Genesis 6 day literal or not?

6 days, just like the Bible says! And yes, I believe they were 24 hour days.

 

Hello friends, haven't been here in a while. Just an observation concerning how do we explain coal and oil. I don't think coal requires "time" to be made, It is the "pressure" that matters. Just as diamonds have been made by industrial process so has coal been made after a few years. I seem to recall an instance where the wooden struts of a bridge were being replaced by concrete and the old ones when dug out of the ground had become coal.

I do not believe in millions of years either. The is no way that these extreme times can be measured. If we do not take Genesis literally then we cannot take our salvation as literal fact. For many parts of the gospel message depend upon a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Concerning the words of Peter. He was actually speaking of those in the last days who would scoff of the message of the second coming saying things like "where is the promise of his coming?" But it is interesting how Peter dealt with this. His reply was (2 Peter 3:3-7)

Here were these scoffers bragging on as to how the earth had continued as it is from the beginning of greation, yet the thing they had forgotten was the flood. And it is the same with many of us I think? We talk about creation and its millions of years yet we conveniently forget the Genesis flood. Where the earth was subjected to immense pressures that has changed in many instances the very character of things.even vegetation became stone. Never mind whether this process took millions of years, it is a far feched thing in the first place and if we did not have the evidence would we not scoff at the very idea of vegetation turning into stone?

 

Personally, I would rather God tell me, when I see Him face-to-face, that He really meant "--ages, not days--", when He told the creation story, than for Him to ask me why I did not just believe exactly what He said, rather than imply some other meaning that is pure hogwash!

IOW, for those who want to spiritualize, parabalize, or whatever, the Word of God, I see no downside to accepting the Word literally, except where the Word itself directs otherwise.:godisgood:

 

Yeah!!

What grahame said!!!!!!

MARANATHA

 

This is not a logical comparison. God is not limited to nature, nature is limited to nature.

 

To me, one day being as a thousand years to God simply means that time has no meaning to or hold on God. Our lives run according to time, but God has always existed--even before there was any way to measure time. Before God created it, there was no such think as "time"--no second, no minute, no hour, no day, no week, no month, and no year. He created time for mankind.

 

Yes, and that is mysterious to our finite minds indeed. In fact, this very point is probably the answer to most of our confusion and questions about doctrine. We debate Predestination and other such controversial topics because we see through a cloudy class now and cannot fully comprehend how God accomplishes all that He does in his infinite ways.

 

I believe they are literal 24 hours days.

 

Yes, it is impossible to believe plants could survive for thousands or billions of years without sunlight, but they can survive 24 hours.

I am a six day young earth creationist and proud of it. :thumbsup:

 

God said morning and evening was a day, I would think he would know what He was talking about. God din't say morning and evening, 3 thousand years, He SAID a day, 1 day, the first day, etc.
Why can't we just take God at His word, why do we not believe Him, or worse yet, why do we call Him a liar and beleive scientists who do not believe in the Creator.
Coal, oil?
read genesis 1, God created, everything.

 

Jesus was also 100% man as well who was limited to nature...so the comparison is quite logical.

 

Interesting that when one takes the Word literally (and don't try to get super technical you scoffers), the more the Word flows logically, and the less problems one has with accepting the truths therein.

Once you start snipping that which is "unbelievable" (not what is said, but what is meant), then you start opening that proverbial can of worms that really causes doubt of more & more of the Word as the disease gets a stronger hold on the "doubter"!

After all, satan didn't call God a liar; he just phrased his question so that Eve would begin to doubt what God really meant when He spoke.

We are now having these ridiculous discussions because Eve didn't just simply believe God!!!!

 

Genesis 1
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. (NIV)

Hate to break it to ya, but there was light before the plants were created.

 

Interesting topic. I have always been a young earther and to me that is the default interpretation, morning and night are the things that nail that to the ground. Even if yom meant a definite period of time it certainly, as the bible is written to man, it means from day to night according to the environment God put us in. I have heard some interesting objections by the old earthers and some of those are trained apologists.

Anyway how can you argue with this:
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Even though I enjoy the apologetics of some old earthers, I would be very surprised if they are right about the age of the earth, time in the garden..etc Although yom does mean a definite period of time, its a given as to the period.

Darren

 

I believe one could say from Mark 10:6 that Jesus was a young earth creationist.
Even Huxley would use Matthew 19:4-5 to show the Scriptures teaches divine authority for Genesis.
Exodus 20:9-11 goes along with the Genesis account.
What hurts is folks like Hodge, Warfield, Dobson to name a few believe the Bible should be toned down to go along with the latest scientific thought.

 

You cannot reconcile the creation account with evolution. Time is not the only problem, the creation account differs with evolution in several points.

1) The creation account in Genesis shows the earth existed before the sun or stars.

2) The creation account in Genesis shows there was light before the sun was created.

3) The creation account in Genesis shows plant life existed before the sun was created.

4) The creation account shows that God started with the largest creature, not smallest. The first animal mentioned is the whale, the largest creature ever. Evolution says the first animal life was one-celled.

5) The creation account shows birds or fowls before reptiles, Evolution teaches that reptiles evolved into birds.

So, if you are going to try and reconcile evolution with the creation account in Genesis, it isn't going to work. Making the 24 hour days mentioned into long periods of time will not solve anything. The creation account differs from evolution in many other points.

 

Rejecting the creation story as written leads to doubting a world wide flood. It leads to doubting that Jonah was swallowed by a fish. It leads to doubting that Jesus was born of a virgin. Where does it stop?