the earth's starting condition is covered by water and no Sun ... no moon... no life. How events transpired prior to that - we do not have the information other than God is the Creator of all.

However - evolutionism does not allow for any of that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Hope of Glory]

However, I would not believe that the events of Genesis 1:3-1:31 happened on any other timetable than six literal day/night periods.

On that, I think you're absolutely correct.

 

[Darron Steele]

In "SIX days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them". Rev 20:18-11....

This quote is from Exodus 20 -- as you indicated in your very next post.

As for your reply to me, the evolution model of biology and the Big Bang models for astronomy are entirely incompatible with the Creation account of Genesis. I believe we are in total agreement there.

 

[BobRyan]

Well - I never said "it couldn't happen" -- now and then I agree with almost everyone on this board 'on something'.

We agree that I made a Typo Rev 20:8-11 instead of Exodus 20:8-11, and that all life on earth, the Sun and the Moon, dry land etc were all made in 6 literal days just as God says.

As I say - now and then there is "agreement" with almost everyone -

(Except maybe Matt -- I am not sure I have done that yet)

 

[Gup20]

creation in six days

This article gives some convincing arguments against the gap theory:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/gaptheory3.asp

Basically, it gives these problems with the gap theory:

It is inconsistent with God creating everything in six days, as Scripture states.
It puts death, disease and suffering before the Fall, contrary to Scripture.
The gap theory is logically inconsistent because it explains away what it is supposed to accommodate—supposed evidence for an old earth.
The gap theory does away with the evidence for Noah’s Flood.
The gap theorist ignores the evidence for a young Earth.
The gap theory fails to accommodate standard uniformitarian geology with its long ages anyway.
Most importantly, the gap theory undermines the Gospel at its foundations.

The one that "seals the deal" for me is the second one -- it puts death and disease before the fall. The Bible says in Romans 5:12 that by ONE MAN sin entered the world and death came because of sin. If there is a fossil record of millions of years of death things prior to Adam, that would mean that death entered the world BEFORE Adam sinned. This would mean that death is NOT a punishment for sin. This deconstructs the entire Gospel -- if death is not because of sin, then Jesus would not have had to die to save us from our sin.

Moreover, during the six days of creation, God calls the everything in the earth "good". Would he call an earth contaminated with Sin and Death good? I think not.

Also, see this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/compromise.asp

Has a whole section of articles on Gap theory.

 

[J. Jump]

It is inconsistent with God creating everything in six days, as Scripture states.

Did it give the Scripture where God said He created the heavens and the earth in six days, because no one on the board can seem to find it. Do you know where it is? If so can you put it up for us to examine?

It puts death, disease and suffering before the Fall, contrary to Scripture.

Well the gap "theory" does do that, but just because there is a gap between verses 1 and 2 (and there is) doesn't mean that death, disease and sufferig came before the fall.

Most importantly, the gap theory undermines the Gospel at its foundations.

Again the gap "theory" may do that I'm not sure. However the gap between verse 1 and 2 does not undermine the gospel it actually is a beautiful word picture of God's redemptive work. It is the foundation of the gospel.

Romans 5:12 that by ONE MAN sin entered the world and death came because of sin.

So was Satan created evil? If not when did he sin?

Look forward to your responses.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Did it give the Scripture where God said He created the heavens and the earth in six days, because no one on the board can seem to find it. Do you know where it is? If so can you put it up for us to examine?

Gen 1 and Exod 20:11.

Well the gap "theory" does do that, but just because there is a gap between verses 1 and 2 (and there is) doesn't mean that death, disease and sufferig came before the fall.

If the gap is between 1:1-2 and the fall is not until 3:1-7, then the gap theory does put death, disease, and suffering before the fall.

However the gap between verse 1 and 2 does not undermine the gospel it actually is a beautiful word picture of God's redemptive work. It is the foundation of the gospel.

How would a non-existent gap be a beautiful word picture of anything, much less God's redemptive work?

 

[J. Jump]

Gen 1 and Exod 20:11.

Notice our pastor here couldn't even take the time to post the Scripture, so let's just see what it says.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Hmmmm . . . no mention of six days there.

Exodus 20:11
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.

Hmmmm . . . another person that wants us to believe made really means created. It SAYS MADE. It continues to amaze me how folks can simply just overlook what the text SAYS. Maybe you are just ignoring it. I'm not sure.

If the gap is between 1:1-2 and the fall is not until 3:1-7, then the gap theory does put death, disease, and suffering before the fall.

So who died? Who came down with a disease? Who suffered? Well I guess you could say Satan suffered, but that would be a stretch at best.

How would a non-existent gap be a beautiful word picture of anything, much less God's redemptive work?

Well just because it is non-existent in your mind doesn't make it so.

 

[BobRyan]

This article gives some convincing arguments against the gap theory:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/gaptheory3.asp

Basically, it gives these problems with the gap theory:

It is inconsistent with God creating everything in six days, as Scripture states.
It puts death, disease and suffering before the Fall, contrary to Scripture.
The gap theory is logically inconsistent because it explains away what it is supposed to accommodate—supposed evidence for an old earth.
The gap theory does away with the evidence for Noah’s Flood.
The gap theorist ignores the evidence for a young Earth.
The gap theory fails to accommodate standard uniformitarian geology with its long ages anyway.
Most importantly, the gap theory undermines the Gospel at its foundations.

The one that "seals the deal" for me is the second one -- it puts death and disease before the fall.

At this point I would like to make a clarification for the sake of accuracy.

#1. The gap between Gen 1:1 saying God made everything and 1:2 where we find that on day one the earth is already formless and void and covered by water in perfact night (no sun and no moon) - does NOT allow for "A living planet previously populated by life waiting for a second creation".

All the "Gap" does is propose that Gen 1-2 is dealing with the Creation of Earth and its sun and moon - not the entire universe in 7 days. It saying nothing about evolution. It opens a door for the earth geologically to be older than 6,000 years but not for life on earth to be older than that.

I also opens a door for other solar systems to have been created prior to earth and for life beyond earth to have been created before earth came into existence as a living planet.

#2. Those who try to co-opt or hijack that possible gap to eisegete into the text "LIFE created by evolutionism" find nothing in the text to suggest that anything evolved. They just have to "make it up". The fact is very clear that Gen 1-2 DOES give the REAL origin of ALL life on earth.

EVEN atheist darwinists would not be able to come up with life evolving on an earth that had no sun.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

According to a recent poll - 66% or 75% of Americans STILL believe in the Bible account of Creation in Genesis INSTEAD of evilutionism.

Does anyone here remember when this year that poll was taken or who did it?

Beliefs among conservative Christians:

In 1999-NOV, Focus on the Family, a Fundamentalist Christian agency, concluded a poll of their web site visitors concerning their beliefs about creation and evolution. Results were:

• [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]God created the universe, but I don't know when: 46%[/FONT]
• [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]God created the universe thousands of years ago: 43%[/FONT]
• [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]God created the universe billions of years ago: 10%[/FONT]
• [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Life came into being and evolved on its own: 1%[/FONT]
• [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]I don't have a clue: 0.4% [/FONT]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm


Ok never mind - I think I found it --

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/17875540/site/newsweek

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

However it appears that the majority of republicans definitely reject the myths of evol.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/Default.aspx?ci=27847&VERSION=p