When I established this web site, its purpose was to gather research from diverse sources to try to determine what is true and what is false. Having been raised as a Jehovah’s Witness, I was taught that I was in the one true religion, the only religion that really understood the Bible. I was taught to see Bible truth in terms of black-and-white. I did not realize at the time that the so-called “truth” I accepted as fact was the result of eisegesis. This is a technique wherein one imposes one’s own ideas onto a Bible text rather than letting the Bible speak for itself. Of course, no one who teaches the Bible will accept that his or her teaching is based on eisegetical methodology. Every researcher claims to be using exegesis and deriving truth purely from what is found in Scripture.
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.
,,
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 12×12 or in this case 6×24. 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.
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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.
“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…
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.
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?
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?
Why won’t you answer my question?
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.
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… Read more »
“Your premise is that God is teaching us about his timing.”
No, I wrote: God’s concept of time is unknowable to us.
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.… Read more »
Believe whatever you wish.
Why, thank you.
I think we’ve come to end of this don’t you?
Yes, we have.
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.… Read more »
Thank you for this, Beroeans Creed, and thank you for the articles you contribute to the site.
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… Read more »
* there are others that clearly are not. should be ” there are others that clearly are.
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).
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).
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..
Funny
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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.
yobec,
Yours is my very favorite answer!