The Genesis account as written by Moses under the inspiration of God says he ( God ) created the world is six days. The argument of literal or figurative interpretation is easily resolved by those who understand language usage and have a willingness to search for the truth. John 8:32. There are some 500 various vehicles of thought used in the Bible. ( Bullinger, E.W. Figures of Speech: Grand Rapids, Baker, pg 9). This necessitates a sound methodology for interpreting and making rational conclusions based on the evidence available. The failure to properly interpret language can be disasterous. Consider the following:
1. The Jews did not recognize the Savior’s figurative use of “temple” when he said, “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn. 2:19). In this case, “temple” referred to his body, and the resurrection thereof from the grave. Their lack of understanding resulted in a false charge against the Lord at the time of his trial (cf. Mt. 26:61; 27:40).
2. Jesus once said that the foxes have their holes, but the Son of man has no where to lay his head (Lk. 9:58). In this text, “foxes” is used of a literal animal that inhabited the land of Canaan. In another setting, Christ, referred to Herod Antipas, saying, “Go say to that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I am perfected’” (Lk. 13:32). In this text “fox” is employed in a figurative sense. By way of the figure known a metonymy, the ruler was characterized as a cunning and destructive “varmint” - he was the “beast” who had John the Baptizer beheaded (Mk. 6:14ff). Surely, the rational mind recognizes Herod is not a varmint ( fox).
3.When Christ sought to encourage the disciples to persevere in prayer (Mt. 7:7ff), he gave three illustrations of how fathers generally exercised care with regard to their children. If the youngster was hungry, and asked for bread, the benevolent father would not taunt the child by giving him a stone. Similarly such would be the case with reference to an “egg” or a “fish.” The Lord then said, “If you [the disciples] then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” (Mt. 7:11).
The Master was not suggesting that the disciples were “evil” in an absolute sense (as Satan is – cf. Mt. 6:13), but, compared to God, even the best of men are “evil.”
The question is did Moses use literal language for the cretion account?
God created all things in a literal twenty four hour period. The evidence is overwhelming to the rational mind. Consider the following:
1. The Hebrew word (yom) is both used and defined in Genesis 1:5. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. This word is used 1,284 times and on a few occasions it does not mean a literal 24 hour day. However, the context clearly defines such usage ( Gen. 26:8;4:3,2:4, Jer. 46:10, Psalms 95:8,9). In Gen. 2:4, the total number of days of creation ( 6) is in view. In Psalms 95, the wandering in the wilderness of Israel is being chronicled. In Jeremiah 46:10, the punishment for the sins of Israel is being recorded.
2. The word phrase evening and morning as it relates to yom is used some 100 times in the Old Testament. It always refers to non-prophetic literal time. Furthermore, when the word yom is preceded by a numeral in a non-prophetic passage it is always a reference to literal time ( Gen. 8:3, Numbers 18:25, Exodus 20:11).
3. The plural form yamin appears 700 times in the Old Testament. In each of these 700 cases, it refers to literal days. Thus, in Exodus 20:11 God created the earth in six literal days.
The evidence provided by the inspired writers who had direct knowledge by the revelation of God, the creator of all things, teaches the Genesis account of creation was one of six 24 hour days.
The evidence for a six days of creation is irrefutable. Those who question the account simply reject the inspired evidence provided. They do so without examining the text in a sound manner. An idea they would reject when filing their income taxes.
They accept, with their position, the Bible is a book that cannot be properly understood in context with all figures of language considered. God was not capable of teaching man his origin through the writen word. If man is incapable of understanding an ominpotent God in this matter, what makes the evolutionist think he can impart his wisdom to us being uninspired and fallible? This is utter nonsense.
God either spoke the world into existence or he did not. One cannot have it both ways. ( Cf. Psalms 33: 6,9).
1. The Jews did not recognize the Savior’s figurative use of “temple” when he said, “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn. 2:19). In this case, “temple” referred to his body, and the resurrection thereof from the grave. Their lack of understanding resulted in a false charge against the Lord at the time of his trial (cf. Mt. 26:61; 27:40).
2. Jesus once said that the foxes have their holes, but the Son of man has no where to lay his head (Lk. 9:58). In this text, “foxes” is used of a literal animal that inhabited the land of Canaan. In another setting, Christ, referred to Herod Antipas, saying, “Go say to that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I am perfected’” (Lk. 13:32). In this text “fox” is employed in a figurative sense. By way of the figure known a metonymy, the ruler was characterized as a cunning and destructive “varmint” - he was the “beast” who had John the Baptizer beheaded (Mk. 6:14ff). Surely, the rational mind recognizes Herod is not a varmint ( fox).
3.When Christ sought to encourage the disciples to persevere in prayer (Mt. 7:7ff), he gave three illustrations of how fathers generally exercised care with regard to their children. If the youngster was hungry, and asked for bread, the benevolent father would not taunt the child by giving him a stone. Similarly such would be the case with reference to an “egg” or a “fish.” The Lord then said, “If you [the disciples] then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” (Mt. 7:11).
The Master was not suggesting that the disciples were “evil” in an absolute sense (as Satan is – cf. Mt. 6:13), but, compared to God, even the best of men are “evil.”
The question is did Moses use literal language for the cretion account?
God created all things in a literal twenty four hour period. The evidence is overwhelming to the rational mind. Consider the following:
1. The Hebrew word (yom) is both used and defined in Genesis 1:5. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. This word is used 1,284 times and on a few occasions it does not mean a literal 24 hour day. However, the context clearly defines such usage ( Gen. 26:8;4:3,2:4, Jer. 46:10, Psalms 95:8,9). In Gen. 2:4, the total number of days of creation ( 6) is in view. In Psalms 95, the wandering in the wilderness of Israel is being chronicled. In Jeremiah 46:10, the punishment for the sins of Israel is being recorded.
2. The word phrase evening and morning as it relates to yom is used some 100 times in the Old Testament. It always refers to non-prophetic literal time. Furthermore, when the word yom is preceded by a numeral in a non-prophetic passage it is always a reference to literal time ( Gen. 8:3, Numbers 18:25, Exodus 20:11).
3. The plural form yamin appears 700 times in the Old Testament. In each of these 700 cases, it refers to literal days. Thus, in Exodus 20:11 God created the earth in six literal days.
The evidence provided by the inspired writers who had direct knowledge by the revelation of God, the creator of all things, teaches the Genesis account of creation was one of six 24 hour days.
The evidence for a six days of creation is irrefutable. Those who question the account simply reject the inspired evidence provided. They do so without examining the text in a sound manner. An idea they would reject when filing their income taxes.
They accept, with their position, the Bible is a book that cannot be properly understood in context with all figures of language considered. God was not capable of teaching man his origin through the writen word. If man is incapable of understanding an ominpotent God in this matter, what makes the evolutionist think he can impart his wisdom to us being uninspired and fallible? This is utter nonsense.
God either spoke the world into existence or he did not. One cannot have it both ways. ( Cf. Psalms 33: 6,9).
N to attack not ONLY the account for origins, but the account of geneologies, the ages of the people the Bible chronicles, the events, the flood, the direct acts of God... Once they fall off that cliff...