The Seven Days of Creation

[rlvaughn]

Genesis 1:1-2:3 records seven days of God's creative acts.

And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Some people think the whole thing is a myth. Among those who accept creation as Scripture, there is some difference of opinion how to interpret the "day". Was it a "regular" day of 24 hours? 1000 years? Some indefinite period?

The thread is open to any and all discussion of the seven days, but I am particularly interested in the answer of those who do not believe the evening and morning days of Genesis 1:1-2:3 were 24 hour days. What biblical reasons do you give for these being 1000 years, indefinite periods, or anything else other than 24 hours? Not speed of light wonderings and such like from science, but biblical texts that support your conclusion.

Thanks.

 

[Revmitchell]

"Time For Investigation
This experience bothered me so badly that I started doing more research. I knew that modern critical scholars think the day-age view and the more recent framework hypothesis are grammatically untenable from the standpoint of the original author’s intent. One of the best Hebraists in the world, James Barr of Oxford University, had written in a letter twenty years ago, “So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.”1

I wondered what modern “world-class” Hebraists would say about Barr’s statement today, so I tracked down several leading experts to ask their opinion.

Hugh Williamson is the current Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University. Oxford is perhaps the most prestigious university in the world, and Williamson is one of the top Hebraists anywhere. In an email he responded, “So far as the days of Genesis 1 are concerned, I am sure that Professor Barr was correct. . . . I have not met any Hebrew professors who had the slightest doubt about this unless they were already committed to some alternative by other considerations that do not arise from a straightforward reading of the Hebrew text as it stands.”2

I also emailed Barr’s letter to Emanuel Tov of Hebrew University Jerusalem; he would be on anyone’s list of Hebrew experts. Professor Tov responded in kind: “For the biblical people this was history, difficult as it is for us to accept this view.”3 Here was confirmation from a Jewish man who spoke and thought in Hebrew.

There is a residential theological research library called Tyndale House, located outside of Cambridge University in England. You can rent a room and literally live in the library. It is perhaps the best such facility in the world. During its history some of the top scholars have been its “warden.” The current warden is a young man of encyclopedic knowledge named Peter Williams. He sent a paper to me that said, “Although the Young Universe Creationist position is not widely held within secular academia, the position—that the author of Genesis 1 maintained that the world was created in six literal days—is nearly universally held.”4

I could go on, listing dozens and dozens of names, but there is no need. The scholarship is clear. The writer of Genesis 1–2 meant the text to teach chronology in terms of normal days. So why would almost the entirety of evangelical scholarship reject the author’s intent?"

24 Hours—Plain as Day

 

[Reformed1689]

There is zero evidence to suggest day is anything but 24 hours in the creation account. Period.

 

[Deacon]

There is zero evidence to suggest day is anything but 24 hours in the creation account. Period.

Well, not exactly zero.

The scientific evidence for an old earth is overwhelming.
Concordists look for a way to interpret Scripture in light of this.
Galileo observed the rotation of the planets and the physical evidence was instrumental in pointing out a better way to understand Scripture.

I’m an old earth creationist.

John Walton’s book, The Lost World of Genesis One changed the way I interpret the opening chapters of Genesis. Walton interprets the seven days of creation as seven days but with subtitle differences of focus on what really happened during each day.
His understanding separates the Scriptures from science.

I’ve read countless books on the topic of Genesis and science. It wasn’t until I read Walton’s book that I felt truly at rest with the topic. I’d encourage you to read it!

Rob

 

[Van]

I am comfortable with my view that we do not know how old the universe is, based on Job 38. But I see no way (well rational way) to get around the Bible seems to say the first man lived about 6000 years ago.

Is anyone comfortable saying the bible can be interpreted such that the first man lived tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago?

 

[rlvaughn]

Is anyone comfortable saying the bible can be interpreted such that the first man lived tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago?

I do not believe that, so I could not be comfortable with saying that. Yes, I believe Adam was created about 6000 years ago. (I also think if we accept Adam's age as historically correct, it creates problems for the day-age theory, as opposed to 24 hour days.)

 

[rlvaughn]

The scientific evidence for an old earth is overwhelming.
Concordists look for a way to interpret Scripture in light of this.
Galileo observed the rotation of the planets and the physical evidence was instrumental in pointing out a better way to understand Scripture.

This sounds like starting with the presupposition that science is correct and any understanding of Scripture that differs with that must be adjusted to fit science.

John Walton’s book, The Lost World of Genesis One changed the way I interpret the opening chapters of Genesis. Walton interprets the seven days of creation as seven days but with subtitle differences of focus on what really happened during each day.
His understanding separates the Scriptures from science.

How does Walton interpret the seven days of creation in relation to days being ages versus days being 24 hours? Do you believe there is any scriptural evidence for what you are proposing that is straightforward and simple without having to filter it through a scientific lens?

 

[tyndale1946]

There is zero evidence to suggest day is anything but 24 hours in the creation account. Period.

If we question the creation account and say it is up for interpretation, what else are we going to question?... I agree with what has been said according to scripture... Are we questioning God who by the way says what is penned is by the inspiration of God?... If science doesn't harmonize with the Bible, then science is wrong... Brother Glen

Gen 3:1 Yea, hath God said?

 

[percho]

Questions
A. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
B. Of foundation of world. Whatever that word world means. - Greek: καταβολῆς κόσμου

Did A take six twenty four hour periods of time?
Did B take six twenty four hour periods of time?

Do both of those speak to the same thing? The same thing as also taking place in six twenty four periods? Did it also take twenty fours to make the Sabbath day rest.

 

[Jerome]

Among those who accept creation as Scripture, there is some difference of opinion how to interpret the "day". Was it a "regular" day of 24 hours? 1000 years? Some indefinite period?....I am particularly interested in the answer of those who do not believe the evening and morning days of Genesis 1:1-2:3 were 24 hour days.

Check out this presentation by 9Mark Dever and his mentor Roy Clements to the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union:

CICCU • Dever and Clements on Christians and Science (audio file)

38:30-39:55
CLEMENTS: "In fact if you think about it, Genesis chapter One does portray an evolutionary model. It would have been very easy for the ancient author, knowing nothing at all about evolution, to have simply said the whole of the universe suddenly sprang into being by a single divine fiat, with no progress, no development at all, but no, he spreads it out over seven days, and he says that material things emerged first: light, and the earth, and the heavens, and then plahnts before animals, and marine animals come before land animals, and the human race comes only at the very end.
In an astonishing way, he anticipates the general sort of evolutionary scheme, without any of the evolutionary details. So I don't have any great difficulty in accepting that if evolution was the way it happened, that God might have used such a mechanism for the production of the variety of species that we see, and I don't find any great difficulty harmonising that with Genesis One. But there are some Christians who feel that the seven days have to be taken with a greater degree of literalness than I feel is necessary, and they must look for another solution to the problem."

1:12:00-1:13:20
DEVER "The word Yom there in the Hebrew is used very similarly to the way we use the word Day, and it means many different things. I'm not sure I want to say exactly what Roy said on that, but I think, as a Christian who certainly believes in the truth of scripture there's nothing he's said that's inconsistent with that."
CLEMENTS: "If it were a twenty four hour day, I favour the view that it was a twenty four hours of revelation, maybe the prophet saw the vision over the space of seven days, but I don't think the prophet could possibly have been given an actual time scale to set against the things he was seeing happen. They had to have taken place in a time-collapsed way. He couldn't possibly have seen them, in my view, across the spectrum of the time the took, if they took millions of years, as science would say. He would have to have seen it in a time-collapsed way."
DEVER - "And I would say of course He could have done it in that way, and of course the prophet could have seen it that way, but the point is the word doesn't necessitate, the word Yom, doesn't necessitate you or me or Roy looking at it any one of those —"
CLEMENTS - "There are a whole host of ways of harmonising Genesis One with scientific accounts of origins. Some are seven-day Creationists, Young Earth view, I respect that view, but I don't hold it myself."

 

[percho]

And God sees the light that good, and God separated between the light and the darkness, Gen 1:3 with the so called help words removed. it is between that and good.

The good light.

to open their eyes, to turn from darkness to light, and the authority of the Adversary unto God, for their receiving forgiveness of sins, and a lot among those having been sanctified, by faith that is toward me.Acts 26:18 Removed the italic them after turn and the italic, from, before the authority.

Tell me why both passages are not speaking of the same darkness and light. the light, that good?

BTW this is relative to the OP. BTW I believe the darkness and light of the first day are twelve hours of each. And thereafter for six days.

 

[MartyF]

John Walton’s book, The Lost World of Genesis One changed the way I interpret the opening chapters of Genesis. Walton interprets the seven days of creation as seven days but with subtitle differences of focus on what really happened during each day.
His understanding separates the Scriptures from science.

HIs viewpoint is not much different from the NLT study bible or other writers on the topic. I’m not against a more theological interpretation of Genesis as oppose to a historical viewpoint. I don’t think Timothy 3:16 implies a literally perfect bible with no errors. Few who have really read the Bible do.

The scientific evidence for an old earth is overwhelming.

Really?? Mind sharing some of this evidence?

2 forms of scientific evidence.

1. Replication - Haven’t seen any possibility of this happening especially since they continually kick back the age of the Earth. This is the best for of scientific evidence. Well that knocks out overwhelming evidence.

2. Prediction - Can’t forecast the next tsunami or earthquake. This means they don’t have a clue what is happening in the Earth’s crust, much less under it. At best they have vague descriptions and a little evidence they can’t make heads or tails of.

Science which involves the study of the natural world. Those who study science like to call themselves scientists. That does not make them any less human or make them prophets. You shouldn’t considered what they say with any less skepticism than any other human.

 

[Alcott]

Did the formless and void earth rotate on an axis once per "day" before the sun was created or "there?"

 

[church mouse guy]

Walton does not believe in a literal reading of Genesis but wants to filter it through the heathen beliefs in the ancient near east.

And on the subject of Genesis presenting an outline for evolution, Christians refuted that in the 19th century. One of the more glaring examples is that plant life was created the day before the sun.

 

[tyndale1946]

Walton does not believe in a literal reading of Genesis but wants to filter it through the heathen beliefs in the ancient near east.

And on the subject of Genesis presenting an outline for evolution, Christians refuted that in the 19th century. One of the more glaring examples is that plant life was created the day before the sun.

You're not the only one laughing?... Brother Glen

Psalms 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

 

[Deacon]

This sounds like starting with the presupposition that science is correct and any understanding of Scripture that differs with that must be adjusted to fit science.
How does Walton interpret the seven days of creation in relation to days being ages versus days being 24 hours? Do you believe there is any scriptural evidence for what you are proposing that is straightforward and simple without having to filter it through a scientific lens?

We all have presuppositions.
I’m a science guy, it’s my business. I evaluate, diagnose and treat based upon physical evidences. To say science is untrustworthy makes no sense to me. I don’t want to get into a back and forth argument about this.
I don’t see any convincing biblical support for young-earth type science other than a simple close-your-eyes-to-reality view of the world.
Walton does not talk science in his book. He provides some interesting “new” ideas that are derived from the ancient worldview of the Israelites at the time Genesis was written. His book opens up the Bible and explains the biblical difficulties that many people have. It is not a science book but a book about the Bible.
It must be good, the YE creationist groups really don’t like Walton.

Rob

 

[rlvaughn]

I don’t think Timothy 3:16 implies a literally perfect bible with no errors. Few who have really read the Bible do.

I don’t see any convincing biblical support for young-earth type science other than a simple close-your-eyes-to-reality view of the world.

Tell us what you really think about us.

It must be good, the YE creationist groups really don’t like Walton.

Sounds about right. I searched and found one writer at Answers in Genesis assess his work this way:

Dr. Walton’s Lost World series is a good example of what happens when, however unintentionally, the ANE texts are given magisterial authority over the text of Scripture.

 

[MartyF]

Tell us what you really think about us.

I wasn't trying to put you down, but here are a couple of verses to help explain.

1 Kings 7:26 NLT
The walls of the Sea were about three inches thick, and its rim flared out like a cup and resembled a water lily blossom. It could hold about 11,000 gallons of water.

2 Chronicles 4:5 NLT
The walls of the Sea were about three inches thick, and its rim flared out like a cup and resembled a water lily blossom. It could hold about 16,500 gallons of water.

There is also the more well-known passage by Paul.

1 Corinthians 1:14-16 NLT
I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, [15] for now no one can say they were baptized in my name. [16] (Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas, but I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.)

The Bible is not literally perfect. However,

2 Timothy 3:16 NLT
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.

 

[church mouse guy]

I wasn't trying to put you down, but here are a couple of verses to help explain.

1 Kings 7:26 NLT
The walls of the Sea were about three inches thick, and its rim flared out like a cup and resembled a water lily blossom. It could hold about 11,000 gallons of water.

2 Chronicles 4:5 NLT
The walls of the Sea were about three inches thick, and its rim flared out like a cup and resembled a water lily blossom. It could hold about 16,500 gallons of water.

There is also the more well-known passage by Paul.

1 Corinthians 1:14-16 NLT
I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, [15] for now no one can say they were baptized in my name. [16] (Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas, but I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.)

The Bible is not literally perfect. However,

2 Timothy 3:16 NLT
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.

Correction, The Holy Bible is perfect. Any errors in transmission are human.

 

[MB]

"Time For Investigation
This experience bothered me so badly that I started doing more research. I knew that modern critical scholars think the day-age view and the more recent framework hypothesis are grammatically untenable from the standpoint of the original author’s intent. One of the best Hebraists in the world, James Barr of Oxford University, had written in a letter twenty years ago, “So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.”1

I wondered what modern “world-class” Hebraists would say about Barr’s statement today, so I tracked down several leading experts to ask their opinion.

Hugh Williamson is the current Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University. Oxford is perhaps the most prestigious university in the world, and Williamson is one of the top Hebraists anywhere. In an email he responded, “So far as the days of Genesis 1 are concerned, I am sure that Professor Barr was correct. . . . I have not met any Hebrew professors who had the slightest doubt about this unless they were already committed to some alternative by other considerations that do not arise from a straightforward reading of the Hebrew text as it stands.”2

I also emailed Barr’s letter to Emanuel Tov of Hebrew University Jerusalem; he would be on anyone’s list of Hebrew experts. Professor Tov responded in kind: “For the biblical people this was history, difficult as it is for us to accept this view.”3 Here was confirmation from a Jewish man who spoke and thought in Hebrew.

There is a residential theological research library called Tyndale House, located outside of Cambridge University in England. You can rent a room and literally live in the library. It is perhaps the best such facility in the world. During its history some of the top scholars have been its “warden.” The current warden is a young man of encyclopedic knowledge named Peter Williams. He sent a paper to me that said, “Although the Young Universe Creationist position is not widely held within secular academia, the position—that the author of Genesis 1 maintained that the world was created in six literal days—is nearly universally held.”4

I could go on, listing dozens and dozens of names, but there is no need. The scholarship is clear. The writer of Genesis 1–2 meant the text to teach chronology in terms of normal days. So why would almost the entirety of evangelical scholarship reject the author’s intent?"

24 Hours—Plain as Day

Why indeed? Could it be to discredit the Bible through the means of science? I believe this is the case. They try hard to disprove it all the time and only end up proving it.
IMO if they can't believe scripture in it's entirety. Then why believe any of it at all?
MB