Six Days or Six Time Periods

[Zguy28]

Ok, here is my dilemma. I have recently been wrestling with Genesis 1 and trying to reconcile that with what modern science tells us.

Gen 1:3-5 NIV

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Does the Hebrew word "yom" mean literally one day as its translated or can it mean "a definite period of time?"

I have believed in the literal translation until now, but there is one area that has really shaken that belief in me. We know that light travels at a certain speed; 299,792,458 miles per second. When we look at objects in space like the Andromeda Galaxy which is 2.5 million light years away, and we can see it, that means that the light has been traveling for 2.5 million years. How is that possible if creation is only less that 10,000 years old?

One thing I have noticed about the Bible, especially the OT Scriptures is that God reveals things to His people in ways they can understand it, which might not necessarily jive with science. For instance Psalm 19:6.

Psalm 19:6

It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is hidden from its heat.

Now we know that the Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around.

Some help with this dilemna is appreciated.

[Pilgrim]

One word: Framework Hypothesis. Who cares how long the days were. The important thing is that God is the creator and author of life.

[Bill the Cat]

Think about this... does the Bible say how long Adam was in the Garden before Eve was created? How about before they fell? It could have possibly been a few days, months, years, or longer. I tend to not worry about it. Jesus was not hung up on "6 literal days and the next day was the fall". He was clear (to me at least) that there was a literal first man named Adam, but that was the extent of it. Don't fret over it.

[TedO]

The simplicity of the historical text is hard to ignore. There were 6 days which are apparently ordinairy days. This is the basis of the 7 day week and sabbath.

I am a big fan of Answers in Genesis. They discuss the exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2, distant starlight, and many more questions in depth.

I believe we must take the Bible as it is given, and not try to reconcile it specifically with other theories. Where there is apparent disagreement, we must trust God's word is right and our understanding is wrong.

Taking a high view of the inspiriation of scripture is extremely important to the future of the church. When we think our own human reasoning stands on par with the word of God it opens the door for all kinds of chaos - which is in fact what we see in many parts of the church today.

[Pilgrim]

The simplicity of the historical text is hard to ignore. There were 6 days which are apparently ordinairy days. This is the basis of the 7 day week and sabbath.

I am a big fan of Answers in Genesis. They discuss the exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2, distant starlight, and many more questions in depth.

I believe we must take the Bible as it is given, and not try to reconcile it specifically with other theories. Where there is apparent disagreement, we must trust God's word is right and our understanding is wrong.

Taking a high view of the inspiriation of scripture is extremely important to the future of the church. When we think our own human reasoning stands on par with the word of God it opens the door for all kinds of chaos - which is in fact what we see in many parts of the church today.

I'll simply say this, God gave us the gifts of our minds, and the noetic effects of sin aside, Christ died to take away your sins, not your mind.

[Zguy28]

Think about this... does the Bible say how long Adam was in the Garden before Eve was created? How about before they fell? It could have possibly been a few days, months, years, or longer. I tend to not worry about it. Jesus was not hung up on "6 literal days and the next day was the fall". He was clear (to me at least) that there was a literal first man named Adam, but that was the extent of it. Don't fret over it.

Thanks for the replies all.

Bill I love your avatar, I was a huge fan of Thundar the Barbarian as a kid.

[Cowthulu]

One word: Framework Hypothesis. Who cares how long the days were. The important thing is that God is the creator and author of life.

I have always also been a big fan of Galileo's statement. Something along the lines of The Bible is for telling us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go.

[The Plain Jane]

I'll simply say this, God gave us the gifts of our minds, and the noetic effects of sin aside, Christ died to take away your sins, not your mind.

But He said to love the Lord your God with all your mind. Is reconciling man's falliable theories with God-breated Scripture loving God with all you mind?

[The Plain Jane]

One word: Framework Hypothesis. Who cares how long the days were. The important thing is that God is the creator and author of life.

Islam teaches God is the creator and author of life, so you might want to tweek this response a bit.

[Zguy28]

But He said to love the Lord your God with all your mind. Is reconciling man's falliable theories with God-breated Scripture loving God with all you mind?

How do you reconcile the speed of light, visible distant objects, and young earth?

[Zguy28]

Islam teaches God is the creator and author of life, so you might want to tweek this response a bit.

Does it matter that Islam holds this same view? We're not discussing the Doctrine of Salvation.

[NeilUnreal]

My thoughts are that the writers of the first part of Genesis were taking the current theories of the day -- the "proto-science" being taught in the big "universities" in the east (e.g. Babylon) -- and writing their conception of the monotheistic God into them.

They were thus working within the understood world framework of that time in the Ancient Near East, and yet also making a polemic statement against what they saw as incorrect theology allied with it. They were in effect revealing God within the context of a "natural history" of the earth.

In this way, what they were doing is similar to what the Christian biologist (and evolutionist) Kenneth Miller recently did in his book Finding Darwin's God. It's very likely that future science will show some parts of Miller's science to be incorrect or inaccurate, since that's how science works. However, many of the theological points he makes will stand in spite of those changes, if we are careful to take the context into account.

Ditto with Genesis: the science of the Ancient Near East is not our science. However, we can still understand the theological message of the text if we read it in context.

-Neil

[TedO]

I'll simply say this, God gave us the gifts of our minds, and the noetic effects of sin aside, Christ died to take away your sins, not your mind.

I don't understand that response - are you saying I am advocating a non-thinking position? That certainly is not the case. Perhaps you assumed I said something I didn't.

My point is that when we see disagreement between scientific understanding and the bible, we should assume the Bible is right - not the other way around. That doesn't mean we suspend thought or stop looking for better answers, but we shouldn't bend the word of God to fit the current scientific understanding.

[The Plain Jane]

My point is that when we see disagreement between scientific understanding and the bible, we should assume the Bible is right - not the other way around. That doesn't mean we suspend thought or stop looking for better answers, but we shouldn't bend the word of God to fit the current scientific understanding.

I was just getting ready to say this.

I would also add at the heart of this debate is weather the Bible is inerrant or not.

If it's errant, what is true and what isn't? Is it just the earthly things that are false, like history and science? If I may quote Christ, "If I told you of eartly things and you do not believe, how will you believe me if I tell you of heavenly things?"

You must decide this for yourselves: Is the Bible true in all that it states? If God lied when He declared a six day creation and two single people in a Garden, and a global flood, and a giant and David, then He also lied about you having sin, He also lied about the Resurrection, He also lied about the miracles.

In fact, there are "Christians" who reject all these things.

So is the Bible errant or not?

[The Plain Jane]

Does it matter that Islam holds this same view? We're not discussing the Doctrine of Salvation.

But salvation can be affected, as I show in the previous post.