Issues with the slippery slope argument of literal 7-24 hour creationism

Read the text of Genesis...the part in the quotation marks

in this 'literal' so-called interpretaton there is no literal sun until Day 4 and before Day 4 there are NO "lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night... for signs and for seasons, and for days and years"

 

Read the events of day one. God created light to shine on the earth, and it did. Is there a problem in believing that light would come from another source other than the sun? Those "lights in the firmament" refer specifically to the sun, moon, and stars, in the firmament or the atmosphere, which had been more fully developed by then. That doesn't contradict the fact that there was both light and day on a spinning earth on day one.

 

I don't know why you have such an issue with this. It's very clear that the heavenly bodies created on day 4 were simply TAKING OVER the roles that the undefined light and heat source had been playing since day 1. "For signs and for seasons and for days and for years" means that God was making them the PERMANENT light sources, in contrast to the original light source which was temporary. Remember that the word 'day' in that passage is the word that was DEFINED on day one as meaning the passing of a light and darkness cycle. Everything in the context demands that this mean ordinary 24 hour days all through the 6 creation days.
Since you're so fixated on the sun, I assume you believe that with the creation of the sun on day 4, regular 24 hour days began. But if 'day' means something different in the first 3 creation days than the second 3, please explain why the EXACT SAME WORDS are used to describe the passing of ALL SIX creation days. ("And the evening and the morning was the [x] day.") I've challenged you on this before, and you have yet to provide an answer.

 

Gen 1:1 is not a preface, it is an absolute statement and is so translated in all the ancient versions. "heavens and earth" is a merism, a figure of speech that signifies the whole, ie. "the universe" Thus, we are told in no uncertain terms that God created the universe.

v. 2 tells us the state of the earth, itself, following that act of creation in v.1; Calvin said something like 'the earth was not perfected' at its beginning.
NICOT: "Verse 2 then, describes the situation prior to the detailed creation that is spelled out in vv 3ff.

Three conditions on the earth are described, the last being 'darkness' for which God provides the remedy in v. 3, "Let there be light..."

And in the following verses he provides the remedies for the other two conditions.

There is a wonderful symmetry here: Days one to three have been called, "Days of Preparation" and the last three, Days of Filling or from the general to the particular . e.g. Day one has 'light' ; day four has sun/moon set in order. Day two has sky and day five has birds of the sky, etc.

IN these verses [6-25] "heaven" and "earth" are used in a limited sense. "The dry land he called earth" [not the planet] The heavens, here, as the NIV translates it, is our "sky."

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness covered the face of the deep…”

“….And God said, ‘Let there be light’…

How much time elapsed in the age of the earth between “darkness” [v.2] and “Let there be light”? [v.3] We have no clue in Scripture.

Day One and the days that follow are the week in which God sets his creation in order for the creation of man.

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” Deu. 20

This verse is often wrongly used. Here, speaking of that week, “the LORD made” not created as in Gen. 1:1. “Made” has the same connotation as our “making” our bed. We set in order what is already there. [ie the remedy for the condition described in verse 2]

Thus the verse in Deu. is parallel with the "days" of the week...heavens (sky), earth (dry land), sea, and all that is in them [It does not reflect on the creation of the universe in v.1, but on that of setting the earth, itself, in order]

Calvin: ”Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God.”

 

You are confusing "light" with "lights"! Before day four there was no "lights" in the sense of the Sun, moon and stars or light bearers but there was "light."

 

Jesus identifies Genesis 1:26-27 in regard to its time frame as an event that occurred "at the beginning" or "from the beginning of creation" and not something that occurred thousands, millions or billions of years AFTER "the beginning" of creation.

Verse 1 states the act of creation of the material substances of the universe.

Verse 2 identifies these material substances without final form and void of life inhabitants.

verse 3 God creates light and all first five verses define what God in day one.

Verse 6-27 is where the term "made" comes into play. God takes the material substances which he created out of nothing and then gives them final form and fills the void with life in days two through six.

The fourth commandment refers to both what he created and made because Christ uses the term "creation" in regard to the whole process that Genesis 1:26-27 is found.

 

No confusion here. I am agreeing with you that in the so-called 'literal' interpretation, there were no sun, moon and stars before Day Four. So that, to be consistently 'literal' with this verse, there was no marking of "days" before Day Four.

For every interpretation, it is a matter of 'pcik and choose' what you call literal and what you don't.

I have simply dealt with the text in context. You make Day One the beginning of creation, which the text clearly does not. You are thus taking the liberal assupmtion that verse one is a conditional clause. It is not. See standard Bible commentaries like NICOT and BSC.

 

Then what is the meaning of "day" in Day one, two and three?
If they were not 24 hours in duration, consistent in interpretation with the other days, then what were they?

No, you can't. So why are you changing the evident hermeneutic of the word "day" as to its usage throughout the rest of the chapter?

I have seen plenty of commentaries in my day, and nothing to suggest what you are suggesting. Where do you suggest Creation started? Day 4?

Then what happened here?
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Genesis 1:11-13)

What happened on the third day (no sun yet), when God created grass, fruit trees, etc., both of which cannot live without light, and also cannot live without insects like bees. Find out which day those were created. Fruit trees need pollination, as do many other plants. But remember this is only day three. There is still the night preceding day four.

 

Light plus rotation of the earth is all that is essential for a twenty-four hour day. The material universe was created in verse 1. I am not making any assumption that verse 1 is a conditional clause. Verse one is a declaration of fact just as verses 2-5 are declarations of fact. God did all these things on day number one.

Your distinction between "made" and "create" is not supported by Christ placing Genesis 1:26-27 under "creation."

 

There is 'marking' of the days in the text of Genesis 1! You still haven't explained why, if 'day' means something different for the first three creations days than it does for the second three, the exact same words are used to describe the passing of each of those days: "And the evening and the morning were the [x] day." I challenge you again (this is now the third time) to explain why the Holy Spirit would inspire the use of THE EXACT SAME WORDS to describe what you insist are two completely different things.

 

The sun, moon, and stars are not needed to mark the days... only a fixed light source and the rotation of the earth.

As is all literature. Even the most technical, literal text contains non-literal components. A proper exegesis depends on hermeneutically interpreting the text based on context.

I disagree. A straight forward reading of the text doesn't reveal any of the information you have read into the text. If you simply take it as written, then it is clear that you have come to the wrong conclusion. It seems to me you are trying to impose a particular mind set upon the text that is not found within the text.

Jesus interprets the text plainly to include verse 1. Note that each subsequent verse in Genesis 1 starting with verse 2 and onward begins with the Hebrew character YOM. The yom means "and". It signals inclusion with the previous statement. So in the sentence, "I went to the store, and the gym, and the park" we know that store, gym, and park all relate to the action "I went." Similarly, all of the verses of Genesis 1 relate back to verse 1 "In the beginning, God created" because of the AND (yom) that begins each verse.

Jesus correctly used this interpretation in Mark 10:6

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.​

He joins "In the beginning God created" (verse 1) with "male and female created He them." (verse 27) as if they are one contiguous statement. If Jesus interpreted the scripture this way, so should we.

My guess is you are a theistic evolutionist, gap theorist, or some kind of ruin/reconstructionist. It is likely your desire to see the scripture be declared correct, but you are doing so by inflicting man's ideas of millions or billions of years upon the text. You hope to "jive" the so-called science (which it is not) of origins with the Bible. You can't insert millions of years into the genealogies, so you must insert it between the creation of the earth and the creation of light (between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2).

But there is a big problem. Once you accept man's faulty assumption of ions of time, and try to impose that idea upon the scripture, you have a lot of fancy foot-work to do. Once you open the door to ions of time, you are essentially proclaiming you accept the geological and biological evidences that have produced the long ages. You are now on the slippery slope to having to account for them as well in your theology. Invariably, you will have to accept that death and decay happened prior to the creation of Adam and in so doing you have to negate the relevancy of Christ's death and the gospel. It is a slippery slope indeed. If the rocks are ions of time old, and those rocks contain fossils, then those fossils must be ions of time old. Since there is no where in the Biblical genealogies to fit ions of time, that means that the death of these fossilized animals had to come prior to the creation of Adam. That means death isn't a result of Adam's sin, but was a permanent part of creation.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:​

If you have death before sin, then it means death was in the earth when God proclaimed everything "very good." (1 Cor 15:26 calls death an "enemy" of God) If you have death before sin, then death wouldn't be a punishment for sin, it would be part of the original design. If the eternal life promised in the Bible is merely spiritual, then Jesus would not have needed to die physically, nor be resurrected physically. Do you see how the assumption of ions of time ultimately undermines the gospel of Jesus Christ?

If you have no prior commitment to ions of time (no extra-Biblical reason), then a straight-forward reading of the Biblical text gives you no reason or cause to insert ions of time.

 

If there was no animal death before Adam and Eve sinned, was there plant death?

If there was neither then God telling them they would surely die would be meaningless.

Sort of like telling a kid who has never ever seen any sort of automobile or conveyance not to play in traffic lest you be run over by a mack truck.

 

So, you are saying that if we take Jesus 'litrerallly' then the beginning of creation was Day 6, not Day 1, or Gen. !:! because that is what a strict literalism gets you at this point. [And there have been some who thought God did it all in one day.]

And you really need to study the text of Genesis 1 by reading some sound Bible commentaries. The late Gleason Archer, one of the editors of the Theological Wordbook of the OT (Moody) would not agree with all the nonsense you are proposing.

 

WOW! Now, in addition to Sacred Sripture, we have "inspired" interpreters! Once upon a time these were called "Gnostics." The key word, there Dr. is "interpret." Sorry if I don't accept your new, "inspired" majisterium!

I just do my homework reading the works of men who have given their lives to studying it.

 

So you don't consider that the men that you read could be wrong. They could couldn't they be? You still haven't answered my post. If the plants including fruit bearing trees were created as early as the third day, and the insects were created on the sixth day, then how would they exist with your view of creation, when one needs the other? Flowers and fruit bearing trees are dependent on bees for their survival. Your view of Creation is defeated simply by your basic ignorance of biology.

 

Apparently it went over your head that when Dr. Walter spoke of 'inspired men' interpreting Genesis 1-2, he was talking about OTHER SCRIPTURE AUTHORS, such as Peter and Paul, as well as the Gospel writers quoting what Jesus said. These men were indeed directly inspired by the Holy Spirit when they commented on Genesis. Your beloved 'commentary' writers may be educated and frequently right, but they are not directly inspired like the Bible writers were, so when there is conflict between them, the intelligent choice is to accept the word of the inspired men over the uninspired.

Btw, you STILL have failed to answer my challenge about why, if 'day' means something different for the first three creations days than it does for the second three, the exact same words are used to describe the passing of each of those days: "And the evening and the morning were the [x] day." I challenge you yet again (this is now the FOURTH time) to explain why the Holy Spirit would inspire the use of THE EXACT SAME WORDS to describe what you insist are two completely different things.

 

Why are people using physical animal death in relation to these passages? It says "death passed to all men"; not all animals.

There's obviously two kinds of death, which we are forgetting about. Which one of these deaths is being referred to is obvious from the fact that that "death" was to befall Adam that day (that he ate the fruit), and he didn't die physically for hundreds of years!
How do we usually explain this? He died spiritually! So then why do we make it physical again, when it comes to the creation debate?

(Not even arguing a particular side at this point; this argument keeps coming up, and it has just always struck me how we run to this verse and take a crudely physical interpretation and forget about spiritual death, which we explain things with at other times).

 

Every single day in Genesis 1 we find the words "And God said...." Every single day there is something that begins in God's work of creation that is spoken into existence "And God said, Let....." Hence, all six literal 24 hour days are properly "the beginning" of creation as every single day there is something that begins by God speaking it into existence.

Therefore, there is no contradiction between identifying the sixth day as "the beginning" of creation as much as the first day as each day there is a true "beginning" of something new in God's creative work.

However, all gap theories and day age theories, or symbolic day theories allow for not merely hundreds but millions if not billions of years between the events of day one and day six.

Although, Christ's words can be understood literally that day six was included in the "beginning of creation" as much as day one but his words cannot possible fit any interpretation that places thousand, if not billions of years between day one and day six as by no stretch of the imagination can the first appearance of man in Genesis 1:26 be "at the beginning" of creation or "from the beginning of creation" if Genesis 1:26 occurred thousands, millions or billions of years after the events of day one. Moreover, all interpretations of Genesis that include millions or billions "gap" between the events of day one and day six is evolutionary in nature in regard to the developmental origin of man rather than a ceative act of God as expressed in Genesis 1:26-27 and confirmed by Christ in these New Testament texts.

 

The literal hebrew says "dying that shalt surely die." The immediate spiritual death began immediately the process of dying physcally or deterioration set in the body which made itself manifest in aging and disease. As the genetic virility of humans increasingly weakened so did their longevity.

Romans 8:22-25 makes it clear that all natural creation was effected by the principle of death or what science may call the laws of thermodynamics or the first and second laws of conservation.

 

Much of scripture is simply abbreviated without providing the full details of all the events recorded or the full details of the conversations that persued.

The silence does not offer ammunition to attack, undermine or contradict what is recorded.