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

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

[MEGoody]

But science says it "really" took billions of years.

Yeah, that's what science says. I don't think they know any more than anyone else. They look in telescopes, take measurements, etc. of the now, then presume what happened billions of years ago. A cosmic Ms. Cleo.

[MEGoody]

why would God bother to set up the sabbath as such, with a literal six day work week and a literal sabbath day, followed by a declarative statement that very specifically cites the creation week as comparative, if we aren't meant to understand it as literal?Keep in mind, there were other sabbaths as well. For example, every 7 years, the Israelites were to let the land rest.

[Just mythoughts]

Interesting perspective.

I would go along with a "LITERAL" as we know a day 24 hours, for each "DAY" of creation, if it had not been for Peter describing what a "DAY" means.

The LORD'S DAY is mention many many times. That being the case is that a "LITERAL" one day, 24 hours, or to what Peter describes a "thousand years"?

Now Christ was in the tomb for three days and three nights, just like Jonas was three days and three nights in the "great fish". So seems when instructing to our 24 hour "time" the night gets mentioned with it.

[whattajoke]

As one of FR's resident "heathen asses" (Khepera's words), I must tell you all that I take a certain delight in reading the rather odd back and forths between the bible literalists.

If it's so simple and so clear, how is there possibly any argument about anything at all?

[azhenfud]

If God's "days" are defined as our "millions of years" and He commanded the day of rest, who could possibly keep His statute of keeping the Sabbath holy if one takes the meanings literally?

There were many temple ordinances given to symbolize the nature and character of God without having actually being the exact duplicate.

The lifespan of man would simply not allow us to work "six" of God's "days" and rest the seventh. In His wisdom, He divided our time in increments so we could reverence Him by keeping His Sabbaths, symbols of Himself.

[MEGoody]

They aren't two different accounts. One is focused on creation at a high level view. The second gives the creation account with a focus on the relationship between God and man.

I don't know why normally intelligent people have trouble figuring that out.

[MEGoody]

They aren't two different accounts. One is focused on creation at a high level. The second gives the creation account with a focus on the relationship between God and man.

I don't know why normally intelligent people have trouble figuring that out.

[MEGoody]

The two accounts of creation have a different focus. The first is a high level view. The second is focused on the relationship between God and man.

This kind of 'telling and retelling' is a common teaching tool. I don't know why normally intelligent people have trouble figuring this out.

[MEGoody]

Oh ugh. Sorry about the 3x post. The firewall is giving me fits today.

[mcg1969]

RaceBannon, I appreciate this last post of yours because you actually wrote it in your own words instead of posting quotes from someone else's materials on the Web. Because frankly none of those materials addresses anything that I've said, so finally you are doing so.

You are trying to have it both ways. By saying that the long time periods are acceptable, then yu are saying that on one day of creation, as listed in Scripture, that we had plants for eons of time before we had a Sun.

First of all, so what if I am? Plants could not survive for one instant on their own without the Sun. So if they were created before the Sun, it would take a continuous, sustaining miracle of God in order to keep them alive. God could easily keep them alive for millions of years as one day, it makes no difference to Him.

However, I don't actually believe that the Sun was created before the plants. Ah, yes, I am a heretic, aren't I? No, not at all. I still believe that Genesis 1 does give an accurate order of events. But how is that possible, then? You are right, it seems as if Genesis 1 is saying that the Sun was not created until after the plants.

The key is this: Genesis 1 is written from the perspective of the surface of the Earth. Remember, the Spirit of God was "hovering over the waters" Earth! So if you were sitting on a lawn chair on the surface of the earth (presumably it would have to float on the water :), then you would see exactly what the Spirit of God was "seeing" during Creation.

To make a long story short: the sun and the stars were already there from Day 1. However, the Earth's atmosphere was changing. Before Day 1, the atmosphere was opaque, which means that no light from the stars, sun, and moon could make it down to the surface of the earth. Then, on Day 1, God said, "let there be light", and he made the atmosphere translucent. This indeed brought light to the surface of the earth---day and night---but it was not yet identifiable as the sun, moon, and stars. This light was sufficient to support the plants that he was creating on Day 3. Then, on Day 4, he made the atmosphere transparent, as it is today---thus revealing the specific structure of the sun, moon, and stars. From the surface of the earth, it would look exactly as Genesis 1 described: as if the light was coalescing together into the sun, moon, and stars.

So you see, I do not give up the order of events in Genesis 1 at all. No compromise in Scripture needed. If you're actually interested in learning about progressive creation models instead of ranting against them (or flat-out ignoring them in your arguments), then you might consider reading some of the resources written by Hugh Ross and the Reasons to Believe foundation (http://www.reasons.org). New advancements in science continue to validate the accuracy of Scripture every day.

I know you will probably consider progressive creation heretical, even after you actually learn what it is. But perhaps you will at least learn to concede that people who fervently believe in the truth of Scripture can disagree with you as to its proper interpretation, and fervently believe in a version of creation that is not 144 hours long.

You are free to have the last word on this. But if you're just going to repeat that I don't believe in Scripture, don't bother. You've already said it.

[bondserv]

Now Christ was in the tomb for three days and three nights, just like Jonas was three days and three nights in the "great fish". So seems when instructing to our 24 hour "time" the night gets mentioned with it.

I believe the Christian astronomer Hugh Ross uses the Day Age theory to reconcile his scientific understanding of the universe with Scripture.

Are you implying a similar model.

P.S. I am not claiming Christians that try to take a non-straightforward reading of the text from Genesis 1-3 and Exodus 20:8-11 cannot be believers. I just believe they have a tendency to instill confusion into those who they witness to, because of the evident difference between what they say and what the passages in the Bible say.

Exo 20:8-11
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

A direct comparison. I believe the Holy Spirit is competent enough in His communication to make sure if there were a difference to point it out here.

[pctech]

Expert" witnesses take this as a threat to their worldview

Or their intelligence

[bondserv]

God in His Holiness requires a covering (in the case of the Old Testament Believers like Adam, Abel...) or a propitiation (Jesus Christs death and resurrection) to reestablish fellowship with God.

We die once, then the judgement.

I think of spiritually dead as a spirit submitted to the flesh, not dead in the sense that physical death implies. When we are born again as a new creature our spirit is no longer under submission to the flesh. Alive takes on a different meaning in regard to spiritually alive.

The spirit of the unbeliever is cast into outer darkness for eternity. Seperate from the Love of God, but painfully aware of their folly. Dead toward God, but aware unlike physical death which is final.

[mcg1969]

I believe the Christian astronomer Hugh Ross uses the Day Age theory to reconcile his scientific understanding of the universe with Scripture.

Yes, that's roughly correct, although I find his model interesting in that he directly addresses the apparently "strange" order of creation events in Days 1-4 (for example, the sun after the plants). Obviously, to anyone who holds firm to a 144-day creation account, it will still sound like a stretch.

I'm not sure what quoting Exodus 20:8-11 is supposed to communicate. After all, God chose to use the language of days in order to describe His creation account. Whether His days were literally 24 hours long or whether they symbolized longer time periods, it is still entirely reasonable for Him to use that day language to justify the institution of the Sabbath.

[azhenfud]

"I believe the Holy Spirit is competent enough in His communication to make sure if there were a difference to point it out here."

I believe He did just that, here:

Exodus Ch. 31 Vv. 12&13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

The reference clearly points to something with a much larger meaning.

[mcg1969]

I believe the Christian astronomer Hugh Ross uses the Day Age theory to reconcile his scientific understanding of the universe with Scripture.

Just to clarify, though, Hugh Ross is not an evolutionist; on the contrary, he rejects macroevolution completely. Indeed, his organization spends as much time compiling refutations of evolution as it does developing its progressive creation model.

[bondserv]

Tonight I don't have the time to go into the fallacies of the article; however, I will leave you with just one thing to ponder. Supernova 1987a. I will be able to go into this in much more detail tomorrow.

Thanks, I look forward to your perspective and knowledge.

God has been faithful to preserve the integrity of His Word throughout history, and I pray that He takes what you know and helps to show you how it lines up with his Word. There are many things that man has believed they understood conclusively that have taken paradigm shifts in understanding to convince those in the scientific community of their error. The truth regarding the errors the scientific community has made (i.e. Flat-Earth, geocentrism, nature of space, nature of time/eternity...) have lined up nicely with the Ancient Document preserved by the Holy Spirit.

[AZLiberty]

Yeah, that's what science says. I don't think they know any more than anyone else. They look in telescopes, take measurements, etc. of the now, then presume what happened billions of years ago. A cosmic Ms. Cleo.

That's where we disagree. The same scientific principles have been applied to the understanding of the universe as to the understanding of semiconductor technology -- by people just as smart. The computer you're using is a testament (and I don't use that word lightly) to how powerful these principles are. You might consider that perhaps our current scientific understanding of the universe is also of high quality.

[bondserv]

Just to clarify, though, Hugh Ross is not an evolutionist; on the contrary, he rejects macroevolution completely. Indeed, his organization spends as much time compiling refutations of evolution as it does developing its progressive creation model.

Thank you, very important point!! I apologize to all for not making this clear in my earlier post.

[bondserv]

Here is a 3 year walk through the confidence you should have in the scientific communities ability to come up with absolute truths.

As I like to say, "Science is fun, and sometimes helpful."