Creation questions

Many on this board will insist this verse means that terms like "near", "at hand", and "soon" really don't mean what we would ordinarily assume they mean. Because after all "one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day". However they would never allow the Genesis account to be anything other than 24 hour days and that 2 Peter 3:8 should not be used in trying to interpret Genesis.

My view is 2 Peter 3:8 is a statement about God,(Ps. 90:1-4)not how we are to interpret time-statements.

I beleive the "days" of Genesis could be thousands/millions of years or 24 hour days. I lean toward the longer days. An excellent place to start is www.reasons.org I would also recommend the book " The Genesis Question" by Hugh Ross. He makes a good case for the long creation days theory.

 

David,

The way the creation account was written it would be very unlikely that any CONCRETE symbolism was implied - like a thosand years for a day.

The question (in terms of the six day account) is whether or not the creation account was intended to be a factual description of creation or rather a theological epic.

 

I believe the most important thing to take from it is that God created all things. The message revolves around God the Creator.

There are many "theories" on it.

Day-Age Theory, Literal Six Day and a couple of others. I believe the point is that God created.

 

2 Pet. should not be applied to Gen. account of creation, because Peter wasn't talking about creation.

The creation account in Genesis was not given by Moses to rebut the theory of evolution. It was given to a group of people who had just walked out of a culture where nearly everything was considered to be "god" in some way. The Nile river was "god", and some animals represented some "god", and insects represented another "god" and so on. All of the "plagues" on Eygpt demonstrated that the one true God of Moses was superior to any "god" the Eygptians worshipped.

The purpose of Genesis was to show these people that the one true God that had brought them out of Eygpt was the creator of all things, and more important, no created thing was considered to be "god".

The accounts are clearly written as 24 hour days and should not be considered as anything else. There is a parallel style to the days. Day 1 is reflected in day 4. Day 2 is reflected in day 5. Day 3 is reflected in day 6. Almost like poetry. That is why we have God creating light on day one and then placing the Sun and Moon in the sky on day 4. It is a stylistic device. God's activity of creation becomes progressively longer in each day, with it culminating on the 6th day and the creation of man.

There are not two creations of man. Some hold that the account in verse 6 suggest a pre-Adamic race. This is nonsense. Chapter 2 provides the details of the Day 6 creation account of man. Eve is the mother of all living.

The sabbath day (7) can be read (and I believe more accurately) as the day God "ceased" instead of "rested". God was not tired from the work. He ceased working on creation.

I do hold to a literal 6 days of creation. But we do not have to go beyond what it says in order to address the evolutionists. Please do not use, abuse, twist or contort Genesis for anything other than the purpose God intended it to be used for.

The theory of intellegent design is a much better tool to use to address the questions of the evolutionists.

By the way, Job 40:15-18 gives a pretty good description of a dinosaur. I base that on the "tail like a cedar" tree. An elephant doesn't have a tail that big, nor a hippo. A crocodile doesn't have legs like bars of iron.

May God bless your ongoing study of His word.

 

David, the creation account says that the morning and the evening were the first day.
That's simple enough. A day is a morning and an evening.
BTW, when God spoke of a savior that would rise on the third day, could he really have meant during the 3,000th year?

 

There is a ton of evidence out there - look at some creationist websites. A search on the term "mount st helen's" along with "creation" might yield a lot of interesting stuff for a start.

Liz

 

As previously posted there are many scriptures in the OT that show God meant literal days in our terms. When Genesis was written it was penned by a man, Moses, in human terms.

I think too many people read into "special revelations" in the books of Peter that just are not there. A thousand years is as a day and a day is as a thousand years just means that God is not limited within the boudaries of time. God is ageless and timeless. Days, weeks, months, and years mean nothing to God. He is not limited by time because time is his creation. God exists outside of time and dimension.

And we all must agree that God is certainly capable of creating a universe in six days. I think he stretched creation out to six days for symbolic purposes becasue I believe he could create everything in six seconds myself.

 

My own belief is that science and scripture can be reconciled by a) attributing the DAYS of Genesis one to descriptions of EPOCHS OF CREATION and b) realizing they DO NOT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED SEQUENTIAL - that is, the current structure is arranged poetically to match day one and three, two and four, three and five.

Taking it this way leaves room for the process of the universe to have been formed as science has discovered it to happen and yet continue to claim the scripture as being God's revelation for us today as well as yesterday.

Nobody I know of ever says "God could not have" . . instead, we want to defend the SCRIPTURES and keep them relevant and we also want to be TRUE TO THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE which after all came from God for us to find . . .

so thats how I do it.

I mention this for you to pass on as to what some do.

 

God either is or He isn't. The Bible is either true or it isn't. God either created or He didn't. Macro-evolution either happened or it didn't. If macro-evolution is true why do we need God?

By the way there is no true scientific evidence for macro-evolution. If you are really interested in a detailed study of the creation/evolution debate you might try The Modern Creation Triology by John and Henry Morris.

 

See, you can certainly say that there is disagreement on this issue!

 

A man with two watches never knows what time it is.

It is scientifically impossible for the Bible to be true. Water cannot be changed into wine. A human being cannot walk on water. Leprosy cannot be cured in an instant. People who have been dead for three days cannot come back to life. Two pounds of food cannot feed 5000 people.

"OUCH!!!", I almost put my tounge CLEAN through my cheek on that one.

 

The 2 Pet. 3.8 quote is in an entirely different context than the use of the word "day" in Gen. 1. 2 Pet. 3.8 is talking about how with God there is no time because he is outside of time. It's a poetic type expression showing how time is to God. It is not given to us as a way to measure time.

It has nothing to do with saying that every time the word "day" is used, it means 1,000 years. If we take the word "day" from 2 Pet. 3.8 to mean 1,000 years every time the word "day" is used (which we should do to be consistent), in that case, Jesus did not rise on the 3rd day, but after 3,000 years! It's such poor hermeneutics to use 2 Pet. 3.8 to interpret "day" in Genesis.

I think Gen. 1 is a masterpiece. God carefully shows us what He created each day, for a reason. If the sun had been created first, then one could more readily believe that light comes only from the sun, or one could more easily attribute a sun god with creation or creation of light. But creating the sun on the 4th day, God showed he creates light, he creates time, and the sun and moon are not the source of time (though they are used to measure it for man). Yet there is a morning and an evening on the first day -- without the sun. Why? Because God creates time, not the heavenly bodies. He can create a 24 hour period of time without the sun. I think it's a masterful show of His sovereignty and a brilliant point (pun intended) in scripture.

God created an alternation of night and day without the sun; he did it with darkness and light. When he created the sun, then it was done with the sun.

Also, note that the words for sun and moon are not even used. God uses the word "lights." This was a rebuke of the sun and moon gods.

I think Gen. 1 is the most masterful and extraordinary creation account. All the pagan creation accounts pale and wither in comparison.

 

Great post Marcia.

 

One of the dangers for this subject is getting argumentive. Be careful when you bring this up in church to not tread on the feelings of fellow christians . . . remember that even when your brother is wrong he is still your brother.

If they want to argue, send them to http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/forum/66.html?

 

Thanks, Old Regular.

And btw, Paul of Eugene, I don't ever argue this topic. The only time I really discuss it is here on the BB.

 

I don’t want to turn this into a debate either, so I will simply say that it has been incontrovertibly proven that Gen. 6-8 is NOT a literal account of historic events. And since we know for a fact that Gen. 6-8 is NOT a literal account of historic events, there is absolutely no reason to believe that any other part of Genesis 1-11 is a literal account of historic events. I am a conservative, evangelical Christian who has been blessed by God with an education and common sense, and I do NOT appreciate it when “Christians” use such labels as “liberals” for educated, conservative, evangelical Christians; or when they use such labels as “garbage” for the very science that God has blessed us with the ability to learn and apply to the study of His creation.

I don’t post on the early 17th century quilt-making techniques in colonial Virginia because I don’t have the necessary knowledge of the subject to contribute anything worth while, and I most certainly do not post disparaging comments about those have studied the subject.

 

Could you point us all to the proof please?

If Genesis 1-11 is not a literal account of historic events, on what grounds do you accept Genesis 12 (assuming you do)?

Liz