Just wondering where/how everyone stands on this issue. Which would you choose?
1. 6 literal days of creation, including the creation of the universe on the first day.
2. 6 literal days of creation, but the rest of the universe was already in existence for an indefinite period of time.
3. 6 metaphorical ages or progressions of creation, where God uses the evolutionary process to create life over long periods of time, but makes humanity a special creation outside of that process.
4. 6 metaphorical ages or progressions of creation, where God uses the evolutionary process to create life and humanity from a common ancestor over long periods of time.
And God sa everything tha he had made and behold it was good. And the evening and the morning WERE the sixth day.
Genesis 2:1-3
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
I dont see here what there is to ponder or question. The clue is the SEVENTH DAY. Its ONE day that is santified and a day in which we worship which btw noone knows WHICH day that really is :purpleangel:
I go for the metaphorical days, being as we measure a day as the earth's rotation with reference to the sun - not possible until a couple of 'days' into creation so it can't be 24hrs.
As for evolution, I believe a species can adapt within limits, but changing from one species to totally different and incompatible other? Dogs can cross-breed, even mate with wolves, yet a fox cannot. Humans cannot mate with apes despite claims we came from them and we have been unable to reproduce (no pun intended) such creation of new species by cross-breeding other animals or witnessed it happening in nature. Manufacturers sum it up well when they write in their user manuals that specifications are subject to change!
I tend too learn toward the literal 6 days of creation. It says in verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31. "And the evening and the morning were the .... Day. Now the sun wasn't created until day 4, so how was there evening and morning? The light and darkness were divided into the sun, moon, stars, and what we perceive as day and night (v. 14-19). I don't feel that the morning and evening has too be explained away or figured out. After all there's no way too truly understand most of the things God did.
To answer it short and sweet, no. Evolution and Creation are not hand in hand nor could they ever be.
Everyone that has issues with the 6 literal days seems to be because of the wording. This is called the "gap" theory.
They believe large amounts of time passed, but this is impossible as we know that the plants are created before the sun.
Day 3 plants are created.
Day 4 the Sun was created.
I seriously doubt plants would survive millions of years while the sun was "forming".
It also says that evening and morning are on the first day.
That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the argument.
Take at the evolutionary theory.
Basically, animals need to mutate over and over to turn into other animals or that is how the theory goes. Evolution = Mutation over millions of years. The problem with this and creation is the simplest.
Everything that didn't get the mutation HAS to die. Why? Because the mutation will get swallowed up by the other non-mutated creatures.
Why is this an issue?
Well, we know from scripture that Death was not around in the Garden. Death entered in through Sin, that is what the scripture says.
This is a pure theistic view.
I can get into all the evidence science points to for a young Earth if anyone wants to hear it :)
The Bible is axiomatic, there are no contradictions.
I think Christians run into some serious problems by compromising the creation account too much. It's really a subtle trap. I've heard a lot of arguments, like genesis was actually just a "song", or it's just a Jewish myth, etc, but as Christians, Christ references creation and the creation week multiple times, as do His disciples. If they were mistaken on something that critical to so many doctrines, what can they really be trusted with?
I lean toward #2, in that there are places in Genesis where we have assumed what something means when we don't really have any evidence. I talk with evolutionists quite a bit, and what I see in Genesis is practically invincible to their attacks and also lines up with modern scientific evidence. There was a beginning, just like the bible says. The earth itself was already here before the creation week started, there is no definite time period listed in Genesis for the age of the earth. Since that is true, it simply removes "carbon dating" from the evolutionary argument, because biblically, the earth can be very old, and the flood buried all that biological matter in old rocks and cross contamination makes carbon dating useless and random(which it is). It also explains the sudden appearance and random order of the fossil record. Using a naturalists own argument of "natural selection"(environmentally driven adaptation), the massive environmental change after the flood explains the size decrease and rapid adaptations/mutations/extinctions of biological life. I have never had an atheist/evolutionist able to refute that view, and it is very true to the creation account in Genesis without being dogmatically against science. The bible paints a plausible and very accurate picture of the world that we observe.
I take the number one position in that all heaven and earth was created in a six literal days and God rested the seventh day. I believe how we interpret this depends on our worldview or our presuppositions. I believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. In Genesis we clearly see six days and evening and morning mentioned. It is know the Hebrew word "Yom" for day can refer to a period of time and just not a literal 24 hour day. If you're good at mental scriptural gymnastics or your worldview has been skewed by so called science you might be influenced to believe that "Yom" represents something other than a 24 hour literal day here. I think Exodus 20:11 makes this point quite clear," for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it." Note this is right in the middle of the 10 commandments and set a pattern of six days to work and to rest on the seventh as God had done during creation. Notice the same verbiage is used in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 that God made HEAVEN and EARTH. If this is not enough to get the hay down into the barn consider in the SAME BOOK Exodus 24:16 "And the glory of Jehovah abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud." Would anyone want to argue that day here represents millions or billions of years. I think not it would be ludicrous. I love the way I Timothy 6:20-21 reads and I will quote because I believe it is very applicable to the subject at hand "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane babblings, and oppositions of SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you." Someone might argue just another ignorant unlearned Bible thumping Christian that probably does not know anything about science. Well just a matter fact my undergraduate degree was in biology. So let me ask anyone that holds a different view as God asked Job "Where were you when God laid the foundations of the earth?" I know I sound a little harsh and this I apologize for, but I'm trying to make some of you think and understand what God has revealed through Scripture for He was there.
The problem with them is interpretations and assumed constants.
Take Radiometric Dating for instance.
Radiometric Dating is broad term so for this I will just use Uranium to Lead.
So I take an object and measure the ratio of Uranium to Lead. Once I have it then what?
Well, that is where the problems start. The problem is that you have to assume 1 very crucial thing.
The assumption is that the decay rate has remained constant. This means that no contaminants are been introduced. This is a huge problem because Uranium as well as Potassium is water soluble. You can distill about 80% of the Argon out of an object in about 4 hours using water.
If you walk into a room and see a candle burning you can observe and make judgement calls.
You can measure how fast it is burning and that it is consuming the candle as it burns.
The things you have to assume as that it has always been burning at a constant rate. You also cannot tell when it was lite or how tall the candle was at the start.
There is this huge dogmatic statement that Science and God do not mix, this is a false statement. The problem is that secular science has hijacked the title and basically put a "no creation allowed" sign up.
If you are seriously interested in defending your faith using science as I love to do you can check out some great websites such as:
ICR
CMI
AiG
These people have PHD Scientists that can back up their research. Science testifies to the glory of God, don't let anyone tell you different.
People forget that science is just man's understanding and as such is limited by ourselves and our capabilities. There's a reason that theories are called that, and some of the accepted ones like the big bang and speed of light as an absolute limit are now being questioned. And of course, humans tend to make assumptions about things that often turn out not to be accurate, like the posting above about the candle.
There's a saying that a little science leads man away from God, whereas a lot leads him back...
I chose #1, because that selection is consistent with the Genesis narrative. The Genesis account contains the testimony of the One and Only Original Eye Witness of creation, the Creator Himself!! One could hardly conceive of a more authoritative testament! Choice number one is in tune with that authority.
The other five options merely exist as speculative statements or at best aggregates composed of truth and error. Evidence for each of them is assumed a priori and for that reason credibility must be forced. Speculation and presumption not only produce bad philosophy but bad science as well. I appeal here to the scientific method only because some believe Big Bang cosmology is proven science. Big Bang is not science! To the contrary, it is cosmic folklore, bottom drawer obsolescence...and besides its boring. Regrettably, many non-christians and their Christian followers reject the literal Genesis reading to embrace Big Bang cos because the current "scientific" establishment periodically issue affirming statements. But the Big Bang is fraught with ruinous anomalies which actually contradict proven science.
So, to these establishment professors at the university level and to their theologian followers at seminary, I say, science is not your friend! Instead you must invoke elitist privilege as base to set up the false academic template, cloak it in scientific garb, ignore all counter evidence and hope nobody knows the difference!
At this point, it would seem that some secularists may be aware of the of the limitations of their "science" while many theologians seem totally unwary...simply along for the ride.
Critical thinking seems to have reached an all time low, even on campus at seminary making it possible for secularists to construct scientific sounding arguments suitable for the hearing and limited logic of the overtrusting.
In Genesis 1, the Lord God inspired Moses to narrate each of the consecutive individual 6 days in terms of, "the first day", "the second day" and so on continuing on to "the sixth day". Additionally, the author goes out of his way to provide excessive proof for 6 days of creation, (which obviously includes the creation of the universe) by declaring unequivocally in repetition, "evening and morning", at the close of each creation day. Obviously, the 24 hour interpretation for each creation day is entirely unavoidable.
Furthermore, in Exodus 20:11 the Creator himself, as eye witness to the length of his own creative activity, removes all doubt by distinctly affirming 6 days of creation. This clearly includes the creative history of earth and the heavens. Exegetical confirmation for the 6 day creation of the entire universe, "heavens and earth", is therefore logically conclusive.
Some feel the absence of the sun is problematic in terms of defining the first 3 individual days of creation without a reference. But at this phase the absence of the sun is irrelevant, a non sequitur. In verse 3, God had already separated light from darkness and had referred to the first light and the first night as day one, likewise days two and three. Then on day four God created the sun. Since the day/night, evening/morning cycle was in full service those first 3 days without the sun, the "missing sun argument" can hardly effect a reasonable objection.
Hands down, choice 1 is the best choice because it is most uniform with responsible biblical exegesis.
Interestingly, an aside, the 6 day work week and a day of rest still holds in modern convention! No significant change here since the beginning!
