Genesis 1 Day-Age Intepretation : Patriots on Watch Net Radio
Listen Here
Mark talks about the scriptural evidence for the idea that the Creation Days in Genesis Chapter One were long periods of time rather than a 24 hour day.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Wednesday, February 02, 2011
10 Comments:
Mark, that was an interesting program. Let me try to make some points if I may.
First, if the Lord wanted to teach us that creation took place in six literal days, how could He have stated it more plainly than Genesis does? The length of the days is defined by periods of day and night that are governed after day four by the sun and moon. The days are marked by the passage of morning and evening. If a 24 hour period view of the days be admitted, what is the purpose of mentioning six days?
Second, The week itself defines the pattern of human labor and rest, Ex. 20:8-11. If this isn’t the case what do you do with the Fourth Commandment? The historical precedent for this observance was the creation week, a span of time equal to what man copied in practice. The Fourth Commandment makes no sense whatsoever apart from an understanding that the days of God’s creative work parallel a normal human work-week.
Third, In every NT reference to Genesis, the events recorded by Moses are treated as historical events. The first three chapters of Genesis are consistently treated as a literal record of historical events, Jas 3:9, 1 Tim 2:13–14, 1 Cor 11:8–9, Rom 5:12–20, 1 Cor 15:22. Jesus Himself referred to the creation of Adam and Eve as a historical event in Mark 10:6.
Nowhere in all of Scripture are any of these events handled as merely symbolic. So why would the literal 24 hour day creation be treated differently?
Rick maybe I did not do such a good job on that program. What you are thinking I said does not line up with what I was trying to say.
If the Lord wanted to teach us that creation was done in six 24 hour days there are lots of ways He could have said it clearer. Remember the Hebrew (and that's what really counts, not the English) just says "evening and morning a (one, second, third etc) day." That is a terse statement that if connected literally describes a night rather than a day- even though the passage just got through describing LIGHT as the day. It is not the order He uses to describe a day anywhere else in the book! The one other time those terms are used in this order, it does NOT describe a 24 hour day.
I am not claiming that the events were symbolic and not historical, just that the terms used to describe the events have symbolic meanings.
I mean, look at the examples I used in the program. The fall of man was an historical event, but the term used to describe satan was symbolic. He is not ID as satan until much later. You might as well chide me for not believing in the fall of man because I think it was Satan and not a snake that did the beguiling.
I don't see why God creating the universe in six 24 hour days is an historical event and God creating it in six ages is not. God's activities are real activities, not symbols. The words used to describe them are, because, well let me turn it around on you, what is the Hebrew word for 50 million years?
Mark, I'm taking Genesis 1 and comparing to scripture immediately following. To interpret a “day” in the creation account as anything other than a literal 24 hour period doesn’t make sense when looking at other scripture. Also, don’t ignore the fact that humans have always worked six days and rest on the seventh. How could such a system ever have originated? Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them, 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. 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 (Genesis 2:1-3). And then God blessed and sanctified the seventh day.
The children of Adam, even after the expulsion from Eden, continued to regard every seventh day as a day of rest and worship is clearly implied in the story of Cain and Abel.
And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof (Genesis 4:3, 4). The phrase "in process of time" is, literally, "at the end of the days" ("process" = Hebrew qets = "end"; "time" = Hebrew yamim = "days"). The day on which they brought their offerings was the day "at the end of the days," and this clearly can be nothing but the seventh day, the day which God had blessed and hallowed.
The story of Noah contains many allusions to the seven-day week. Note the following in Chapters 7 and 8 of Genesis:
1. "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth" (7:4)
2. "And it came to pass after seven days that the waters of the flood were upon the earth" (7:10)
3. Forty weeks later (280 days—compare 7:11; 8:3, 4, 5, 6) Noah sent forth the dove and the raven (8:7, 8)
4. "And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove" (8:10)
5. "And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove " (8:12)
6. Noah and his family left the ark exactly 371 days, or 53 weeks, after they had entered it (compare verses 7:11; 8:3, 4; 8:14).
Whether these repeated references to actions taken every seven days imply that they all took place on God's rest day is not stated, although it does seem probable. In any case, it is clear that both God and Noah were ordering events in terms of a seven-day cycle.
The Israelites were strongly reminded that a seventh day each week was intended to be a day of rest, in the experience of the manna (Exodus 16:4, 5, 25-30), which fell for six days each week and was withheld by God on the seventh. Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). All of this is the tremendous testimony of the seven-day week and, especially, of the day of rest which marks its boundaries. Its very existence can only be explained by the reality of a literal 24 hour six-day completed creation.
If the Lord wanted to teach us that creation was done in six 24 hour days there are lots of ways He could have said it clearer.
Be careful. If it turns out that it is six literal days, then your statement treads awfully close to blasphemy.
Indeed, conversely, I don't see why the Lord would've needed to say it any clearer than he did to reference a 24-hour day. It's only "confusing" to those who need wiggle room for reconciling the secular theory de jour.
Is Rick in danger too for asking the question, or is it just me for answering it?
Didn't I talk about that in the audio? What's the sabbath for man? A day. What's the sabbath for the land? A year. So what's the sabbath for God? I made the point how the writer of Hebrews felt that His sabbath was still ongoing.
Rick saying he doesn't understand something is entirely different than you saying God needed to be clearer if he intended to say something. One accuses self of insufficiency, the other accuses our Lord.
One of us has the wrong idea of who God is. He did not mind letting Abraham question Him on the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, even though Abraham was wrong. Once Moses questioned God and talked Him out of blotting out the rebellious Children of Israel.
They were questioning the correctness of God's decision. I am only questioning our understanding of how He did something.
Post a Comment
<< Home