Replies

There are a few things that favor that interpretation, but I'm not at all certain that the Bible says that.

First, my understanding is that the Hebrew word used in the creation story referring to the 7 days of creation is more consistent with a 24 hour time period. However it is by no means certain that a 24 hour day is what was referred to. Certainly the Lord is on record as saying a day is like a 1000 years and 1000 years is like a day to Him. I don't think he is contrained by time at all.

I suspect that the Lord could cause 1 billion years of evolution, if that is the tool he chose to create the earth, to occur in a 24 hour time period. I also suspect that he could just dispense with the evolution and create things from nothing without a history.

Another possible explanation that I'm not willing to rule out is that it was Moses recording the creation story, and it may have been that God took 7 days for God to show Moses the creation.

If you then go from Abraham forward the Bible seems to imply that there are about 6000 years of history. The begats (Adam begat Abel who begat...) have some ages associated with them (Between Adam and Whoever was 800 years...). So that it seems you can construct relative time frames. But not having gone through it myself, I'm not certain how strong an implication that is.

One of the criticisms opponents of the Bible have used is that in one place the begats record A begat B begat C, but in another place it records A begat C and leaves out B. Well it turns out that it was common practice amoung Jewish genealogies to only recount the important ancestors. So it would in fact be appropriate to say Adam begat Noah, Noah begat David, even though there were many people inbetween.
I'm not sure if you can rule out the possibility that generations were skipped. But then again you may. Moses recorded the number of years between generations and thus it seems God wanted us to know how long.

On the flip side, I'm not at all confident in the so called modern scientific explanations. Modern science is only a couple of hundred years old. And man makes a lot of assumptions when he begins to talk about how things were before recorded history. The assumptions range from sediment rates, to the amount of radiation at that time, to some things like the speed of light is constant. They are effectly extrapolating their experience of 100 years backwards. And if they discount records of a global flood, they may very well make some huge calculation mistakes.

I threw in the speed of light because some scientists have produced evidence recently that the speed of light is not constant but slowing down.

The number of forgeries in the field of anthropology certainly casts doubts on the field. It seems unless you publish exciting and controversial finds, you don't get funding. Everyone is trying to find the oldest fossil, because no one gets much publicity for a 5000 year old fossil. It makes the whole field subject to doubt and scrutiny.

On the flip side, I'm not at all confident in the so called modern scientific explanations. Modern science is only a couple of hundred years old.

I'm not sure that's at all germane to whether science is correct or not. It's certainly worthwhile to point out that science doesn't have all the answers, and may not ever, but simply because most of the modern sciences are only 300 years old or whatever isn't reason enough to doubt the conclusions reached by scientific inquiry.

And if they discount records of a global flood, they may very well make some huge calculation mistakes.

As I understand it, geologists and suchlike have a pretty good understanding of what large quantities of water do to geologic features, and there is simply no extant physical evidence of a Flood. That's not to say it absolutely did not happen, since science doesn't operate that way. Science basically says:

"Well, there's nothing in the fossil or geologic records to suggest The Flood actually occurred - things aren't arranged as one would expect to find had such an event happened. That could mean:
1. It happened, but God has a spectacular cleanup crew, or:
2. It didn't happen the way it was depicted in Genesis, or:
3. It didn't happen at all.

Personally, I'll take Number 2 as being most likely. Some huge but smaller-than-Deluge-scale flood occurred many thousands of years ago, and wound up in our collective cultural memory (there are (largely dissimilar) Flood stories in other religious traditions, notably Ancient Greek). That flood wound up being written as The Flood.

Of course, this requires that one not employ a literalistic reading of the Bible. I'm quite comfortable with this - Jesus spoke in parables and analogies. Why couldn't The Father?

I threw in the speed of light because some scientists have produced evidence recently that the speed of light is not constant but slowing down.

Unless there've been some really recent developments I'm unaware of (surely not!), that particular hypothesis was shown to be untrue.

Regards, Snidely

In your statement of the days may not be a literal day...

Remember:

(Exo 20:11 KJV) 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.

God is speaking here, and clearly calls it 6 days, 6 literal days. Else, if it was 6 indeterminate time periods, then a 7 24 hour day week is meaningless.

Also, what you said about a day being like a thousamnd years, always remember CONTEXT of the verse! This verse has nothing to do with measuring time, it has to do with the mercy of God and how He is slow to anger:

(2 Pet 3:1 KJV) This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

(2 Pet 3:2 KJV) That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

(2 Pet 3:3 KJV) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

(2 Pet 3:4 KJV) And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

(2 Pet 3:5 KJV) For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

(2 Pet 3:6 KJV) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

(2 Pet 3:7 KJV) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

(2 Pet 3:8 KJV) But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

(2 Pet 3:9 KJV) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

There is NO connection with this thousanmd years being a replacement for the literal 24 hour day, only with the timelessness ofGod and His mercy in waiting for us to repent.