Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

creation in 6 literal days?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Discussion creation in 6 literal days?

    Looking at Genesis 1, we see that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. Now the question is was that six literal days or not? The Hebrew word "yom" can refer to a 24 hour day, but it can also refer to time or a long time, a period of time, but actually means "heat". The Word also tells us that "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day" to God. Looking at the lexicology and the syntax, to me it was over a long period of time, as with God there is no time, and well we won't go into that... I am doing an assignment for bible school. Our question is that looking at the early chapters of Genesis and the hebrew word "yom" did creation occur in six days or six periods of unspecified duration. Any comments and assistance will be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks.

  • #2
    Yes

    Originally posted by Brendac View Post
    Looking at Genesis 1, we see that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. Now the question is was that six literal days or not? The Hebrew word "yom" can refer to a 24 hour day, but it can also refer to time or a long time, a period of time, but actually means "heat". The Word also tells us that "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day" to God. Looking at the lexicology and the syntax, to me it was over a long period of time, as with God there is no time, and well we won't go into that... I am doing an assignment for bible school. Our question is that looking at the early chapters of Genesis and the hebrew word "yom" did creation occur in six days or six periods of unspecified duration. Any comments and assistance will be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks.
    Moses said it was six days in the ten commandments:

    "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Exodus 20:11

    Then he told the Hebrews in the law that they were to honor God by working six days (literal days) and rest on the seventh.

    "Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest."
    Exodus 23:12.

    It is important to note that there is no distinction between the Hebrew day "yom" in Genesis 1, Exodus 20, and 23. They are all the same.

    Also, it may be true that a day is as a thousand years to God and a thousand years is as a day to Him, but not to us. A day is still a day and we cannot stretch it into a thousand years no matter what we do. Nor can we force a thousand years to be a single day.

    There is no biblical or scientific reason to accept anything other than the literal six day creation of the world by God Almighty.



    May His name be forever praised!
    Last edited by karenoka27; Dec 30th 2008, 04:24 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      You will receive arguements for several positions on this subject. Some will advocate 6 literal, some will advocate 6 long periods of time, and some will advocate a gap in creation.
      I personally lean to the gap theory of creation. The fact that most people will not recognize is that the scripture simply is not plain enough in the orig. language for us to be dogmatic about any of the 3 major positions. There is scriptural support for all three. I personally feel that there are scriptural problems with young earth, but proponents of young earth feel that there are problems with gap. If we allow ourselves to be 100% open minded and candidly honest; we can not say with certainty which theological stance is correct.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Yankee Candle View Post
        Moses said it was six days in the ten commandments:

        "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Exodus 20:11

        Then he told the Hebrews in the law that they were to honor God by working six days (literal days) and rest on the seventh.

        "Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest."
        Exodus 23:12.

        It is important to note that there is no distinction between the Hebrew day "yom" in Genesis 1, Exodus 20, and 23. They are all the same.

        Also, it may be true that a day is as a thousand years to God and a thousand years is as a day to Him, but not to us. A day is still a day and we cannot stretch it into a thousand years no matter what we do. Nor can we force a thousand years to be a single day.

        There is no biblical or scientific reason to accept anything other than the literal six day creation of the world by God Almighty.



        May His name be forever praised!
        There is no distinction between "yom" anywhere it appears in text. It can always mean one of two things. "Yom" depends on the context of its use to set its meaning. "Yom" has as many references to periods of time as it does to literal day. To imply that the definition of "yom" strengthens a young earth position is simply improper application of the rules of the Hebrew language. There are many scriptural instances when day means age and a literal day is paralleled to an age. Most true Hebrew scholars concur that "Yom" in the Genesis account of Creation means "period of time."

        I have two problems with the young earth model. Neither of them is based on science. Both are based on Scripture. In a young earth model, my first and foremost problem is that I can not place the rule, rebellion, and fall, of Satan into a young earth model. My second major problem with young earth creation is the fact that beginning with day one, God begins to use the word "day." Day one, two, and 3, are all listed in the creation account. You contend they are 24 hour days. What happens on day 4? God creates the 24 hour day. The 24 hour day is not even created until day 4, so the "yom" of day one, two, and three most obviously is not a 24 hour "yom," but a period of time "yom."

        Comment


        • #5
          Don't think so

          Originally posted by Reynolds357 View Post
          You will receive arguements for several positions on this subject. Some will advocate 6 literal, some will advocate 6 long periods of time, and some will advocate a gap in creation.
          I personally lean to the gap theory of creation. The fact that most people will not recognize is that the scripture simply is not plain enough in the orig. language for us to be dogmatic about any of the 3 major positions. There is scriptural support for all three. I personally feel that there are scriptural problems with young earth, but proponents of young earth feel that there are problems with gap. If we allow ourselves to be 100% open minded and candidly honest; we can not say with certainty which theological stance is correct.
          Why problems believing in a young earth? When God created Adam as a man how old did he look ten seconds after he was made? The world only has the appearance of great age, which begs the question: how would the Lord make the world in the fashion described without an appearance of age?

          I tossed out the gap theory over thirty years ago after making a careful comparison of "without form & void" (tohu & wabohu in Hebrew) with Jeremiah 4:

          23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
          24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
          25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
          26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
          27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
          28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

          I don't know exactly which period of time Jeremiah was speaking of but he wasn't speaking of a period before Adam and Eve were created, for such a position would demand the existence of death. Death did not exist until Adam sinned. Romans 5:12.

          God bless you.



          May God be honored and glorified forever!

          Comment


          • #6
            Why problems believing in a young earth? When God created Adam as a man how old did he look ten seconds after he was made? The world only has the appearance of great age, which begs the question: how would the Lord make the world in the fashion described without an appearance of age?
            This line of thinking has always seemed unsatisfactory to me. For example, when Adam was created he was certainly a mature adult. However, there is an adjacent natural process that can bring about maturation in humans. The miracle is that it happened suddenly, but it doesn't discredit there is a natural process that also brings about maturation. Same with the miracle of Christ - He cured defects to the point that it was as though they never existed. There is, however, a natural process for those without defects to be able to see, walk, speak, etc.

            If, however, God created the world with the appearance of age (via evolution), then we would have to argue there is likewise a natural occurrence of it as well. The problem is, because creation is a one time thing, it can only occur once. Therefore, it either happened suddenly or it happened over time. It cannot have the appearance of age if it happened suddenly because there would be no natural occurrence to compare it to.

            I know this sounds confusing and I apologize, but does it make any sense?

            Comment


            • #7
              Genesis clearly states that the earth was created in six literal days. It specifically spells it out by saying "and the evening and the morning were the __ day". It gives the perameter for the day - morning to evening - right in the scripture, over and over again, day after day to make certain it's being clear. Each day is specifically described as " the evening and the morning were the __ day". How much clearer could it be?

              There are some big problems with the "gap" theory. First of all, the very basis of it is a rethinking of Creationism by Christians in light of what the scientific community has purported as the "fact" of evolution. Some Christians, who have seemingly bought into the propaganda that an evolutionary origin of the species is fact have felt the need to meld the two theories of creationism and evolution together to make Creationism more accepted and more plausible to those who hail evolution. Let's be clear: The Bible is a scientifically accurate book, and as human society grows in scientific knowledge the more the Bible holds to be true. There was a time when the scientific community believed the earth was flat. The Christians who read their Bibles ALWAYS knew the earth was round - Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sits on the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in..."
              AND Proverbs 8:27 "When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep..."

              For years it was not known that the deep ocean contained fresh water springs because technology didn't allow for probing of the deep. Yet it states in Job, "Have you entered into the springs of the sea or walked into the recesses of the deep?" Sure enough, springs in the ocean were discovered this last century. For centuries no-one knew the wind blew on a "circuit", as in circles over large areas of land and follow a circular pattern. It wasn't until satellite imagery that we were able to see the circuits of the wind, yet the Bible refers to them clearly: "The wind whirls about continually and comes again on its circuit". (Ecc. 1:7)
              I could go on and on.

              My point is this: Because of all the propaganda surrounding evolution and the way it is touted as truth, Christians have "re-thought" the creation account to make it fit into what science has "proven". Evolution is far from science, but a faith based belief system regarding origins that has its own dogma and societal effects. Since the Word of God proves to be right over and over and was written by the One who created the whole thing, I feel no need to make concessions to fit the word of God into a faulty theory that has no Biblical basis or hard scientific evidence for whatsoever. Again, I think it's pretty clear that we're talking 6 literal days from the wording. No-one reading it for the first time without coaching would think otherwise - it reads as 6 literal days to any reader. I'd like to point out one other thing: There was no other reading of it in the past millenia except 6 literal days until the evolution theory began being taught and Christians began to feel silly about 6 days against the billions and billions of years science was coming up with.

              One more thing: Genesis states that the plant-life of the entire earth was created on the third day. The sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so if the days referred to are actually long gaps then those plants would be waiting a real long time for the sun to come up, don't you think? How could plants survive for any amount of time - even one year! - without sun? I'll tell you - they can't, because they were created to photosynthesize; God planned it that way and set about creating the sun the next day.

              Then, you also have the issue of death before Adam which I won't get into for lack of time.

              Also, who says the earth has an appearance of great age? That statement is debatable at best. Let's not forget about the worldwide flood that wiped out the entire earth and the effects from that which we still see - like the Grand Canyon basin.

              Comment


              • #8
                Right

                "Genesis clearly states that the earth was created in six literal days. It specifically spells it out by saying 'and the evening and the morning were the __ day'. It gives the perameter for the day - morning to evening - right in the scripture, over and over again, day after day to make certain it's being clear. Each day is specifically described as 'the evening and the morning were the __ day'. How much clearer could it be?"

                Kate is right on target. In fact, one could not make a stronger argument about the 'day' of Genesis than what she did. End of line.

                Her other arguments were very good also. Amen.



                Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.



                Last edited by karenoka27; Dec 30th 2008, 04:23 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
                  This line of thinking has always seemed unsatisfactory to me. For example, when Adam was created he was certainly a mature adult. However, there is an adjacent natural process that can bring about maturation in humans. The miracle is that it happened suddenly, but it doesn't discredit there is a natural process that also brings about maturation. Same with the miracle of Christ - He cured defects to the point that it was as though they never existed. There is, however, a natural process for those without defects to be able to see, walk, speak, etc.

                  If, however, God created the world with the appearance of age (via evolution), then we would have to argue there is likewise a natural occurrence of it as well. The problem is, because creation is a one time thing, it can only occur once. Therefore, it either happened suddenly or it happened over time. It cannot have the appearance of age if it happened suddenly because there would be no natural occurrence to compare it to.

                  I know this sounds confusing and I apologize, but does it make any sense?
                  Well, not really. Why not just take Him at His Word that He did it just the way Moses said He did?

                  "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
                  Mark 10:6.

                  Have a nice day.



                  Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
                  Last edited by karenoka27; Dec 30th 2008, 04:23 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Yankee Candle View Post
                    Well, not really. Why not just take Him at His Word that He did it just the way Moses said He did?

                    "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
                    Mark 10:6.

                    Have a nice day.



                    Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
                    Why don't you take Revelation at its word when it says Jesus is a lamb or that He has a sword coming out of His mouth? Are those not to be taken literally? Or what about the Psalms? Are we to take every work in the Psalms literally as well?

                    People here need to drop the judgmental attitudes. "Oh, you just don't trust God." "You don't really believe the Bible." "You don't trust the Word."

                    Or, it could just be that we have studied the first 11 chapters and recognized their written in a prose format and not in a historical narrative format (like the rest of Genesis). In light of this, we are weary to take the literal 6 day approach because it wouldn't make sense compared to the prose narrative.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Not the same thing

                      Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
                      Why don't you take Revelation at its word when it says Jesus is a lamb or that He has a sword coming out of His mouth? Are those not to be taken literally? Or what about the Psalms? Are we to take every work in the Psalms literally as well?

                      People here need to drop the judgmental attitudes. "Oh, you just don't trust God." "You don't really believe the Bible." "You don't trust the Word."

                      Or, it could just be that we have studied the first 11 chapters and recognized their written in a prose format and not in a historical narrative format (like the rest of Genesis). In light of this, we are weary to take the literal 6 day approach because it wouldn't make sense compared to the prose narrative.
                      Not so, friend. The truth is that when men view Jesus before the Father in heaven they will see Him as a 'lamb'. He can manifest Himself in any manner He so chooses as it pleases Him. As far as a 'sword coming out of his mouth'...I think you will be shocked at what you see when you see it. When we use the 'sword of the spirit' God's holy Word against Satan...I trust that an invisible sword attacks him and his devils though I cannot see it. It remains to be seen how all of this will appear.

                      God gave excellent reasons for believing that the six day creation was a literal one; lots of them. Don't ignore them because of peer pressure or because most of the Christian world has surrendered to evolution.

                      Both Jesus and his apostles made it clear that Genesis was historical:

                      "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6

                      "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Matthew 24:27

                      Are you and those like you trying to suggest that Jesus compared his literal 2nd coming with a storybook tale that never happned?

                      1Timothy 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

                      Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.

                      It should be easy to see that the writers of the N.T. thought that the Genesis account in chapters 1-11 were real/literal/historical. No other position is really honest.


                      Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
                      Last edited by karenoka27; Dec 30th 2008, 04:20 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Not so, friend. The truth is that when men view Jesus before the Father in heaven they will see Him as a 'lamb'. He can manifest Himself in any manner He so chooses as it pleases Him. As far as a 'sword coming out of his mouth'...I think you will be shocked at what you see when you see it. When we use the 'sword of the spirit' God's holy Word against Satan...I trust that an invisible sword attacks him and his devils though I cannot see it. It remains to be seen how all of this will appear.
                        So I'm to believe that every single thing in Revelation is literal?

                        At least you're consistent - consistently using the wrong hermeneutic, but consistent none-the-less

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Literal

                          Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
                          So I'm to believe that every single thing in Revelation is literal?

                          At least you're consistent - consistently using the wrong hermeneutic, but consistent none-the-less
                          I don't mean to be unkind to you but you need to look into the mirror when you say that.

                          The truth is that even symbolical things in scripture pertain to that which is real. The beast of Revelation is a man who will take dictatorial, totalitarian rule over the world at a yet future time. This man will be possessed by a 'beast' which is Satan himself, hence, he is described as a 'beast' in revelation.

                          The symbol of the dragon with seven heads and ten horns we know is not literal because the Bible tells us that he is Satan (Rev. 12:9).

                          The harlot of Rev. 17 is a world religious system, seated in Rome, that will persecute the saints of God unto death. Vs. 18 establishes that she is Rome.

                          These things are not hard to grasp if we just read carefully...and keep reading. Genesis, however, has no such symbolical character to it. It is almost entirely historical. I quoted the scriptures that reveal that the disciples believed that they were actual/literal/real. Shall I quote them again?

                          There is no evolution in scripture and God's Word never hints that God used it or even wants it to be believed in.



                          Lord, give us the key of understanding
                          Last edited by karenoka27; Dec 30th 2008, 04:18 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Yankee Candle View Post
                            Why problems believing in a young earth? When God created Adam as a man how old did he look ten seconds after he was made? The world only has the appearance of great age, which begs the question: how would the Lord make the world in the fashion described without an appearance of age?

                            I tossed out the gap theory over thirty years ago after making a careful comparison of "without form & void" (tohu & wabohu in Hebrew) with Jeremiah 4:

                            23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
                            24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
                            25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
                            26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
                            27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
                            28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

                            I don't know exactly which period of time Jeremiah was speaking of but he wasn't speaking of a period before Adam and Eve were created, for such a position would demand the existence of death. Death did not exist until Adam sinned. Romans 5:12.

                            God bless you.



                            May God be honored and glorified forever!
                            You make the assumption that death did not exist prior to the sin of Adam. However, that is not stated in scripture. When you say "death," what do you mean? Do you mean Human Death? Animal Death? Plant death? From scripture, you can only conclude that Human death did not exist prior to the sin of Adam. Anything more is opinion that can not be proven with scripture.

                            I stated I had two problems with Young Earth Creation. Prior to attending Bible College, I believed in a Young Earth. I defended it strongly. Simply put, the support for it in scripture is greatly lacking.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kate View Post
                              Genesis clearly states that the earth was created in six literal days. It specifically spells it out by saying "and the evening and the morning were the __ day". It gives the perameter for the day - morning to evening - right in the scripture, over and over again, day after day to make certain it's being clear. Each day is specifically described as " the evening and the morning were the __ day". How much clearer could it be?

                              There are some big problems with the "gap" theory. First of all, the very basis of it is a rethinking of Creationism by Christians in light of what the scientific community has purported as the "fact" of evolution. Some Christians, who have seemingly bought into the propaganda that an evolutionary origin of the species is fact have felt the need to meld the two theories of creationism and evolution together to make Creationism more accepted and more plausible to those who hail evolution. Let's be clear: The Bible is a scientifically accurate book, and as human society grows in scientific knowledge the more the Bible holds to be true. There was a time when the scientific community believed the earth was flat. The Christians who read their Bibles ALWAYS knew the earth was round - Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sits on the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in..."
                              AND Proverbs 8:27 "When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep..."

                              For years it was not known that the deep ocean contained fresh water springs because technology didn't allow for probing of the deep. Yet it states in Job, "Have you entered into the springs of the sea or walked into the recesses of the deep?" Sure enough, springs in the ocean were discovered this last century. For centuries no-one knew the wind blew on a "circuit", as in circles over large areas of land and follow a circular pattern. It wasn't until satellite imagery that we were able to see the circuits of the wind, yet the Bible refers to them clearly: "The wind whirls about continually and comes again on its circuit". (Ecc. 1:7)
                              I could go on and on.

                              My point is this: Because of all the propaganda surrounding evolution and the way it is touted as truth, Christians have "re-thought" the creation account to make it fit into what science has "proven". Evolution is far from science, but a faith based belief system regarding origins that has its own dogma and societal effects. Since the Word of God proves to be right over and over and was written by the One who created the whole thing, I feel no need to make concessions to fit the word of God into a faulty theory that has no Biblical basis or hard scientific evidence for whatsoever. Again, I think it's pretty clear that we're talking 6 literal days from the wording. No-one reading it for the first time without coaching would think otherwise - it reads as 6 literal days to any reader. I'd like to point out one other thing: There was no other reading of it in the past millenia except 6 literal days until the evolution theory began being taught and Christians began to feel silly about 6 days against the billions and billions of years science was coming up with.

                              One more thing: Genesis states that the plant-life of the entire earth was created on the third day. The sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so if the days referred to are actually long gaps then those plants would be waiting a real long time for the sun to come up, don't you think? How could plants survive for any amount of time - even one year! - without sun? I'll tell you - they can't, because they were created to photosynthesize; God planned it that way and set about creating the sun the next day.

                              Then, you also have the issue of death before Adam which I won't get into for lack of time.

                              Also, who says the earth has an appearance of great age? That statement is debatable at best. Let's not forget about the worldwide flood that wiped out the entire earth and the effects from that which we still see - like the Grand Canyon basin.
                              If you closely study the gap theory, you will see that it was not created to reconcile creation to science. It was created to reconcile scriptural contradictions that the young earth theory causes. It is absolutely impossible to place the fall of Satan into the young Earth model. That is where the problem lies. The "evening and the morning" are not support for a literal 24 hour day. The mean the beginning of an era and beginning of the next. Let us look at day 1, 2, and 3. Days 1-3, evening and morning? There is a major problem with that. The sun and moon and stars were told on day 4 to regulate the day and night. You do not even have a literal evening and morning on days 1-3. Your argument about plant life waiting a very long time for the sun is simply not an evidence against Old Earth Creation. It is an evidence against Young Earth Creation. Without the sun, what would the temperature of the Earth be? That is debatable, but it is universally agreed upon that the temperature would be vastly too cold to sustain any plant life we have on this planet for any amount of time. The plants could not have survived any amount of time on day 3 waiting for the creation of the sun on day 4. O.E.C. holds that the sun existed, God merely organized the orbits and rotations to create the 24hour day on day 4. Us old Earth Creationists have light for our plants. You young Earth creationits have no light for your plants.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X