I accept that it is impossible to be 100% certain about everything written in Scripture. For thousands of years, facts relating to the salvation of humanity were kept hidden and have been called a sacred secret. Jesus came to reveal the sacred secret, but in so doing, there are still many things left unanswered. For example, the timing of his return. (See Acts 1:6, 7)
However, the converse is also true. It is likewise impossible to be 100% uncertain about everything written in Scripture. If we cannot be certain about anything, then Jesus' words to us that 'we will know the truth and the truth will set us free' are meaningless. (John 8:32)
The real trick is to determine how big the grey area is. We don't want to push truth into the grey area.
I came across this interesting graphic which attempts to explain the difference between eisegesis and exegesis.
I would suggest this is not an accurate depiction of the difference between the two words. While the minister on the left is obviously exploiting the Bible for his own ends (One of those promoting the Prosperity Gospel or seed Faith) the minister on the right is also engaging in another form of eisegesis, but one not so easily identifiable. It is possible to engage in eisegetical reasoning quite unwittingly thinking all the time we are being exegetical, because we may not fully understand all the components that make up to exegetical research.
Now I do respect everyone's right to express their point of view on matters that are not very clearly stated in Scripture. I also want to avoid dogmatism because I've seen the damage it can do firsthand, not only in my former religion but in many other religions as well. So, as long as no one is harmed by a particular belief or opinion, I think we are wise to follow a policy of "live and let live". However, I don't think the promotion of 24-hour creative days falls into the no-harm-no-foul category.
In a recent series of articles on this site, Tadua has helped us understand many facets of the creation account and has attempted to resolve what would seem to be scientific incongruities were we to accept the account as both literal and chronological. To that end, he supports the common creationist theory of six 24-hour days for creation. This doesn't pertain only to the preparation of the earth for human life, but to the entirety of creation. As many Creationists do, he postulates in one article that what is described in Genesis 1:1-5—the creation of the universe as well as light falling on the earth to separate day from night—all occurred within one literal 24-hour day. This would mean that before it even came into existence, God decided to use the speed of the earth's rotation as his time keeper to measure off the days of creation. It would also mean that the hundreds of billions of galaxies with their hundreds of billions of stars all came into being in one 24-hour day, after which God used the remaining 120 hours to put the finishing touches on the Earth. Since light is reaching us from galaxies that are millions of light-years away, it would also mean that God set all those photons in motion properly red shifted to denote distance so that when we invented the first telescopes we could observe them and figure out how far away they are. It would also mean that he created the moon with all those impact craters already in place since there would not have been time for them all have to occurred naturally as the solar system coalesced from a swirling disc of debris. I could go on, but suffice it to say that everything around us in the universe, all the observable phenomenon was created by God in what I must assume is an attempt to fool us in the thinking the universe is much older than it really is. To what end, I cannot guess.
Now the premise for this conclusion is the belief that exegesis requires us to accept the 24-hour day. Tadua writes:
"We, therefore, need to ask what of these usages does the day in this phrase refer to “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day”?
The answer has to be that a creative day was (4) a Day as in night and day totaling 24 hours.
Can it be argued as some do that it was not a 24-hour day?
The immediate context would indicate not. Why? Because there is no qualification of the “day”, unlike Genesis 2:4 where the verse clearly indicates that the days of creation are being termed a day as a period of time when it says “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” Notice the phrases “a history” and “in the day” rather than “on the day” which is specific. Genesis 1:3-5 is also a specific day because it is not qualified, and therefore it is interpretation uncalled for in the context to understand it differently."
Why does the explanation have to be a 24-hour day? That is a black-and-white fallacy. There are other options that do not conflict with Scripture.
If the only thing that exegesis requires is for use to read the "immediate context", then this reasoning might stand. That is the implication depicted in the graphic. However, exegesis requires us to look at the entire Bible, the whole context of which must harmonize with each minor part. It requires us to view the historical context as well, so that we don't impose a 21st century mentality onto ancient writings. In fact, even the evidence of nature must factor into any exegetical study, as Paul himself reasons when condemning those who ignored such evidence. (Romans 1:18-23)
Personally, I feel that, to quote Dick Fischer, creationism is "faulty interpretation coupled with misguided literalism". It undermines the Bible's credibility to the scientific community and thus hampers the spread of the Good News.
I am not going to reinvent the wheel here. Instead, I'll recommend that anyone interested read this well-reasoned and well-researched article by the aforementioned Dick Fischer, "The Days of Creation: Hours of Eons?"
It is not my intention to offend. I greatly appreciate the hard work and dedication to our cause that Tadua has exercised on behalf of our growing community. However, I feel that Creationism is a dangerous theology because even though done with the best of intentions, it unwittingly undermines our mission to promote the King and the Kingdom by tainting the rest of our message as being out of touch with scientific fact.
,,
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by yobec on 2020-10-23 12:12:15
I think the most convincing thing I see that shows me it could not be 24 hr literal days is when Adam said:" AT LAST! Flesh of my flesh and bones of my bones" Why would he say " at last" if he only had to wait a few hours.
Reply by vitisbp on 2020-10-23 17:22:39
yobec,
Yours is my very favorite answer!
Comment by broswilli on 2020-10-23 13:56:07
Since the book of Hebrew makes us to understand that the Almighty is still in his rest that is the seventh day of creation is still on then the creation is not seven literal days.
Comment by Chet on 2020-10-23 16:29:44
This is a matter to which I have given considerable thought and come away with no hard or fast conclusions. Gerald Schroeder, a believing Jewish physicist has postulated that from the frame of reference of when matter had expanded adequately that matter, as we know it could exist, time dilution would make 144 hours appear as 13.8 billion years. True or not, it makes a valuable point, that interpretation of time is entirely dependent upon one's frame of reference.
My personal conclusions regarding the timeline of creation have varied over time. When I first heard the account of Hubble discovering red-shift of light from distant galaxies, I became convinced that the narrative of mainstream astrophysics was accurate and I spent some decades believing in "cosmic evolution", which is to say that all matter expanded from a singularity and that clouds of gases and dust coalesced into stars and planets, due to the effects of gravity. There is much to recommend this theory, but there are also unanswered questions.
As time went on, I began to hear about Dark Matter, which was said to comprise more mass than that of the sensible matter we are able to detect, but is necessary to explain why spiral galaxies have not flung stars out, but maintain their shape over billions of years. But then Dark Energy came into play, which explained the rate of expansion of the Universe, which didn't seem to fit with the model of the Big Bang. At that point, even some cosmologists began to say that “'You get to invoke the tooth fairy only once," meaning dark matter, "but now we have to invoke the tooth fairy twice," meaning dark energy.
For me, this was troubling. If one accepts these two theories, roughly 95% of the Universe is unobservable and undetectable, except for the apparent effects of gravity (in the case of Dark Matter) and motion (in the case of Dark Energy). It needs to exist in order for the current understanding of the Universe to work, but if the current understanding of the Universe is incorrect, or incomplete, it is not needed. A more cynical way of stating this is that it only serves to prop up current theories. It is quite possible that it is entirely imaginary. Before Einstein's explanation of perturbations in Mercury's orbit came along, it was postulated that there was non-visible matter which affected Mercury's orbit. It was, for all intents and purposes, a Mark Matter theory. If I were to write a check for that new luxury car that would look so good in my driveway, would the bank make good on the check if I invoked "Dark Money", which doesn't show up in my bank balance, but must be there in order to pay for the car?
The Dark Matter, Dark Energy theories pointed up one thing, at least for me; they don't really have a coherent narrative to explain what they are observing. The notion of a 14 billion year-old Universe is not incompatible with a Creator, by any means, but no one has all of the facts at this point. If the model of the cosmos requires that 70% of the Universe is energy of an unknowable source and 25% of the Universe is matter which interacts with our sensible Universe only by the effect of its gravitation, then I would submit that there is significant risk that the understanding of the Universe is not anywhere near complete or coherent.
There is one point found in Young-Earth creationism that I find hard to ignore. Young-Earth creationists believe that death only happened after the Fall. (Keep in mind, that the biblical definition of life is rendered by some as applying only to creatures which breath air through nostrils.This would leave out insects, fish, etc.) The contention of Young-Earth creationism is that when God saw that His creation was "good", this could not be the case in an earth filled with death, even of animal life. Taking the point of Young-Earth creationists, for the sake of discussion, the idea of a deep-time fossil record becomes problematic. So, from that point of view, dinosaurs were contemporaries of humans and the fossil record is a record of the Flood. One point that creationist paleontologists make, is that there is evidence of disease in dinosaur fossils, so once again, this is something their world-view would see as happening after the Fall.
For me personally, it is an open question. I see merit in both points of view and have no desire to disrespect either side of the debate. If I were pinned down to an opinion, it would be somewhere in between, not insisting in a literal 6-day creation week, but neither accepting that a Deep-Time explanation is necessary. Because time is literally in the perception of the beholder, I could easily accept that the meaning of the creative days may not align with any human perception of time.
I would, however, encourage others to hear what the Young-Earth creationists have to say on the matter. While I don't agree with the trinitarian theology they support, I find Is Genesis History to be well thought out. Young-Earth creationists are not uneducated simpletons. There are many PHD-level scientists that support this hypothesis.
Even more fascinating, at least for me, is the research regarding the Flood, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and the interpretation of the fossil record as being part of the Flood. The theories surrounding this make a great deal of sense with regard to geology, fossils and the Ice Age. I have found this study to be very satisfying.Reply by Fani on 2020-10-24 04:50:11
La question abordée n'est pas de savoir COMMENT Dieu a procédé pour créer.
C'est impossible de tout comprendre pour l'instant.
."J'ai vu toute l'œuvre de Dieu; j'ai vu que l'homme ne saurait trouver l'œuvre qui se fait sous le soleil; l'homme se fatigue à chercher, et ne trouve pas; même si le sage veut connaître, il ne peut trouver."
Ecclésiaste 8:17 BCC1923
J'aime beaucoup ce que dit Job 26:14
[14]Ce sont là les BORDS de ses voies, C`est le BRUIT LEGER QUI NOUS EN PARVIENT ; Mais qui entendra le tonnerre de sa puissance?"
On parle juste de la signification du mot "jour" dans la Genèse.
Dans un commentaire Tadua a dit que "enfin" n'était pas dans le texte. (Genèse 2 : 23)
C'est vrai qu'il s'agit que d'une traduction.
Pourtant le mot hebreu "paam" est bien dans le texte. Il faut bien le traduire. Selon strong on peut aussi dire : "maintenant", "cette fois" .
Ces 2 autres traductions laissent bien entendre que Adam a cherché sa contrepartie parmi les animaux mais ne l'a pas trouvée.
Il lui a fallu forcément du temps, plus que 24 h, pour faire ce constat.
Quant à la signification du mot jour, nous savons tous que dans la bible il peut avoir différentes durées. 2 cor 6 : 2 "le jour du salut" 2 Pierre 3 : 7 "le jour du jugement" Apocalypse 16:14
" le combat du grand jour du Dieu tout puissant.".
2 Pierre 3 : 8 "mille ans comme un jour".
Combien d'heures pour tous ces jours ?
N'est ce pas tout simplement des périodes, des temps, des époques, des moments ? N'est ce pas ainsi que nous mêmes employons le mot jour ?
Genese 2 : 4 résume les 6 jours de création et le verset dit : "Ceci est l’histoire du ciel et de la terre, à l’époque de leur création, au jour (YOM) où Jéhovah Dieu fit la terre et le ciel."
Le même mot YOM cette fois englobe toute la période de création, les 6 jours.
Je pense que nous ne pouvons pas donner une période précise et certaine des jours de la Genèse. Ce ne sont pas des jours de l'homme mais des jours de Dieu qui lui appartiennent.
Comment by Zacheus on 2020-10-24 04:07:45
Of days..
In my day..
One of these days
In days of old..
but of course as we have seen the wt is forever in a daze..Reply by louabbott on 2020-10-25 10:09:02
Funny
Comment by Beroeans Creed on 2020-10-24 07:11:41
Well what I have learned from Tadua’s series of “Genesis” articles and Eric’s rebuttal here is the difference between this forum and the WBTS organization. Here we have an example of two brothers, one the founder of this forum and the other it’s major author totally disagreeing on a topic and yet no name calling, no threats of excommunication from the forum, no harsh dogmatic speech etc.
Just an open honest disagreement on a Bible subject I believe has no impact on our salvation nevertheless I find It very refreshing and encouraging to witness humility and brotherly love in action. Above and beyond the ability to express ourselves here while gaining an in-depth understanding of the scriptures from not only the articles posted, but the member comments, I come here for this type of association even though we have never met there is brotherly love displayed!
I apologize for being off topic, but I was moved by the Spirit to make this comment.
Thank you Eric and Tadua for your examples and hard work in behalf of us all.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-24 08:48:22
Thank you for this, Beroeans Creed, and thank you for the articles you contribute to the site.
Reply by louabbott on 2020-10-25 10:00:40
Yes, Beroeans Creed and Brother Wilson. I was just appreciating the openess of this discussion as well. While the apostle Paul in many places encourages that we all speak in agreement and have oneness of mind, it is most important that we maintain love. While there are certainly doctrines that are fundamental to salvation and not "disputable", there are others that clearly are not. I believe the length of a Genesis creative day is one that is a matter of opinion and therefore unimportant to argue about. See:
Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.-Ro 14:1 NIV
Now receive the one who is weak in faith, but not for quarrels about opinions.- LEB
Welcome the man having weaknesses in his faith, but do not pass judgment on differing opinions. - NWT
See also:
If, then, there is any encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any spiritual fellowship, if any tender affection and compassion, 2 make my joy full by being of the same mind and having the same love, being completely united,* having the one thought in mind. 3 Do nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with humility* consider others superior to you. - Phi 2:1-3
Reply by louabbott on 2020-10-25 10:44:32
* there are others that clearly are not. should be " there are others that clearly are.
Reply by Ad_Lang on 2020-12-08 13:28:13
I think that this "being of the same mind" and "having the one thought in mind", and also "all speaking in agreement" mentioned at 1 Corinthians 1:10, is indeed a matter of having this love for each other.
Paul warned also against the opposite: "If, though, you keep on biting and devouring one another, look out that you do not get annihilated by one another" (Gal. 5:15).
Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2020-10-26 05:03:53
Best comment of the Week/month/year/whatever. Much credit to Eric for creating this atmosphere.(and I can work out who he will then give the credit too).
Comment by Jack on 2020-10-24 20:10:37
Were the Creative Days 24 hours long? No.
The 7th day of Rest is not 24hours long. In keeping with the pattern set in the OT where in Israel there were 7 days of equal length with a Sabbath day also of equal length- It is then in keeping with the word of God that the 7th day at the very least is 6000 years long. Therefore the previous 6 days were at least 6000 years long.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-24 20:19:36
“For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past, Just as a watch during the night.” (Psalm 90:4)
Given the flexibility applied to one of God's days, I think we should consider the possibility that each one is of a different length. Today, we would refer to phases rather than days. Phase 1 of the creation was...Reply by Jack on 2020-10-24 20:29:31
For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it is past,
And like a watch in the night.
This says nothing about "days" especially the Creative Days.
The scripture above references the fact that to the Almighty a thousand years is nothing; as Yesterday When it is Past. It is a very short time for the Almighty that is all.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-24 20:40:36
So you don't think that the concept of time that God has might allow for, at least, the possibility that each creative day may have been of a different length?
Reply by Jack on 2020-10-24 20:54:52
The 7th Day is still with us. God teaches us according to what our concept of time is. God's concept of time is unknowable to us. Why should it be?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-24 20:55:35
Why won't you answer my question?
Reply by Jack on 2020-10-24 21:03:30
So you don’t think that the concept of time that God has might allow for, at least, the possibility that each creative day may have been of a different length?
Scripturally and logically, No.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-24 21:13:36
Thank you for giving me a direct answer. I disagree. Your premise is that God is teaching us about his timing. If that were the case, we would know how long each creative day was. We wouldn't be having these disputes because Jehovah is the perfect teacher. Frankly, the length of each day is unimportant to us. They may be of equal length, but they may also be of differing lengths. In one place, the six days are called a single day. So neither scripturally nor logically can we say that the six days are all of equal length, only that they may be.
Reply by Jack on 2020-10-24 21:33:09
"Your premise is that God is teaching us about his timing."
No, I wrote: God’s concept of time is unknowable to us.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-24 21:43:50
You wrote: "God teaches us according to what our concept of time is."
My concept of a day is that it is a period of light followed by night, a period measuring 24 hours, a period covered by a generation, a thousand years, in short, a wide variety of time periods, some definite, some indefinite.
So the idea of creative days being thousands of years long, or tens of thousands, or in the case of the day that God made the heavens (read universe) and the earth, billions of years, is quite tenable. Of course, if you disagree, well, that's your right. We don't have to agree on this, as it is not a salvation issue.Reply by Jack on 2020-10-24 21:54:46
Believe whatever you wish.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-24 21:56:53
Why, thank you.
Reply by Jack on 2020-10-24 22:05:43
I think we've come to end of this don't you?
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-25 00:13:42
Yes, we have.
Comment by London18 on 2020-10-25 14:18:58
The term "day" in Genesis is a concise way to separate each section or "ingredient" in making the Earth. I think of it as preparing a meal. Each recipe for appetizer, main course, dessert etc has detail instructions. Everything is timed and prepared with care. For example, you may marinade your filet mignon 24 hours before even you start to cook it. You may grill, bake, fry that filet or combine several techniques. And so it goes for each part of the meal and each recipe being done in the correct stage and timing. Likewise the universe is a masterpiece and the bible is helping us understand in basic terms the process. Science confirms that water is needed for life and in Genesis we see the planet started out covered in water before God made a limit (Gen 1:9) to bring forth the land. Why would God need to rush through it? In preparing a perfect meal or recipe you never want to rush. Just like a fine wine etc.
Appreciate your article and agree.Reply by Ad_Lang on 2020-12-08 13:12:16
In this day and age.... we even have awareness that days have different lengths on other planets. It appears a bit odd to me, indeed, that someone who has already lived for billions of years and has an eternity to go, would even think of completing such a huge project in an instant of time.
Also, God's spirit moving over the surface of the waters at Genesis 1:2 reminds me of the hands of a potter. Actually, in Luke God's spirit is even referred to as God's finger.
Comment by London18 on 2020-10-25 14:51:54
"The notion of a 14 billion year-old Universe is not incompatible with a Creator, by any means, but no one has all of the facts at this point." -from Chet's post
I appreciate Chet's post and wanted to add to it. In the book YHWH exists by Jodell Onstott (xxxix) it states in referring to Ex 3:13-15 : "The Creator tells us that his name is 'I AM". This command to recognize his name as a memorial to all generations is so important that the Creator included it as the third commandment of the Ten Commandments, forbidding humanity to use it in vain (Ex 20:7). The Hebrew word for 'I AM' is Ehyeh, from the root hayah. It means 'to be' or 'to exist'. This is the same word used in Gen 1:2, where Scripture states that the 'earth was or existed without form.' The concept found in this text embodies the ideology of a self-existent being: a God who simply 'is' or simply 'exists'. The word YHWH derives from the root word hyh or hayah. Since ancient Hebrew did not employ vowels, it is written in consonants. The Creators name may be more a scientific description of himself than a theological one. Renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time provides a description of an infinite universe that very closely parallels the Creator's description of himself. When describing the conditions of our universe, Hawking observes, 'the boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary, The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created or destroyed. It would just BE.' In other words the universe simply exists or is in the same timeless manner that the Creator simply is: YHWH Exists."
Comment by Jeremiah on 2020-10-26 16:26:09
Thank you Eric for your articles, and hello all. I have been following the forum for some time now and really enjoy it.
At the risk of being a simple and maybe silly thought, it struck me when reading the title of Eric's article. 144 hours. Is not 144 a complete number with a little extra emphasis? ie 12x12 or in this case 6x24. So my thought was that the record of 6 creative days may symbolize a completeness or perfection irrespective of the actual time it took.
As I say, just a thought that popped into my head.