The 24 Hour Creation Day
When Galileo suggested his telescope proved the ideas of Copernicus that the Sun was the center of the solar system, the church refused to even consider such an idea because they felt that such a notion was at odds with the Scriptures. Most church officials refused to even look through Galileo’s telescope while others who did claimed they could not see the moons of Jupiter which were in plain sight. The church had drawn battle lines that were unnecessary and counter productive to the message of redemption.
You don’t think history repeats itself? In many evangelical quarters there is a battle over the 24 hour creation day and a young/old earth debate. But just as in the 17 century, this battle is quite unnecessary and creates a diversion to the message of redemption. And to insist that anyone who does not subscribe to the 24 hour creation day is a heretic is nothing more than a modern day reflection of past inquisitions that were more about power and self righteousness than they were about truth and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Did God make everything in six 24 hour days? Maybe. Maybe not. I’ll ask Him one day, if, when I see the Risen Christ, that issue will even warrant such interest anymore. Somehow I doubt we will even care. I do not care now.
Posts
12 comments:
Is a 6 day, 144 hour, creation schedule required for belief in God or for one to be saved? No. However, as I read the scriptures I wonder what belief in anything but a 6*24 creation schedule does to one's hermeneutics.
Many who read Gene...sis 1-2 as a literary account, also look at Daniel and the lions den as literary and the story of Jonah as a literary account. And, follow me here, if those are just literary accounts and not to be taken literally, how does that affect passages like Matthew 12:40 which says " for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"? Was Jesus saying he would literally be in the earth/grave/tomb for three days, just as Joanh was literally in the belly of the sea monster for three days? Or was Jesus' statement another literary expression that people throughout the centuries have misunderstood?
What about those in Israel, under the Mosaic law, who were told in Exodus 20:8ff to "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” And, later in Exodus 31:14ff we read: “Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. 'For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. ‘So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.' "It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed." If the days of creation weren’t literal days, but were just periods of time, why couldn’t the Israelites take every 7th week off of work to rest, or 7th year? Why was God insistent that they take off every 7th day, and then state that He did the same during the creation week?
And also if you look at the miracles of Christ recorded in the gospels, should we view those as literal happenings or if we carry our literary approach forward are they just good stories? If one takes a higher view of science than of the scriptures, then I see that individual coming to see God as more of a Deist than of the holy Creator, who still holds the world in His hands. If science, and what can be observed, is the pinnacle of knowledge—as even some Christians seem to believe—then the resurrection of Christ, and the miracles of Christ and many of the truths stated in scriptures must be disregarded or placed into non-factual categories—possibly viewed as “literary” instead of “literal”—so that their belief in science is not compromised.
I am not a believer in Creationism, as a science. However I believe in a literal 6 day creation of Genesis 1-2 based on my faith that God is who He says He is, God did what He says He did, and that His scriptures are perfect and without error.
"However I believe in a literal 6 day creation of Genesis 1-2 based on my faith that God is who He says He is, God did what He says He did, and that His scriptures are perfect and without error."
You may be correct. I do not think that a 24 creation day is interlinked with all other Scripture. I believe it is a diversion at best. God created, period. :0
"I believe it is a diversion at best. God created, period." Why would God put it in scriptures that He created the world in six days, and repeat it numerous times throughout both the OT and NT if is is only a "diversion" from other truths of the scriptures? And, going back to hermeneutics here, if what the scriptures says on creation can't be trusted to be factual, how can what is said about salvation, Jesus or any other topic be trusted?
After all, if 2 Timothy 3:16 is correct when it says that "all scriptures are given by inspiration of God" then Genesis 1-2 would be included. And if we can't take Genesis 1-2 or the other passages I posed in Exodus 20 or Exodus 31 or Matthew 12 to be true than why believe any of it? Either God is who He says He is, and did what He says He did or it's all the biggest scam in history. I don't see any middle ground here.
It is not that my view about creation affects my hermeneutic, but instead it is my hermeneutic that affects how I read all of the scriptures--including the God inspired account of the six day creation.
Taking your concept of "God created period" to another level could lead some to say it didn't matter if Jesus lived a sinless life, when after all "Jesus died on the cross" when, in fact, it does matter if God can be taken at His word in regards to Creation or whether Jesus lived a sinless life.
As I said, you may be correct. The lost children in Darfur have no interest in that debate, nor did it mean much in the Reformation. It is possible to view the Genesis account as partially metaphorical while still believing God's Word.
I realize the connect the dots argument and the sometimes hysteria that accompanies the debate. The Bible contains literal metaphors (I am the door, like a dove, etc.) which does not mean they are not "literal". I do appreciate that at the beginning of your comment you made it clear the 24 hour creation day was not salvidic.
I would ask you this question: I am an amateur astronomer. We have seen supernova explosions that are millions of light years away. If the universe is only 6 thousand years old, why did God create a light event within the light stream that indicated a supernova event that never actually took place?
I have a good friend who is so obsessed with this issue that she questions the salvation of Christians who do not share her creation views. She does not go around confronting people about it, but she has shared her thoughts with me.
She is also an ardent nationalist.
I will respond to your question with a few questions of my own. If a physician were to see the body of Jesus when He was walking the earth, would the doctor not say that science tells him that this Man couldn’t be alive without having both an earthly mother and father having come together? Yet Jesus was alive, and with no earthly father.
Or what if a physicist from today were to observe Jesus or Peter walk on water? Or, going in another direction, what if the same physicist were to have observed Jesus ascension? In either case the physicist would say that what he saw couldn’t have taken place because the laws of gravity and the density of water wouldn’t allow for what he witnessed with his own eyes to have taken place.
We could go on and on with scientific impossibilities that the Bible says took place (Jonah surviving in the stomach of a sea creature, the sun appearing to stand still in the sky over Israel during Joshua’s time, Jesus appearing in a room with locked doors, several people being brought back to life after they died, etc), and when all is said and done we have two choices: We can trust our eyes and science, or we can trust that what God says in the scriptures is true.
I Corinthians 1 tells us that preaching Christ was crucified was a stumbling block to the Jews. Should Paul have skipped talking about anything dealing with the crucifixion of Christ just to not risk offending the Jews? Not at all. What God did through Christ is central to the salvation message. Now let’s consider what probably the number one stumbling block to the intellectuals is in modern times: science. Should we skip over dealing with passages that deal with anything that doesn’t line up with our understanding of science, or are we going to trust that God is God and that what He says is true? If we say that science is Truth, with a capital T (which is to say that anything that contradicts science is false), then we must say that the scriptures are errant. But I believe that we can say that science is true, with a lower case t, as long as what science says doesn’t contradict what God says.
As I stated earlier I am not a Creationist as it relates to the scientific study of creation. I am, however, a believer in creation as a matter of faith because God said that it took place—and He says it did so in six days. I cannot explain how supernova’s give off the appearance they do from a scientific point of view. And I cannot explain how someone can walk on water, raise individuals from the dead, ascend into the sky, and so forth scientifically. And, while this lack of explanation on my part may be troubling to some, I feel no need to explain them--since I believe them as a matter of faith. I am convinced that God cannot lie, and so if God said that they took place, even if scientific evidence can “prove” that they didn’t, I will still believe them. Maybe I am a fool, or maybe I have child-like faith. And maybe, as I Corinthians 1 says, the wisdom of God is foolishness to even intellectuals and that God has chosen the foolish things of this world to “shame the wise.” Maybe one of those “foolish things” is a literal six-day, 144 hour creation.
I will respond to your question with a few questions of my own. If a physician were to see the body of Jesus when He was walking the earth, would the doctor not say that science tells him that this Man couldn’t be alive without having both an earthly mother and father having come together? Yet Jesus was alive, and with no earthly father.
Or what if a physicist from today were to observe Jesus or Peter walk on water? Or, going in another direction, what if the same physicist were to have observed Jesus ascension? In either case the physicist would say that what he saw couldn’t have taken place because the laws of gravity and the density of water wouldn’t allow for what he witnessed with his own eyes to have taken place.
We could go on and on with scientific impossibilities that the Bible says took place (Jonah surviving in the stomach of a sea creature, the sun appearing to stand still in the sky over Israel during Joshua’s time, Jesus appearing in a room with locked doors, several people being brought back to life after they died, etc), and when all is said and done we have two choices: We can trust our eyes and science, or we can trust that what God says in the scriptures is true.
I Corinthians 1 tells us that preaching Christ was crucified was a stumbling block to the Jews. Should Paul have skipped talking about anything dealing with the crucifixion of Christ just to not risk offending the Jews? Not at all. What God did through Christ is central to the salvation message. Now let’s consider what probably the number one stumbling block to the intellectuals is in modern times: science. Should we skip over dealing with passages that deal with anything that doesn’t line up with our understanding of science, or are we going to trust that God is God and that what He says is true? If we say that science is Truth, with a capital T (which is to say that anything that contradicts science is false), then we must say that the scriptures are errant. But I believe that we can say that science is true, with a lower case t, as long as what science says doesn’t contradict what God says.
As I stated earlier I am not a Creationist as it relates to the scientific study of creation. I am, however, a believer in creation as a matter of faith because God said that it took place—and He says it did so in six days. I cannot explain how supernova’s give off the appearance they do from a scientific point of view. And I cannot explain how someone can walk on water, raise individuals from the dead, ascend into the sky, and so forth scientifically. And, while this lack of explanation on my part may be troubling to some, I feel no need to explain them--since I believe them as a matter of faith. I am convinced that God cannot lie, and so if God said that they took place, even if scientific evidence can “prove” that they didn’t, I will still believe them. Maybe I am a fool, or maybe I have child-like faith. And maybe, as I Corinthians 1 says, the wisdom of God is foolishness to even intellectuals and that God has chosen the foolish things of this world to “shame the wise.” Maybe one of those “foolish things” is a literal six-day, 144 hour creation.
~RvL
Anonymous - I am not obsessed with the issue. But as Diane observed, there are those who are. If God created the universe with 6 twenty four hour creation days, so be it. If not, it does not change the truth that Jesus is the only way to eternal ife.
Post a Comment