toldailytopic: Are the 6 days of creation in the book of Genesis a literal 6 days?

[Ktoyou]

God, according to scripture, said it was a creation in six days, for God, it is six days. For me, I do not know what today is, so, why should I argue?

All I will say is after the six days, Scripture states God rested. I am not one to believe God gets tired, it was something finished.

I will also say, humans made the calendar and changed it much as once December, as the word implies, means month 10. So, the seventh day was Sunday for me, but you can call it whatever you want.

 

[resurrected]

Ditto. Why on earth folk have such a hang up over needing it to be a literal account is just bizarre. People as far back as augustine saw allegory within the chapter. Ironically it's the strain of ardent blind fundamentalism which is the more recent phenomenon, and is pretty much the equivalent of leaving your brain at the door of doctrine....

How do you determine what is literal and what is allegorical?

Was the Creation allegorical?
The Flood?
Abraham and Isaac?
Exodus?
The Resurrection?
Salvation?

Do you take any of it literally?

If so, why?

 

[jeremysdemo]

I go with the literal six days group. Otherwise how long is the Sabbath day.

a few practical things to consider,

How do you have an earth night and day without a sun?

The sun and moon were made on the 4th day.

Genesis 1
16God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.


so what was determining a "day" before that, how was it measured without the gravity and light of the sun, rotation of the earth in relationship to the sun.

There is a day or time period/division of time being spoken of before we have the ingredients that man uses to determine nights and days.

it is true God said "let there be light" on the first day, but Jesus is also called the light of the world.

keep shinin

jerm

 

[Arthur Brain]

How do you determine what is literal and what is allegorical?

Was the Creation allegorical?
The Flood?
Abraham and Isaac?
Exodus?
The Resurrection?
Salvation?

Do you takeb any of it literally?

If so, why?

You do it by using reason. The creation account uses poetic prose which seemed obvious (as stated before) to people as far back as Augustine and earlier. Allegory is hardly a stretch of the imagination here. Take the book of Revelation, most see it as allegorical and for pretty obvious reasons considering the nature of the language.

 

[kmoney]

I don't believe they are
nor
do I believe it is important

:up:

This is basically my answer. I don't feel a great need for Christians to debate the age of the earth or the meaning of "days" in the Genesis account. If someone wants to argue for a YEC view, fine, but do so using science, not arguments about Genesis.

I also thought that Sela's post was good. I won't necessarily argue for some allegorical or metaphorical interpretation of Genesis. I think it's very possible that the author was thinking God created in literal days. But I don't have a problem with also saying that it may not have happened in that way.

 

[kmoney]

I am fully on board with Stripe on this one.

I do agree that there are a great many devoted, saved Christians who do not believe in a six day creation and even many who believe God caused creation to happen through evolution.

Still

I believe that this belief has caused generations of people to doubt that the Bible is true!

Perhaps. But how many Christians can't reconcile what they believe the science says with a literal reading of Genesis and then they leave Christianity because they've been told that Christianity has to be YEC?

 

[resurrected]

You do it by using reason.

Perhaps. But how many Christians can't reconcile what they believe the science says ...

What does reason and science tell you about the possibility/probability of the resurrection?

 

[Dena]

The story does seem to intend it to portray 6 days but it is not an actual, literal history of our earth or our universe.

 

[The Berean]

The story does seem to intend it to portray 6 days but it is not an actual, literal history of our earth or our universe.

I've wanted to ask a Jewish person this: At what point in the Book of Genesis does it become factual/historical? Do you believe that Abraham/Issac/Jacob/Joseph were real historical figures? Or is the entire Book of Genesis metaphorical or stories/myths?

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't believe they are and it would surprise me that God authored so many different natural laws but chose not to utilize them in creation. The Bible is filled with all sorts of literary devices. Mark Shea has a good bit on that here if anyone is interested. I came across it by accident and was struck with the clarity of his more general answer.

While I've heard more than once from any number of friends, "Well, if not that then what can we rely on?" But then, as Shea notes,

"Take, for instance, the parables of Christ. Jesus tells us the parable of the prodigal son. In relating this story to us, does Luke intend as his literal sense to tell us a true story about a historical Palestinian domestic dispute? Obviously not. His literal meaning is “God forgives the repentant sinner.” But he has used a particular literary device employed by Christ to get that literal meaning across."​

 

[Arthur Brain]

What does reason and science tell you about the possibility/probability of the resurrection?

Why would you even think science would be concerned with that?

:AMR:

 

[kmoney]

What does reason and science tell you about the possibility/probability of the resurrection?

That it doesn't happen. While there is evidence for the resurrection it is also largely taken on faith. But I don't think the resurrection and how the earth was created are very comparable. For a couple reasons.

The first thing is the resurrection is the central event, doctrine in Christianity. Christianity is a shadow of itself without it. Christianity is largely the same on both sides of the YEC/Evolution debate.

Second, the evidence and methods of research involved in determining the age of the earth is not the same as the evidence in determining if a particular person was resurrected 2000 years ago. A young earth can be argued against in ways that don't apply to Jesus being raised from the dead.

 

[Selaphiel]

There is a significant difference between resurrection and creationism with regards to science. Resurrection is a miracle, the greatest of all miracles. Yes, you can say that creation as described by creationism is a miracle as well. The difference is that we have a well grounded scientific account that tells a completely different story, that is not the case with the resurrection.

And as I mentioned in my post. Creationism isn't really reading the Bible literally either, you do not believe in an ancient Hebraic cosmology, it would be completely absurd to do that

 

[Alate_One]

I think Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:3 is written as an anti-myth. That is it was written specifically to counter pagan myths the Israelites encountered. Essentially using the format of other ancient near eastern creation myths but re-writing it from a Biblical perspective. The point the ancient writer intended and the readers would have picked up on are the differences between the pagan myth and the Creation story as given in Genesis. And what the readers would be looking for, would not be how X or Y object or creature was created. They would be interested in what the role of the objects and creatures were (the sun to light the day etc.).

The big differences that would have been obvious are that creation is presented as good, rather than an accident or an afterthought. The sun and the moon are merely lights in the sky, rather than gods and goddesses (this may be the reason why their creation is delayed in the story). I don't believe this story in Genesis is intended as a scientific, orderly description of how the world was created. Things are presented in certain ways and in certain patterns to make larger points about the purpose and relationships in the created order.

That said, the general idea of the world being made in seven days may have been accepted as literally how long it took to create the world. But as Selaphiel said, ancient Hebrew cosmology is found throughout scripture and not fully believed by almost anyone and it's certainly part of how the seven day account in Genesis is set up.

 

[Lighthouse]

toldailytopic: Are the 6 days of creation in the book of Genesis a literal 6 days?

Yes.

The history of the world as penned by God all points to the means of our salvation. If we allow distortion of the truth that points to His salvation, the message is lost.

Six days means six days. People who insist otherwise have got something other than God's word at heart with their teaching.

:thumb:

Question?

does divide = create?

does said = create?

does call = create?

does "let there be" = create?

does "gather together" = create?

does appear = create?

does all the words in the scriptures have same meaning?

Is there a reason God uses such variety of words in the scriptures?

Does God have a useful vocabulary when it comes to describes ideas, events, people, etc.

Does God know what he is talking about?

Which of those six days does God use the word create to describe what he was doing?

Was there literally six days of creation or did God not create on some of those days?

oatmeal

made = create

 

[Dena]

I've wanted to ask a Jewish person this: At what point in the Book of Genesis does it become factual/historical? Do you believe that Abraham/Issac/Jacob/Joseph were real historical figures? Or is the entire Book of Genesis metaphorical or stories/myths?

The answer is going to vary from person to person but I look to historical context, other documents from the time period and archeological evidence. It's very possible that Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Joseph are mostly mystical. It does not however mean real persons did not inspire the stories. Creation stories were not a new concept. The Israelites made their own with their own spin. The story of Abraham sets apart Judaism as different in several ways from other cultures and religion. That is it's purpose and it accomplishes it whether or not Abraham was a literal person. The Exodus story also services a purpose whether it literally happened or happened on a much, much smaller scale. Even the story of Noah takes an old concepts and puts a different spin on it (humans being mere pawns of the gods verses God caring about humans and their actions).

 

[StanJ53]

The Genesis narrative, has a few stops and starts in the first two chapters. It goes from sweeping to more and more detailed.
Gen 1:1, then Gen 1:2 to Gen 2:3 for the days. Then Gen 2:4 reverts back to Gen 1:26, with more detail, and concludes in Gen 2:25. The chronological narrative then picks up in Gen 3:1 and continues from there. Gen 1:2-3 is day one with God having created light, Hebrew word is אוֹר
which has many connotations, but Gesenius's Lexicon refers to it as "light everywhere, diffused, such as daylight or sunlight." Hence God created the sun right after he created the earth, still on day one.
Now look at day two, v6-8, God makes our atmosphere. NOT as we have today, but as He originally created it on that day, it was the planet covered with water(v2), then God put the atmosphere between a layer of the water and pushed THAT layer up so it was earth, surrounded by water, surrounded by atmosphere(vault/expanse/sky), surround by water. From a side view it looked like a five ring bullseye with the fiery core being the center and the outer envelope of water being the fifth ring.
Then we get to v16, where God creates two great lights. The Hebrew word here is מָאוֹר and means "luminary", so what was it if the sun and planets were already created? At the end of v16, it says, "He also made the stars." We know the sun is a star so is this another flashback to v4 to provide more detail? I don't think so because it clearly says this is day 4, not day one. It also talks about a second great light, which most people will probably agree is the moon, except we KNOW today that the moon is NOT a light. We had to have sunlight already as vegetation was growing in vs11-13, which is the 3rd day. Or did it? If God created a fully mature earth, then He could create the vegetation one day and the light the next day. So what did God create on the 4th day?
I believe that God created refraction in the water to act a certain way, and as we orbited the sun and the earth revolved, that refraction created light that was strong during a certain period of the day so fully illuminate the part of the world it was near, and at night the diffusion was much less, but still enough for people to see a little bit. The stars is another matter and I have no idea if God just put small ones in the actual sky, or if they we viewable through the water that surrounded the earth. It will be neat when I meet Jesus and ask him though.

 

[Nick M]

No, Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead for my salvation. Six day or six billion years does not change this.

You saying six billion years proves you don't believe him.

I think of this when people say they are Christian, then say God is a liar in the same breath.


Matthew 12:34

34 Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

I never said he wasn't smart, I said he was ignorant of some things. Just as you and I are.

Ignorant of that the iphone would be invented one day. But much more knowledgable of everything else.

The observation that science makes currently supports and old earth view of creation. That was my point.

It doesn't, and you know it doesn't. That is my point.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

 

[Stripe]

It is my contention however that there is not a single person on this forum (that I know of at least), that truly believes in an ancient Hebraic cosmology.

I accept the bible's cosmology. :wave2:

They do not believe in a flat disc shaped earth covered by a cheese lid like solid firmament with heavenly bodies ("lights") lodged into it.

That's right.

They do not believe in that there is such a thing as pillars of the earth.

Yes, I do.

a few practical things to consider

Actually completely irrelevant.

How do you have an earth night and day without a sun?

Completely irrelevant. If you reject Genesis as a historical account because it doesn't match your science then we can have a discussion. But if you're trying to squeeze the biblical account into a scientific frame then you are going to fail.

so what was determining a "day" before that, how was it measured without the gravity and light of the sun, rotation of the earth in relationship to the sun.

The light that was created on day 1. :duh:

This is basically my answer. I don't feel a great need for Christians to debate the age of the earth or the meaning of "days" in the Genesis account. If someone wants to argue for a YEC view, fine, but do so using science, not arguments about Genesis.

Beginning a scientific discussion just allows hiding places for the evolutionist from his irrational stance. The evolutionist must first give a rational explanation for the existence of Genesis. Either they reject the clear teaching of Genesis or they give up evolutionism. Allowing them a vague and malleable syncretism leads to nonsense when going on to discuss the science related matters.

This is rational:

The story does seem to intend it to portray 6 days but it is not an actual, literal history of our earth or our universe.

Claims that "Six days" means something other than six days is not rational, unless you can give good reason, from scripture, why they are not meant to be normal days.

Perhaps. But how many Christians can't reconcile what they believe the science says with a literal reading of Genesis and then they leave Christianity because they've been told that Christianity has to be YEC?

How many people leave Christianity because they are lured away by the masses preaching evolutionism and have no grounding in Real Science inspired from the bible?

Your question is irrelevant.

The Bible is filled with all sorts of literary devices.

Same question. How does a particular style of writing rule out the historicity of the contents?

"Take, for instance, the parables of Christ. Jesus tells us the parable of the prodigal son. In relating this story to us, does Luke intend as his literal sense to tell us a true story about a historical Palestinian domestic dispute? Obviously not. His literal meaning is “God forgives the repentant sinner.” But he has used a particular literary device employed by Christ to get that literal meaning across."

Same question. Parables have explanations that come along with the parables. Their details are directly mappable onto teaching concepts. How do the details of Genesis map onto clear teaching concepts. If God does not mean the following items as they are presented, what do they mean instead?

Genesis 1

1. The earth was without form, and void.
2. Darkness was on the face of the deep.
3. The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
4. God divided the light from the darkness.
5. God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.
6. God called the firmament Heaven.
7. The waters under the heavens .. gathered together into one place
8. God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas.
9. the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind.
10. God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
11. God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind.
12. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.
13. God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind.
14. God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
15. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
16. God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Evolutionists don't just get to assert their opinion as if a weird idea has the same value as understanding the plain teaching of the bible. The bible is explicit, creation took six days. If the evolutionist wants to insist that six days means something else, he has to give good reason. And that good reason has to come from scripture.

The only other rational (in a limited sense) path to take is to reject the plain teaching of the bible.

So, please. At least be rational. Then when shown good reason, you might be convinced rather than having other arguments to hide within.

 

[Stripe]

Oh, and granite is indeed stupid. :up: