Why Six Days? (Six Days of Creation, Literal Days or Era's.

Koinonia House ^ | 11/15/2003 | Dr. Chuck Missler

[RaceBannon]

GAP Theory
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sciences/scienc5.htm

Science, Scripture, and the Saviour
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sciences/science.htm

[Robert A Cook PE]

And, that same God could decide to create it... Then let evolution take it place while inspiring mankind to tell a story that uses 6 days.

[billbears]

Race I understand what you're saying. And I would agree with that more than 4 billion years. But I also recognize that a day in heaven is as a thousand years on earth. The point is that God did create the earth and everything on it. How He did it or how long it took Him isn't as important to me is that He did it

[pctech]

maybe you should look around a little bit more instead of taking the word of modern nay-sayers.

[pctech]

It's too bad more people don't see it our way. They always have to have an explanation for everything instead of just taking God at His Word.

[Calvin Locke]

I turned on my shortwave and I had left it on WBCQ. They were early today, broadcasting "The Jewish EVM Network".

The apparently taped lesson talked about the natural number "7" and gave examples in Judism, making a point that 8 is
reserved for special events. Not being Jewish, a lot of the references didn't sink in, but 7 days in a week, a bris
done 7 days after the birth, etc. Hannakuh uses 8 for something or another.

How seven is a natural --- maybe God did play dice --- I either missed, didn't catch, or don't recall.

[bondserv]

Thanks for the links.

I have studied a bit about the other theories, and always find it interesting reading the reasons for their positions. I was first exposed to the Gap Theory in Arthur W. Pink's Gleanings in Genesis. I don't recommend Pink's stuff because of his Hyper-Calvinistic positions, and he wasn't convincing to me regarding scripture supporting the Gap Theory. At that time I had no position regarding YEC vs. OEC.

I look forward to checking into your links.

[bondserv]

Dang!!

Come run MY company!!!!!

I love it when opinions about someone are based on someone else’s opinion. TOMFOOLERY!!

Missler is literally a Genius of a high order and is not afraid to be provocative in his "thinking through of the possibilities".

[ladyinred]

In their wisdom, they have become fools.

[ladyinred]

Chuck Missler is a very interesting guy. He gets deep, and is very science minded. We have several of his tapes and his approach has been beneficial to my husband who is also science minded. I am more simple, I just believe the Bible for what it says and don't need proof, but I realize many do.

[Just mythoughts]

Cain is an interesting subject. Note he is not listed in Genesis 5:1 THE BOOK OF THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM.

Cain has his own generations with sound alike (but spelled differently) names.

Also Cain's punishment was Genesis 4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive they brother's blood from thy hand;

12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth."

Yet Cain received protection, v.15 "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

[RadioAstronomer]

maybe you should look around a little bit more instead of taking the word of modern nay-sayers

Clarify please.

[RadioAstronomer]

I would venture that many in the "soft" sciences and theory, and many/most/some/a few in the eco-sciences DO follow the "religion" of political scienctific correctness rather than facts and figures derived completely from hard data.

However, those in my field do use hard data. And a six literal day creation is just not in the cards.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The wobble doesn't cause the seasons; the axial tilt does.(Primarily; there are other factors.)

[bondserv]

Praise God for your faith!!

Many men have been drawn to Christ via the ministry of Chuck. He helps make studying the Bible lots of fun!

[mcg1969]

RaceBannon,

I'm not laughing at God or at Scripture here. But you are certainly giving me a chuckle. That was certainly the longest single posting I've ever seen here on FreeRepublic (tho' I haven't been here that long).

My point is this: my argument with you is not that I disagree with your position on creation. Rather, I dispute your assertion that anyone who does not agree with you is rejecting Scripture.

I'm not sure if you're implying that such people are not saved as well, but I would be very careful before going there. This is a secondary doctrinal issue. No matter how you might claim to tie it in, belief in a 144-hour creation is not essential to salvation. And anything and everything that is not essential to salvation is a secondary issue. Not that they aren't important issues, of course they are; but they are secondary. If I took nothing but the Gospel of Mark---the shortest gospel---to a tribe previously unreached for Christ, and based upon that book alone they accepted Christ, they would be saved. It wouldn't matter one bit that they had no idea how the universe was created; or even, for that matter, if they still assumed creation occurred roughly like their culture's folk legends teach.

People have similarly heated disagreements about end-times prophecy interpretation (premillenialism, postmillenialism, hyper-preterism, and so forth), and often people make accusations, as you are doing here, that those that disagree are rejecting the clear teaching of Scripture. Indeed, people on many sides of that debate say such things! They can't all be right, and indeed it's not unlikely that they are all wrong. Like the creation debate, there is room for debate within the pale of Christian orthodoxy.

Scripture does command that we maintain unity in our faith in Him despite these disagreements, however.

[Khepera]

"The Book of Genesis presents a disturbing problem for many Bible-believing Christians"

No, it only creates a disturbing problem for heathen asses.

[Robert A Cook PE]

True.

What I was trying to point out was that, thousands of years BEFORE we figured out the sequence, the ancient/illerate/un-taught Israeli's also figured it out.

[PFKEY]

Some very good and interesting points.

The Bible speaks of death in two ways.
1.)A physical bodily death
2.)A spritual death or seperation from God

Does your explaination or understanding take these two meanings into account?

[mcg1969]

I will say one more thing on the actual science aspects of this debate, and then I'm done.

The reason that I believe that the universe is 15 billion years old, and the earth about 4 billion years old, is not because evolution requires it. It is because there is ample other evidence in the geological, archaeological, astronomical, and cosmological record that supports it. This evidence has nothing to do with evolution at all. It is possible to accept the idea of an old universe and reject evolution; and indeed, that is precisely what many Christians do.

In fact, evolutionary theory is severely challenged by many of the conclusions that these other fields have made about the nature of the earth. For example, the notion that the earth is 4 billion years poses a significant problem for evolutionists, because it is far too small a time frame! Furthermore, the environmental conditions on earth were quite hostile to life for quite some time, further shortening the time frame that evolution can possibly have occurred. And many of the various theories about how the very first life spontaneously arose on this planet have had to be thrown out because what we know about the earth's early conditions simply contradict them.

So I imagine that we both agree that the theory of macroevolution is a flawed theory that has no business being taught as the definitive answer as to how life, much less human life, arose on this planet.

Still, I reject your continued assertion that there are only two choices: accept a literal 144-hour reading of the creation account as physically accurate; or reject Scripture completely in favor of evolution. There is significant room for a progressive creation interpretation of Genesis 1-2, in which God is truly active throughout the multi-billion year lifespan of this planet. This constitutes a third and somewhat popular choice that your arguments don't bother to address.