Nice post by Randy Alcorn.
Do you believe God created the earth in six literal 24-hour days?
If you will be buying from Amazon.com and would like to support this site, please consider buying from this link. The prices are the same and you don't have to donate anything. Thank you.
Just clicking on the Westminster logo below also helps if you like to see the helpful information they have there in the left column, see sample chapters or buy anything.
RSS Feed
- Psalm 139
- This Web Site – Pain
- David Black’s Greek Portal
- Reading Luke to Understand James
- Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone
- Favorite Book Lists
- The Kingdom of God
- Delighting and Meditating on God’s Words
- Intercessory Prayer and the Hidden Things
- Nine Minutes With God
I wholeheartedly endorse about everything Randy said, with the possible exception of the bit about how there’s no redemption unless Genesis happened the way he says it did. That seems a bit of a stretch to me, but maybe I’m just being overly cautious.
I think I agree.
Jeff
Thanks for the link. I also think I agree with Mitchell about the stretch, but since I believe in a six day creation, that’s not really that much of an issue.
No I do not believe in a literal six day creation and any attempt to justify from scripture such belief is a misappropriation of scripture. I know this sounds heard but the bible is not science. Genesis 1 through 3 is not there to tell us how we were created but why!In fact I would argue, if one treats scripture correctly and contextually they will never make this claim.
A misappropriation of scripture?
No doubt you are the man and wisdom will die with you.
Strong words Mark. The Bible says six days and I believe it’s six days…
I understand the other point of view and don’t think less of those people as long as it isn’t because of unbelief.
Jeff
Oh, I don’t mind people believing six days and it is a possibility (It read harsher than it was meant)however, someone had better have good exegetical reasons to convince me. As I said, if we are serious about handling scripture in an appropriate manner then we can never, and should never claim science from the Bible. It is not right.
And Stan, yes wisdom will die with me and I am most definately the man! It is a shame but hey, life is like that!
Oh, I don’t mind people believing six days and it is a possibility (It read harsher than it was meant)however, someone had better have good exegetical reasons to convince me. As I said, if we are serious about handling scripture in an appropriate manner then we can never, and should never claim science from the Bible. It is not right.
And Stan, yes wisdom will die with me and I am most definately the man! It is a shame but hey, life is like that!
If someone claims six literal days, how are they claiming science from the Bible? Why is it such a big deal that someone believes that it’s six days because it says six days? I’m not a fundamentalist or anything and I understand genre and all of that, but I just don’t believe it poetry or allegory just like the rest of the Pentateuch.
I think you need more solid exegesis for a non-literal six day creation.
I have other thoughts on creation and God’s enjoyment of it and our enjoyment of it which is much more important.
Jeff
I’m with Jeff on this one. It seems to me that it is not a literal-style exegesis that is the inherently improbable one. For the automatic exclusion of facts that might be considered science from the Bible is the strange one. To take the area of reasoning that has only lately been labeled “science” and then to assume that it automatically cannot be a topic of Scripture is to impose very modern categories on a very ancient text. It’s an arbitrary rule, and it’s one that I doubt Mark would really apply to parts of the Bible not threatened by modern scientific consensus. Would we, for example, assume that “new moon” celebrations in the Old Testament did not really occur during the part of the month when the moon is invisible because this is a scientific phenomenon? Would we assume that Jesus being about thirty years old when he started his ministry must not be taken literally because “year” is a scientific concept based on the movement of astrological bodies? Would we make the resurrection a completely metaphorical event because whether a physical body is alive is a scientific matter upon which the Bible is not allowed to comment?
I think not. I could be missing something but it looks to me like the “Bible is not science” distinction is nothing more than the application of very modern ideas about philosophy being applied to the Bible to make the most inconvenient parts less troublesome.
I do not understand why Genesis cannot tell the how and the why of creation. There is no exclusion of science IMHO, as with any miracle, it is an exceptional phenomenon.
When it was written, it was not written as actual account. How could it have been? Hebrews didn’t think scientifically.
A day is scientific?
At what point did the writing of the Pentateuch become an actual account?
Jeff
When it was written, it was not written as actual account. How could it have been? Hebrews didn’t think scientifically.
Come on, Mark. It’s fine if we’re going to disagree on what Genesis is. That’s no problem. And I’ve had my mind changed on so many issues so many times that I can’t help but wonder in the back of my heard if there is some deficiency in my understand.
But to say that a pre-scientific people are incapable of thinking up an actual account? It’s common knowledge that tons and tons of actual accounts existed before the development of modern science.
I am saying it was written genrations (in my opinion millions of years) after it occurred.
I have no problem with the account as story or myth used as a way of explaining certain things (primarily why God created). I also have no problem with people saying that the world was created in six days. Where my very deep concern lies is with people who say science is wrong because the bible says six days, especially when the genesis document was never meant to be used in such a context. God created, I agree, I just do not think we can ignore science so easily in this case for want of a text that is not scientific in its intent.
(Just for context, I am a conservative)
I don’t know that I can buy into this non-scientific idea. Their scientific ideas would have been primitive to be sure, but did they observe and react to those observations? Did they experiment with the best time to plant, best seeds for largest harvest, what foods worked best for fattening the old cow? Did they develop tools and refine them as they noticed one design worked better than another? Or was all that knowledge intuitive to them? Scientifically elementary perhaps but not non-existent.
Ah, I see. The science angle does make a little difficulty for the literal understanding of the text I hold to. I haven’t yet worked out what exactly to do with the age-of-the-earth issues science brings up, although I’ve definitely read a lot of literature on it and given it a lot of thought.
One of the most interesting, though I’m not sure how credible, ways of accounting for the apparent discrepencies between the apparent contradictions of science and Bible is found in Watchman Nee’s work, though I forget who he borrowed the basic idea from.
If you’re curious and want to take a look at what he said on Genesis, you can do so at http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/moc12.htm. A note of caution, though–you’ll have to wade beyond the first chapter before he even starts to explain his interpretation.
What makes me ponder is the 7th day for rest thing, lol.
Being from a CRC (pentecostal) church and going to a Seventh Day Adventist school, they used to always try to guilt us out about not ‘keeping the seventh day holy’ etc.
I wonder who thinks what about the ‘New Covenant’ in relation to the 1st/7th day worship.
I.E. I used to simply say, well if I have 7 jellybeans in my hand, and I say that it’s fine if I have 6, as long as I give the 7th away, who cares which one it is?
But then I came to learn more about scripture and theology and discovered the things about the partaking wine/communion in relation to the covenant between God and man, and the day of rest. Like it used to be that only the high priest could partake of the cup (presumedly with God) and that no-one else could – a declaration of the ongoing covenent with God, in wait for the Messiah. Now that the Moseic law has been fulfilled in Christ, He says to us that HE will not partake of the vine again until with us in heaven. And so the communion becomes a thing between the members of the body – as he says, “Do this in rememberance of me.” And now it’s a declaration that the Messiah has come. Of course, the OTHER matter, the one about which day to worship on, (all conspiracy theories aside) seems to be a declaration that the Christ has returned, and that we await his second coming! – and I gotta tell ya, I’m down with that!
- The Risen LORD. I had to forget where I was going with that
It was the RISEN LORD becoming resurrected – on the Sunday (hence Easter Sunday). After being slain at the culmination of the PASSOVER festivals – in which event, the veil of the Holy of Holies, symbolically separating God from Man, was torn from top to bottom, fulfilling the Old Covenant and releasing God in the Spirit upon all flesh. Pretty powerful doctrine, when considering redemption, salvation, and all that it signifies.
It has always been my understanding that the word translated day means exactly that. There are at least three warnings not to add or to subtract from the writings that God has seen fit to save for us throughout the centuries. To draw any interpretation of day to mean a day age is to add to the scriptures what was never there and as much as the scientific community, falsely, accuses me and other fundamental believers of using the Bible to distort science, the inverse, the use of theory, to distort the Word, the Sacred Word of God is what the day-age theory is doing and it comes from the opposing quarter. It would do everyone well to verse themselves with what scripture says and to cease to tempt God with theories.
I agree with you on the meaning of ‘day,’ Mr. th1bill. But when you say that anyone who understands Scripture differently from your own view is adding to Scripture, is it not possible that you are adding to Scripture by adding this strange requirement to it? And while we are on the topic of versing oneself with what the Scripture says and taking only the plainest possible meaning, have you never read Judges 1:3?
I don’t have a strong position either way, but currently I am not in the 6 day literal camp. Leaning more on the earth being billions of years old. I have just decided for now it is something I don’t want to spend much time thinking about it. At one point in my life this subject consume me.
“There are at least three warnings not to add or to subtract from the writings that God has seen fit to save for us throughout the centuries.”
Could you give the references for these?
Jeff
You know those scriptures were Jesus says that not one stroke or tittle has passed away?… Luke 16:17 “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.” Check this out…
Matt: 5:18 (NKJ) “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Matt 24:35 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.”
Brings a different perspective… Matt 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
But Jesus goes on to demonstrate that for every “law” there is a higher way of living, not only is murder killing, but wishing a man dead, not only is punishment a just response to murder but forgiveness. Luke 24:45 “Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.” And it is the letter of the law that kills… but the spirit of the law that gives life! 2 Cor 3:6 (NIV)”He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”
And check this out:
Romans 7:6 “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.”
In belief we are accountable only to God, but we must QUIT ourselves, or die to the flesh, to be like Christ, as we are made in His image. In TITHEIMI (installation of a god into a building – making it a temple) not living as a dead vessel, but a living temple of life in worship to the Spirit within us.
And regaring the law: we can only see it in its spirit if we have the spirit living in us. 1Cor 2:9-16 “but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.” – Cool Search Engine! Ask it something!! Joh 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” But if we don’t have this Spirit within us, then we do not belong to Christ!!! Rom 8:9 “You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.”
Joh 8:31-32 “To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” The truth affords freedom, rather than to bind up. I love these concepts, Jesus is an amazing teacher!
He sure is. Thanks.
Jeff