NT six literal days

[dan e.]

Now that the hug is over ...

"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point. " - Martin Luther​

So you think that holding to a view that is not a literal six days is "not confessing Christ"? Hmmmm....just because a popular name made a statement doesn't mean it is true or helpful. I still say don't worry about it if someone doesn't agree with the 6 literal days. It doesn't sound like anyone is trying to convince anyone...just slamming each other's ideas. Therefore.....why bother debating? Let's all get over it!

 

[Rufus_1611]

So you think that holding to a view that is not a literal six days is "not confessing Christ"? Hmmmm....just because a popular name made a statement doesn't mean it is true or helpful. I still say don't worry about it if someone doesn't agree with the 6 literal days. It doesn't sound like anyone is trying to convince anyone...just slamming each other's ideas. Therefore.....why bother debating? Let's all get over it!

Either the whole Bible is true or none of it is. If man lives by every word of God then every word of God is worth fighting for. I'll fight for "day".

 

[dan e.]

Either the whole Bible is true or none of it is. If man lives by every word of God then every word of God is worth fighting for. I'll fight for "day".

I understand that, and agree. Yet what I am saying is that if someone interprets "day" as a day-age and not a literal day, that does not mean they don't believe the Bible is God's word, or true. I know you can be a little more productive than fighting for something to mean 24 hours as opposed to an unknown amount of time. It is a shame some can't be....but I trust you can be!

 

[J. Jump]

I know you can be a little more productive than fighting for something to mean 24 hours as opposed to an unknown amount of time.

Dan with all due respect you seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth on this issue. First you agree with Rufus that every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God are extremely important, but then you come back and say that fighting over 24-hour day or day-age is relatively unimportant and not worth wasting time on.

I happen to agree with my brother Rufus on this one. God used day for a reason. It behooves us to find the reason by the choice of wording as it leads to life.

And if someone disagrees with me then it is out of love that I would show them why their stance would be incorrect. And just the same I would hope that out of love they would be trying to show me how my stance is incorrect. However at the end of the day there is a right way to view Scripture and then there are hundreds and probably thousands of incorrect ways to interpret Scripture.

Now that doesn't mean if someone comes to a different conclusion on the matter that I can't speak to them, but at some point there are going to be some things that are going to make it really impossible to fellowship in the Word on. Some things are foundational. I happen to think The first part of Gensis is VERY foundational and if mistakes are made in these first few chapters then inevitably mistakes are going to follow through the rest of Scripture, because the rest of Scripture is just detail being placed on the framework of the opening chapters of Gensis.

If God gave us the words we better make all the effort to figure out what they mean and then out of love share that with others.

Now I will grant you that there are many times that sharing is not done in love and that is not right and I have been guilty of it myself and have had to step away. We all need that reminder and some of us need it more often than others Unfortunately I probably fall into the later category .

 

[dan e.]

I agree that understanding Genesis is HUGE for the rest of Scripture. I guess I just draw the line at a different point. For instance, I definitely think that understanding Genesis 1-11 to be literal is extremely important, that Adam and Eve were real people, that God really created out of nothing. I think that when you begin to look at Genesis as a metaphor, or whatever else, than you have stepped deep in the danger zone. However, I don't draw the line at the meaning of "day" in understanding the time frame of creation. Not as big of a deal to me. Although, as I have already stated, I do favor the view that each day was a literal 24 hour period.

I wouldn't doubt a person's belief that the Bible is God's word and innerrant because they disagree on the amount of time each day is though. Call me crazy. And this is my point....no big deal that you disagree with me on this.

 

[J. Jump]

And this is my point....no big deal that you disagree with me on this.

I guess my point would be that all of God's words are CRITICALLY important and if you disagree with me it is a HUGE deal, because at the end of the day one of us is right and one of us is wrong. Now with that being said I think we can still end the day as friends if we continue to hold on to our same beliefs that we entered the conversation with.

I have a really good friend of mine that we will meet from time to time and have breakfast together and he adamantly disagrees with my views on the coming kingdom of Christ. And while I think he is terribly mistaken and is ultimately going to pay a hefty price for his mistakes that doesn't stop us from visiting with each other.

However most everyone of our conversations of the Scriptures end up coming back to the kingdom and therefore its hard to carry on a conversation about Scripture.

Hope that makes sense

 

[ccdnt]

So God should have explained scientific theory to people who had no language for scientific theory. Brilliant.

(posting here before I have read further that this...)

How could God "scientifically" explain a miraculous event? Besides, what it sounds as if you are saying has one or more underlying assumptions. It sounds like you are suggesting that God explained creation the way He did because if He explained it as "scientists" believe certain things have happened (age of earth, "evolution" of life, etc.) that the people of that time would not have understood. If this is what you are suggesting, then this presumes that which you purport to be true in the first place...namely that God created via the method that secular scientists pronounce - long-age evolution (unless you suscribe to one of the OEC theories - which still involves millions of years)

 

[ccdnt]

Whether you agree with them or not, you're confusing two different things.

The gap theory is talking about the period of time between when he created everything and when he began the recreation of the earth. It's an unspecified period of time, and little is said about it in Scriptures, other than that's when Satan fell. It doesn't say there were or were not other beings, plants, or whatever on the Earth.

Then, in the creation account, he begins the process of making the earth as we know it. The day-age theory is what talks about it being more than a literal day.

I personally believe it was 6 literal days, for reasons similar to what J. Jump has posted. But, the literal translation of Scripture does not require this.

As to what happened before these events, it's all just speculation, but we can base speculation on evidence that we are given without having to twist and distort simple things. There is also some interesting wording in the creation account in regards to water dwelling creatures, which are our oldest "living fossils". I would not base doctrine on it, but with the wording used and the evidence we have, I can give you an opinion that does not contradict Scripture or science.

Your post presumes that there was indeed a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 (at least I assume those are the verses to which you refer). These articles adequately show that the Gap Theory does not hold up:

Can evolution’s long ages be squeezed into Genesis?

The gap theory—an idea with holes?

The Gap Theory—Part A

The gap theory—Part B

Morning has broken ... but when?

What does ‘replenish the earth’ mean?

Unbinding the rules
A review of Genesis Unbound by John Sailhamer, Multnomah Books, Sisters, OR, USA, 1996.

Replenishing the Earth

‘Soft’ gap sophistry

 

[J. Jump]

Notice the common bias in these show called rebuttals. These are "young" earthers trying to rebutt the gap theory because those that hold to the "old" earth theory place all the lost years in the gap.

I explained this earlier in this thread I believe. We don't know how many years are in the gap, so the young earthers could still be right even with the gap present. The old earthers could be right. Bottom line is we really don't know. And that point is really insignificant, because God has not chosen to tell us.

However He has chosen to tell us there is a gap between 1:1 and 1:2 and it behooves us to find out the significance of it.

 

[tragic_pizza]

While God does not mention pre science in his Bible, after all when would there be a time where there was no knowledge of God for in the beginning was the word etc. I did find prescience in a JF&B commentary...

O Timothy--a personal appeal, marking at once his affection for Timothy, and his prescience of the coming heresies.​

...and I do believe that it is quite possible that Paul had the prescience to warn folks about heresies such as the one you are promoting.

For this He also provided instruction in His word...

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:" - 1 Timothy 6:20​

Rufus, the word you are using is not the word I am using.

"Prescience" in your definition is "knowledge of things before they exist or happen; foreknowledge; foresight."


The word I am using is prescientific, which means the time before science and scientific theory came into use.

If we are going to discuss something, let us discuss the same thing.

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

We all do well to be saddened if and when we cannot disagree without being disagreeable, as the saying goes. Several observations:

1. Proponents of the six-day theory, and particularly those who would argue that Genesis must be read as literal history, seem to make agreement with propositions the touchstone of Christian faith instead of a relationship with Christ. Remember how Luther distinguised between faith as assensus and faith as fiducia.
2. Both literalists and those of us, like myself, who read Genesis as enhanced metaphor -- theologically charged parable -- may be guilty of letting the rationalistic presuppositions that have been in charge of our culture since the 18th Century drive us. Literalists are rationalistic in that they put their confidence in words, derivations, and propositions, more than in relationships. But we "moderns" are also rationalistic, placing a good deal of confidence in scientific assertions (I hesitate to say "discoveries", because that suggests we are talking about indisputables).
3. We seem to have a hard time distinguishing between "think" and "believe". I do not put faith in -- believe in -- a given theory about creation and/or the way to read Genesis. I THINK, on the basis of study and reason, what the data all mean. Thought and belief are distinct processes, though it is true that they impact one another.
4. Our standing before God is a matter of receiving by faith the grace of a forgiving God, who has in Christ Jesus revealed the final criterion of truth, so that first, I must be reconciled to God by a relationship with Christ; and then, second, I am empowered to judge anything that purports to be a statement of truth -- Biblical or extra-Biblical -- by the standard of Jesus Christ.

 

[tragic_pizza]

(posting here before I have read further that this...)

How could God "scientifically" explain a miraculous event? Besides, what it sounds as if you are saying has one or more underlying assumptions. It sounds like you are suggesting that God explained creation the way He did because if He explained it as "scientists" believe certain things have happened (age of earth, "evolution" of life, etc.) that the people of that time would not have understood. If this is what you are suggesting, then this presumes that which you purport to be true in the first place...namely that God created via the method that secular scientists pronounce - long-age evolution (unless you suscribe to one of the OEC theories - which still involves millions of years)

I don't know by what method God fashoned creation. Niether, to be blunt, do you.

God created. This is enough to know.

 

[DHK]

Rufus, the word you are using is not the word I am using.

"Prescience" in your definition is "knowledge of things before they exist or happen; foreknowledge; foresight."


The word I am using is prescientific, which means the time before science and scientific theory came into use.

If we are going to discuss something, let us discuss the same thing.

This discussion is almost comical. TP can you define "science" for us, or are you using a special definition of science suited only for your own purposes?
Science is knowledge gained by information, and then classified.
I am sure that you will agree that those from Adam and Eve onward gained quite a bit of infomation from their observation of the earth. You may not call them scientists, but they were scientific. How scientific? Look at least at some evidence. If you study the Book of Genesis you find that it is a book of "firsts."

Genesis 4:19-22 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

I would suggest to you that these men were all scientists in their own right.
The sciences of husbandry, music, and metallurgy.

Also note that in Jacob's trials with Laban, he knew a bit about genetics, breeding, natural selection, etc. His knowledge in these sciences was not wanting. Perhaps your definition of "science" is wanting?

 

[Hope of Glory]

ccdnt, did you even read what I wrote?

You are combining two different things, whether you agree with them or not.

But, J. Jump responded well.

I would also like to add that your links are to AiG: I have read many things they have published, watched videos, etc., and what they use is pseudo-science, they ignore Scriptures that are inconvenient, and they help spread lies, whether they originate them or not.

To hold to the AiG stance, you have to assume that the earth was created "without form [in vain] and void", yet Isaiah 45:18 says specifically, “For 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.” He specifically says that He did not create it in such a state.

So, did he create it in vain and contradict Scripture that says he didn't?

 

[BobRyan]

. Therefore.....why bother debating? Let's all get over it!

This is the response I "expected" from no-believers in the Bible account of creation when a topic about "What the Bible says" regarding Creation and the literal days of Creation week is opend up on the board.

I am therefore pleasantly surprised by the few who do not believe the Bible on this subject but are still willing to post at least "some" defense of their positions.

This is an encouraging sign indeed!!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob you have changed the wording here in Exodus 20. Exodus 20 does not say that the LORD "created," but rather that the LORD "made." Created and made are two different words.

Really?? Is there ANY case in ALL of scripture where God says He did not MAKE what He CREATED??:BangHead:

No? hmmm..

Is it not obvious to ALL that what God CREATED in Gen 1-2:4 is said to be MADE IN SIX DAYS in Exodus 20???:BangHead:

hmm --

However you must not have been reading my prior posts very carefully, because I have said on at least one (possibly more) ocassion that the days are literal 24-hour periods. There is no other possibility that exists.

But just because the days are literal 24-hour periods, doesn't take away from an unknown gap of time in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

I am not arguing against a gap in 1:1 and 1:2 I am arguing that the creation of earth, sun and moon and "all that is in them" is in those 6 literal days.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

1. Proponents of the six-day theory, and particularly those who would argue that Genesis must be read as literal history, seem to make agreement with propositions the touchstone of Christian faith instead of a relationship with Christ. Remember how Luther distinguised between faith as assensus and faith as fiducia.

Sadly for those who believe as JMS has stated above "Genesis 1 - 2:4 IS LITERALLY TRUE".

Sadly for that argument - the Creator, the Fall of sinless perfect humanity and redemption ARE ALL inextricably LINKED to the GOSPEL!!

Sadly for that JMS argument - the Bible "is a house of CARDS" when it comes to the CREATOR, CREATION, MAN, the FALL of man and the accuracy of scripture. No slicing and dicing.. no corrupting one part of the bible and expecting the rest "to stand on its own"!!

JMS

Both literalists and those of us, like myself, who read Genesis as enhanced metaphor -- theologically charged parable -- may be guilty of letting the rationalistic presuppositions that have been in charge of our culture since the 18th Century drive us. Literalists are rationalistic in that they put their confidence in words, derivations, and propositions, more than in relationships.

Empty words sir. Why not use sound Bible exegesis "instead"??

But we "moderns" are also rationalistic, placing a good deal of confidence in scientific assertions (I hesitate to say "discoveries", because that suggests we are talking about indisputables).

Sadly misinformed.

#1. Science is EVER CHANGING.
#2. EVEN the atheist darwinist MYTHS and doctrines of evolutionISM are ever changing -- take the Coelacanth "stories" that they WERE telling until it was FOUND for example. Take Simpson's horse series "fabrication" for example. Do not hitch your GOSPEL wagon to such myths sir.

As the well known atheist darwinist Collin Patterson said -- imagining "how one thing came from another is simply a STORY EASY ENOUGH TO TELL but it is NOT SCIENCE"

#3. That is STILL not exegesis!!

JMS
We seem to have a hard time distinguishing between "think" and "believe". I do not put faith in -- believe in -- a given theory about creation and/or the way to read Genesis. I THINK, on the basis of study and reason, what the data all mean. Thought and belief are distinct processes, though it is true that they impact one another.

And "Exegesis" would be where in that story??

Why not use the mind to actually ENGAGE in actual exegesis sir??

Why all the "dancing"??

JMS

1. Our standing before God is a matter of receiving by faith the grace of a forgiving God, who has in Christ Jesus revealed the final criterion of truth, so that first, I must be reconciled to God by a relationship with Christ; and then, second, I am empowered to judge anything that purports to be a statement of truth -- Biblical or extra-Biblical -- by the standard of Jesus Christ.

Your argument is of the form "No matter how much I corrupt the Word of God in my wild dotrinal musings I CAN still be saved so God must not care about my efforts to compromise HIS WORD with Atheist Darwinism".

That is simply an extreme position in compromise and rationalizing away truth.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Notice the common bias in these show called rebuttals. These are "young" earthers trying to rebutt the gap theory because those that hold to the "old" earth theory place all the lost years in the gap.

I explained this earlier in this thread I believe. We don't know how many years are in the gap, so the young earthers could still be right even with the gap present. The old earthers could be right. Bottom line is we really don't know. And that point is really insignificant, because God has not chosen to tell us.

However He has chosen to tell us there is a gap between 1:1 and 1:2 and it behooves us to find out the significance of it.

The OP is about the SIX literal days of Creation week.

This does not address a possible gap in Gen 1:1 --

 

[BobRyan]

help!

is there any scripture references refering to the six literal days of creation back in genesis? or in general?

did Jesus believe in the six literal days of creation?

or was that word "day" in genesis translated wrong and should have been "era"? haha.

please - is there any scripture in NT about six literal days of creation?

#1. This is directed at the SIX DAYS of creative WORK God did before resting on the seventh day. NOT on what God did BEFORE those six days.

#2. WITH a gap between 1:1 and 1:2 that has God creating EVERTHING but the Earth and Sun and Moon you STILL have a literal 7 day Creation week where God CREATES the World and Sun and moon etc.

#3. WITH a gap between 1:1 and 1:2 where God creates everthing including ROCKS and WATER for earth and simply leaves the earth as a big rock covered by Water -- you STILL have a literal 7 day Creation week where ALL life on earth AND all terraforming of earth AND the sun and moon are all created.

BOTH gap options are expressly opposed to what JMS and other believers in atheist darwinism have proposed.

And obviously so ALSO does a non-gap option directly oppose atheist darwinism.

Let's stay focused.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[tragic_pizza]

This discussion is almost comical. TP can you define "science" for us, or are you using a special definition of science suited only for your own purposes?
Science is knowledge gained by information, and then classified.

"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:"

I am sure that you will agree that those from Adam and Eve onward gained quite a bit of infomation from their observation of the earth. You may not call them scientists, but they were scientific. How scientific? Look at least at some evidence. If you study the Book of Genesis you find that it is a book of "firsts."

Genesis 4:19-22 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

I would suggest to you that these men were all scientists in their own right.
The sciences of husbandry, music, and metallurgy.

OR, more likely, these were archetypal individuals. Again, a matter of a "how the elephant got his trunk" story. It's that, or every cowboy descended, literally, from Jabal, every musician descended, literally, from Jubal, and every blacksmith descended, literally, from Tubalcain. Every last one.

Also note that in Jacob's trials with Laban, he knew a bit about genetics, breeding, natural selection, etc. His knowledge in these sciences was not wanting. Perhaps your definition of "science" is wanting?

Perhaps. What is more likely is this: a bit of a fable sprang up about ol' daddy Jacob:

"Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted." (Genesis 30:37-39).

Can you direct me to the branch (pardon the pun) of animal husbandry that directs shepherds to strip poplars to make sheep speckled? Or is it possible that parts of Genesis are the recorded inspired, but oral, traditions of the Hebrew people?