Six Days Of Creation?!

[prisonchaplain]

I believe this post demonstrates a view called the "day-age" theory. The term "day" can be ambiguous in Hebrew (so I'm told--I'm no linguist). So, the theory is that the creation accounts in Gen. 1-2 could be "literal," but the "days" could be ages, or non-specific time periods. So, this book seems to argue that the days could simply be signals for major changes.

Does my explanation make sense, Ray?

[JoshuaFKon]

I believe this post demonstrates a view called the "day-age" theory. The term "day" can be ambiguous in Hebrew (so I'm told--I'm no linguist). So, the theory is that the creation accounts in Gen. 1-2 could be "literal," but the "days" could be ages, or non-specific time periods. So, this book seems to argue that the days could simply be signals for major changes.

Does my explanation make sense, Ray?

That's not quite what I was saying....

I believe the 6 days were literaly 6 days...

However, (using The theory of realitivity) 6 literal days would (from the prespective of the entire universe) been 6 literal days. However, on earth 15 billion years would have passed.

Josh B)

P.S. I didn't do the math some other guy did (from the "The Science of God")

[Princess3dward]

<div class='quotemain'>

I believe this post demonstrates a view called the "day-age" theory. The term "day" can be ambiguous in Hebrew (so I'm told--I'm no linguist). So, the theory is that the creation accounts in Gen. 1-2 could be "literal," but the "days" could be ages, or non-specific time periods. So, this book seems to argue that the days could simply be signals for major changes.

Does my explanation make sense, Ray?

That's not quite what I was saying....

I believe the 6 days were literaly 6 days...

However, (using The theory of realitivity) 6 literal days would (from the prespective of the entire universe) been 6 literal days. However, on earth 15 billion years would have passed.

Josh B)

P.S. I didn't do the math some other guy did (from the "The Science of God")

I don't think it matters what it signifuies.

The sabbeth stays the same.

[prisonchaplain]

My always humble opinion is that God created the world, and regardless of how that happened, it was, from our perspective, miraculous. When considering theories ranging from God creating the world 5,767 years ago (Jewish calendar), on six literal, 24-hour days, to God creating the world in six periods of time, more or less the way Genesis describes, to the belief that God created the world over "billions and billions of years," through the process of evolution, I lean towards those theories that most easily fit into the biblical description. Other Christians prefer to fit the biblical text into the most current scientific understanding.

I'm not sure where the six-days-from-the-perspective-of-the-universe theory fits into that whole spectrum. Sounds kinda cool, but a little convoluted too. :-)

[Traveler]

My always humble opinion is that God created the world, and regardless of how that happened, it was, from our perspective, miraculous. When considering theories ranging from God creating the world 5,767 years ago (Jewish calendar), on six literal, 24-hour days, to God creating the world in six periods of time, more or less the way Genesis describes, to the belief that God created the world over "billions and billions of years," through the process of evolution, I lean towards those theories that most easily fit into the biblical description. Other Christians prefer to fit the biblical text into the most current scientific understanding.

I'm not sure where the six-days-from-the-perspective-of-the-universe theory fits into that whole spectrum. Sounds kinda cool, but a little convoluted too. :-)

Thanks for your opinion - I will add one other thought. It is my opinion that G-d invested a great deal of divine effort over an important period of time - significant enough that in scripture it is called days. Perhaps he could have done it quicker or in some other manner but I am impressed that G-d is invested in the creation. I believe a main message from the scripture that is overlooked in these kind of debates is what an act of love and compassion is manifested in the G-dly effort of creation.

The Traveler

[JoshuaFKon]

I'm not sure where the six-days-from-the-perspective-of-the-universe theory fits into that whole spectrum. Sounds kinda cool, but a little convoluted too. :-)

I'll grant you it is a rather convoluted theory, but The evidence that the universe is much more than 6000 years old is very, very, strong. This is one of two theories that I know of Which does not condradict either the literal reading of the Bible or the clear scientific facts. I don't believe in "evolution" however, and neither does the author of "The science of God"

I think if you look at the facts.

(1) The theory of evolution is very weak, it is only accepted because "there is no other (secular) alternitive"

(2) However, the evidence that the universe is billions of years old is very strong.

I am afriad I cannot explain the theory that clearly....But I think its very reasonable.

Josh B)

P.S. Umm...what do you mean by "I don't think it matters what it signifuies.

The sabbeth stays the same." Desiré? (and isn't the "sabbath" technically on Saturday?) I was under the impression that the Christians changed it from Saturday to Sunday.....

[Dr T]

Maybe she is saying that God is resting for 100's of thousands of years or millions of years during "His day of rest."?

Dr. T

[Maureen]

...I don't believe in "evolution" however...

Hey JoshuaK, did you ever read Snow's Post #7 under the thread Intelligent Design? I recommend it!

M.

[JoshuaFKon]

<div class='quotemain'>

...I don't believe in "evolution" however...

Hey JoshuaK, did you ever read Snow's Post #7 under the thread Intelligent Design? I recommend it!

M.

I just read it, It was very good, although I don't believe the "II. Creationist Counter-Arguments" section fully explained the arugument agaist evolution.

I actually do believe in evolution, in a way I guess. But not completely. I believe God created the original DNA for all life. So I guess I lean toward the "latent library" theory of evolution. The point about DNA is a major point that Snow did not address in "II. Creationist Counter-Arguments" section. However, I agree the Earth is clearly 15 billion years old (or at least older than 6000 years)

However, Consider the Cambrian explosion of life 530 million years ago. All these creatures appear to have "evolved" simultaneously.

Few if any at all "transional" creatures have been found. If classical evolution is correct there should be thousands and thousands of "half fish half monkey" fossils. Frankly life went from single-celled protozoa to "real" animals in an amount of time that is unexplainable with classical evolution.

Also, I don't believe that DNA could have been created "by chance" or through any method of "evolution" I think this is strong evidence of a "creator"

Josh B)