GodsPhysicist

Are there ANY Christians out there that do NOT believe in a literal "6 days of creation?"

6 days of creation vs. scientific results poll...   25 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe in a literal 6 days of creation?

  2. 2. After reading the article, do you still believe in a literal 6 days of creation?


Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

50 posts in this topic

My patience with the mainstream christian church is running thin.  I think everyone is entitled to finding people they care about without having to "lose their soul" in the process.  I shouldn't have to believe in a literal 6 days of creation to mingle with my fellow believers in Christ when He Has done so much work in preparing me to know better about how the world really got started.  As a physicist and a follower of the Christ, I find it is not even possible to even have the same conversation about these things with literal creationists, it is simply an exercise in how many people will expect me to discuss certain things on preconceived terms.  In order to have true scientific inquiry, one must be willing to change one's mind in the presence of new information when prompted.

 

Let me just spare the noise that I can already hear rumbling from 2000-year-old imminent unscientific ideas, and just cancel that stampede.  I want to ask a question in the face of new information I will present below.  I don't want a debate, because I think it will be literally mistaken for a pontification.  Therefore I will ask a question or a follow up with only a yes or no answer, and this will be treated as a poll.

 

The main question is: "Do you believe in a literal 6 days of creation?"

 

If the answer is "Yes," I invite you to read the following theological article below:

 

http://www.wisdomintorah.com/wp-content/uploads/Creation-as-Temple-Building-and-Work-as-Liturgy-in-Genesis-1-31.pdf

 

After reading the following theological article above, have you changed your mind?

 

Personally I find this very important, because I cannot find a single christian who has enough of a compatible point-of-view to have a meaningful conversation with about what God has done in my life.  As a fellow waiter-until-marriage, its already rare anough to find a lady that can follow Christ enough to maintain her celibacy before marriage.  Even more so, I cannot afford to find a lady who might have done so, only to have an incredibly disrespectful take on how the cosmos got started in total contradiction to everything we have observed in so mny different but yet compatible branches of the sciences.  I thought my expectations of christians had been reasonable, but I find I cannot compete with the religious stongholds of the mainstream christian church who cares about nothing more than deliberately holding sciences back just to authoritatively save face in the presence of new information...

 

Please!  There has GOT to be a christian out there that doesn't expect me to apologize for being a true physicist who loves Jesus.  This issue is dear to my heart, and is a huge reason why I have to remain celibate this long into my life.  I simply cannot find a respect for science and faith in Jesus sufficient enough in christian ladies.  Frankly, it is rather a waste-of-time for me to remain with the site if people refuse to understand how damaging literal creationism really is to me personally, and how damaging it is to the world.  It politically holds back education progress and has people now making decisions based on what they BELIEVE instead of what they KNOW.  Hell, why doesn't everyone just yell at Jesus for making me a physicist who shames your beloved pastor for getting everything wrong on these issues?

 

I guess this is just my last resort to probe for any understanding I can find.  This stuff has simply been going on too long into the 21st century for me to put up with it any longer if that's what the poll reveals.  I hope that there are some people who get it, but, if not, I must leave you in despair...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relax. I am a Christian, but I really love Jew in the City's videos. Not everyone takes everything literally. Check this one out:  

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should look for a job at La Sierra University, Lots of Christians there who don't believe in 6 day creation theory.

 

I personally do. I've read many of the "scientific studies" and honestly can't understand why most scientists can't admit that there could be holes in their studies and that cross referencing materials with materials that are already questionable isn't really convincing.

 

Science is about observation.

That is if I observe a cell splitting I can assume that cells splitting into two cells is true. If I notice that cells in a plate existed on Monday, and then on Tuesday there were eight cells, I can theorize that they mated with each other and gave birth to other cells because my own species does it that way.

 

That isn't science, that is guess work.

 

Evolution may be considered "scientific theory" but if an entire community can be convinced that something is true and vote on it doesn't that sound questionable at all?

 

If you're a physicist and a true scientist then act like one and question everything including the theories you were taught to believe in during school. We don't question the system enough as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to Europe :) Religion is a lot more liberal and a lot less literal here, and every single Christian I know doesn't believe in a literal 6 day creation.

 

By the way, JesSea, I really enjoyed that video!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really liked the article you put in the link. Very great and poetic insigth vision and  I agree with it. :)

I do understand your point of view.

 

Besides, I really think science affirms the BIble and it is not contradictory to believe in the Bible and still be a scientist. I believe God is the greater SCIENTIST Ever. Just look at the creation and you will agree with what I mean :)

 

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ : archaeology and evidence in the BIble

 

https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/science/science-confirms-the-bible/ : science confirms the Bible

 

https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/science-and-biblical-authority/ : science and biblical authority

 

I am agree with you and I believe God created the world in 6 days, but not LITERALLY. For God, one day=1000 years.

Science is beautiful and God invented science...so ...

Relax GP :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I found this article really relevant :)
 
Can creationnists be scientists?
 

It has been often said that “creationists cannot be real scientists.â€

Several years ago, the National Academy of Sciences published a guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.1 This guidebook states that evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things.â€

In addition, the late evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky once made the now well-known comment that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.â€2

Is a belief in “particles-to-people†evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences?
But is a belief in “particles-to-people†evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?

Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.

In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.â€3

Nor has technology arisen due to a belief in evolution. Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution (a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed?

Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers-not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that there have been many scientists who believed in biblical creation. In my own research field of astrophysics, I am reminded of several of the great minds of history. Consider Isaac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics.

Consider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible.

Today as well, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and instead believe that God created in six days as recorded in Scripture. Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields4 which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all.

 

(By the way, Dr. Humphreys will be one of more than 20 leading creationist researchers who will be speaking at this July’s Creation Mega Conference.)

On the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. Dr. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which the journal Nature once featured (this model is based on the global Genesis Flood).

Additionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan. The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian5 who has been featured twice in our Creation magazine.

Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists. And this shouldn’t be surprising since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. The universe is orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible.

On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver? If our brains are the by-products of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by the Lord as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature.

Yes, science is possible because the Bible is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the article yet but wanted to share what I was taught growing up. God created the earth in 6 days, yes. But God's time is different from our time. What we would call a day could be thousands (plus or minus) of years to God. I don't have any scientific proof to this, but alot of miracles don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the article yet but wanted to share what I was taught growing up. God created the earth in 6 days, yes. But God's time is different from our time. What we would call a day could be thousands (plus or minus) of years to God. I don't have any scientific proof to this, but alot of miracles don't.

Well, 

Honestly this is a good discussion to have.

I believe in six literal days, however the creation story to me only pertains to Earth. Not the Universe.

I believe the rest of the stars and planets were made before the Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in a literal 6 day creation. I have read the article. I find it very unconvincing.

GodsPhysicyst: What do you think of the articles I linked below?

 

I really liked the article you put in the link. Very great and poetic insigth vision and  I agree with it. :)

I do understand your point of view.

 

Besides, I really think science affirms the BIble and it is not contradictory to believe in the Bible and still be a scientist. I believe God is the greater SCIENTIST Ever. Just look at the creation and you will agree with what I mean :)

 

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ : archaeology and evidence in the BIble

 

https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/science/science-confirms-the-bible/ : science confirms the Bible

 

https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/science-and-biblical-authority/ : science and biblical authority

 

I am agree with you and I believe God created the world in 6 days, but not LITERALLY. For God, one day=1000 years.

Science is beautiful and God invented science...so ...

Relax GP :)

 

That is a good site. Did you realise it opposes the belief that creation did not occur in 6 literal days?

 

Here is a neat little article: https://answersingenesis.org/why-does-creation-matter/the-necessity-for-believing-in-six-literal-days/

 

And another: http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally

 

What do you think of these articles?

 

I haven't read the article yet but wanted to share what I was taught growing up. God created the earth in 6 days, yes. But God's time is different from our time. What we would call a day could be thousands (plus or minus) of years to God. I don't have any scientific proof to this, but alot of miracles don't.

 

1 day equaling 1000 years concerns bible prophecy. The referal to days in Genesis is not prophetic. 

 

If each day in Genesis is a 1000 years then how does linking the literal keeping of the seventh day sabbath (Exodus 20:9-11) with the 6 day creation and 7th day of rest make any sense? While I have heard some people (Jehovah's Witness I think) claim that "the sabbath" was not a literal day but a significantly longer period and that in this time in history we are living in the "sabbath" makes no sense to me considering the literal keeping in the Bible of the sabbath as a weekly 24hr period. Applying the commands of the Bible concerning the sabbath to a period that extends our whole lifetime and beyond would be impossible. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much tis the BeardedOne for your comments and the articles.

 

Before I read the articles you gave, I came upon those videos this morning:

 

They were made by a christian scientist Ken Ham and it made me rethink my previous position concerning creation of the earth in 6 literal days. I think he is rigth may be, but I have to admit I am on reflexion upon the subject ...

One thing is sure : I totally believe all the Bible is true. But I think as human, we can make errors of interpretation.

 

I didn't read yet the articles you gave. But thank you it will be helpful.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got to the part where the author doesn't seem to know that melanin is good for sunny climates (and less relevant further from the equator) because it protects from UV rays, not heat. Natural selection doesn't care how comfortable a species is, and a species doesn't care as long as it's reproducing. Saying Eskimos should have fur if evolution is true doesn't make sense because they survived and reproduced just fine without fur. They had clothes, after all. Should I keep reading?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got to the part where the author doesn't seem to know that melanin is good for sunny climates (and less relevant further from the equator) because it protects from UV rays, not heat. Natural selection doesn't care how comfortable a species is, and a species doesn't care as long as it's reproducing. Saying Eskimos should have fur if evolution is true doesn't make sense because they survived and reproduced just fine without fur. They had clothes, after all. Should I keep reading?

 

No, you should not keep reading, heh.  If you do that, the literal creationists will always believe that JUST ONE MORE PIECE of information is needed to change your mind ad nauseum.  They fail to realize that scientists in their respective areas have already figured out these things much much longer ago with much much more rigorous methods.  It is insulting that one wrong argument at a time would throw science into chaos when it is also presented by amateurs with no formal training pontificating in front of specialists on these very subjects they don't want to listen to.  Ever see the the amateurs try and tell scientists how science is really done, and they get it wrong?  It happens so often, it sometimes gets to me personally, because its everywhere.  I just have to remember to fight the good fight.  Oh, lets not forget that counterarguments to evolution are often revisited by yet more amateurs who didn't realize that the debate (or pontification) had already been presented elsewhere.  That's why didactic discipline doesn't work in science: it insists that we keep revisiting wrong things when progress has already been made and can be re-verified by anyone who wants to waste their time "discovering it again."

 

I think you are right about everything on natural selection, so you already understand what the author does not.  So, there is no need to keep reading, heh.  Melanin diversity within the species is due to a balance between activation of vitamins A, D, and E (and maybe more) from UV exposure, and protecting against UV damage.

 

Notice how I simply ask a question about literal creationism, and it is NOT a poll like I designed it?  That's because literal creationists don't know how to think of anything that might change their minds about the bible.  It leads to people insisting that we each need to listen to THEM instead of making sure we are rigorous about our scientific methods.   Every single defense I have seen so far in this thread that was NOT intended to become a survey of "alternatives" to science has been visited before by every scientist I know.  Its not the SCIENTISTS' faults that literal creationists don't know these things because we told them over and over and over why they are just plain wrong, and they still don't stop.  I am not sure they ever will.  This is why I don't think you should keep reading because it would be incredibly unfair.  They expect you to read wrong things they present, but they won't let you tell them why scientists figured out something else.

 

It is even worse for me as a christian, personally, because I read the bible and I have more theological training than most pastors in the mainstream church do.  As a scientist ALSO, this should have been a DOUBLE WHAMMY to "bridge the gap" between science and christianity.  It a good thing we don't burn great thinkers at the stake anymore, or I would long have been dead long before I could even join this great community of ours.

 

Stay tuned for the REAL motivation for why I even asked in the first place. I will reveal more as this thread matures (or denatures) even more into the future...

 

Yes, literal creationists, we have heard all these arguments before and they are WRONG.  No matter how many people or times you present them, nothing will change unless YOU CHANGE.  Please consider this as you realize we don't need anymore religious opinion, just answer the poll.  This was a POLL, not a debate or pontification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

didn't read the thing because im behind on my lecture readings, and i probably soulden't even be wasting time on this sight now, lol, but anyway, i encourage you to check out dr kent hovind debates, also, white rabbit made a great vid called "the greatest lie ever told" check it out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got to the part where the author doesn't seem to know that melanin is good for sunny climates (and less relevant further from the equator) because it protects from UV rays, not heat. Natural selection doesn't care how comfortable a species is, and a species doesn't care as long as it's reproducing. Saying Eskimos should have fur if evolution is true doesn't make sense because they survived and reproduced just fine without fur. They had clothes, after all. Should I keep reading?

If you can come up with an explanation for everything you read that you disagree with then it's fruitless.

It's honestly just a train of explanations from both sides.

 

I believe in literal creation because I do.

There's no really getting around that. 

 

 

Yes, literal creationists, we have heard all these arguments before and they are WRONG.  No matter how many people or times you present them, nothing will change unless YOU CHANGE.  Please consider this as you realize we don't need anymore religious opinion, just answer the poll.  This was a POLL, not a debate or pontification.

What I find more funny is that there is always a convenient explanation for every subject or claim brought forth.

Like whenever there is an out of place artifact brought up, it is always conveniently a hoax or a scam.

I mean, everything that might be evidence that disagrees with the current science  is already "a hoax."

 

I mean sure, scientists can come up with a plausible explanation that fits their beliefs and state then explain that "there are no transitional fossils because no species was in transition" but you're doing the exact same thing as religiously fundamental people do except you're calling it science and you're peer reviewing everything with people who have the same biases.

 

Scientists are humans too, and to say they can't separate their emotion from their beliefs is stupid. Unless scientists are perfect.

If someone goes to Sunday school or whatever their whole life and are taught the same thing over and over again, they're going to believe every lie that is told them. Believe me, I know this from attending church. 

 

Whatever happened to, "We don't know for sure but we're going to find out."

I think lost in all this is true science. That is, unemotional science where you don't care what other people believe but you want to know for yourself the truth.

 

Seriously, if something is the truth, why be bothered by others if you're really correct?

What I'm bothered by isn't what you believe but how you are so closed minded to the idea that it's very possible you could be wrong like I could be wrong about believing in a six day creation, and yet in the words you write you sound so desperate to find "christians who don't believe" in a six day creation.

 

Does something like this really matter in the end of all things? Or is it a pride issue?

 

EDIT:

But you know, from what I've had in chats with you, you're looking for a job and you're looking for a place to settle down.

 

 

Do you have a Ph.D or can you teach physics?

If you are, try applying at La Sierra University or one of the schools out here in California. Most Christians here don't believe in a 6 day creation. You'll feel right at home. I'm the minority here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT:

But you know, from what I've had in chats with you, you're looking for a job and you're looking for a place to settle down.

 

 

Do you have a Ph.D or can you teach physics?

If you are, try applying at La Sierra University or one of the schools out here in California. Most Christians here don't believe in a 6 day creation. You'll feel right at home. I'm the minority here.

Well...He trusted you enough to tell you this on chats... This is part of his private life...

Even if you don't agree with him you don't need to expose something he told you...

It's none of our business... And it is not the subject here...And if you wanted to tell him..you could have PM him instead...

Please, be more tactful next time...

I believe you didn't do so purposefully, and you didn't want to be mean...but I have to admit it bothers me a little...

I hope you won't take it personally and you won't be mad at me  for this.

 

And I do believe like you, all the Bible is true and comes from God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you should not keep reading, heh.

 

Notice how I simply ask a question about literal creationism, and it is NOT a poll like I designed it?  That's because literal creationists don't know how to think of anything that might change their minds about the bible.  It leads to people insisting that we each need to listen to THEM instead of making sure we are rigorous about our scientific methods.   Every single defense I have seen so far in this thread that was NOT intended to become a survey of "alternatives" to science has been visited before by every scientist I know.  Its not the SCIENTISTS' faults that literal creationists don't know these things because we told them over and over and over why they are just plain wrong, and they still don't stop.  I am not sure they ever will.  This is why I don't think you should keep reading because it would be incredibly unfair.  They expect you to read wrong things they present, but they won't let you tell them why scientists figured out something else.

 

Yes, literal creationists, we have heard all these arguments before and they are WRONG.  No matter how many people or times you present them, nothing will change unless YOU CHANGE.  Please consider this as you realize we don't need anymore religious opinion, just answer the poll.  This was a POLL, not a debate or pontification.

 

Wow. I guess scientists are the new Gods in white! I'd like to comment further on your attitude but I'll refrain. Maybe you should have a read of Proverbs 18:13. To discount an article simply because of a (supposed) objective mistake seems a bit juvenile. Surely in all your wisdom you have erred somewhere and wouldn't want people to discount everything else you've said (or will say) because of it. 

 

While you did expressly state your desire for this thread not to become a discussion, arguably you negated it by inciting a discussion with your rant (for lack of a better word). If you wanted to vent your frustration perhaps you should have done so separately from your "poll ONLY" thread e.g. in a blog post. While you created the thread, whether a discussion takes place or not and in which way it turns is beyond your authority so maybe turn down the condescension a little. A forum is afterall specifically designed to be a platform for discussion. If you don't like it don't engage. You made your point clear so I'm sure no one would be offended if you didn't even read any of the replies.

 

If you can't be bothered to genuinely enter into the discussion other than a blanket '[you] are wrong' maybe you shouldn't respond in the first place. 

 

Lastly, I think the issue of literal vs non-literal is an issue of primarily internal consistency. Thus presenting "evidence" of evolution that refutes a literal translation is jumping the gun. Unless we don't consider it reasonable that God's Word is internaly consistent but that he may be some Loki-type god who enjoys seeing us confused, interpretation of scripture must be internaly consistent. This would mean leaving asside all "evidence" against a literal translation and considering whether anything but a literal translation is internally consistent and thus acceptable. I think your firm belief in the accuracy of your scientific knowledge pursuade you to skip a careful examination of scripture's internal consistency. I think anyone would agree that warping a text to an interpretation that is internally inconsistent does not do it justice be it a poem, a novel, the Koran, or the Bible. Once you have determined that external "evidence" is inconsistent with the only internally consistent interpretation of scripture on an issue, I guess you have to deside which one to put your faith in or resign yourself to straddling a dichotomy and the dissonance that brings.

 

If you care to enter into a proper discussion, I am interested to hear your arguments for the internal inconsistency of a literal interpretation or internal consistency of a non-literal interpretation whichever way you want to put it. Or is the article you linked the sum of your argumentation on the issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm excited that this site has such a robust list of topics to discuss! I can't wait to chime in on other discussions.

Regarding this topic, I also came from a scientific background (once studying to be an engineer in school). My belief was "science and faith must somehow mesh, I simply must figure out how". I'd pray and study and question things often...not from a source of doubt but from curiosity. And I've concluded that the two do fit together. For me science is the "how" and faith/God (as detailed in scripture) is the "why".

I liken it to the way siri (or other smart phone assistants) works. The owner gives a voice command and then an untold number of processes fire away.

So that's where I'm coming from when I consider the creation account.

Notwithstanding, to address the op question; do I think it was 6 literal days? Well as some have said, i agree that it really depends on perspective. I ask myself "from whose pov should we read the creation account?" It's natural for us to immediately read it from our pov...though we're not the ones doing anything...and from the account at least, our ancestors aren't even there to witness it.

So from that position a few elements start shifting for me. I start asking myself "just how long was a day if there wasn't even a sun and moon to mark off the first few 'evening/morning' intervals until the 4th iteration of that measurement?" I can't very well say it was 24hrs as measured by man. Man wasn't there. Also, scientifically we know that time is relative. It's based on point of view.

Then I consider the idea of creation itself. There's a tremendous amount of energy here, evident in the matter that's here, so creation took some real power to effect. Power = the ability to do work. There was real work put into creation. So does whether God took 6 literal days or 6 thousand days or 6 trillion days take away from my belief in God's level of power to create? Not at all.

Now if I rely on the scriptures to help me understand what could've happened with time during creation, I recall an instance in the book of Joshua where he asked God to not let the sun set until israel dispatched their enemies and the book says the day was held by God until the work was finished. So faithfully, is it possible that each day of creation could in fact be literal? Is it possible that this Being of such emmense power could hold the 24hr day *until* he finished whatever task he set out to do? Yes, I think so.

We have to rush to complete our daily tasks before the day is done because we have no control over time or the motion of the sun. But per the faith, God is the one who set these things in motion to begin with. So he could've taken as much relative time as he very well pleased within even a measurement of 24hrs. Perhaps on the first day he needed 12 trillion of our years. Then on the 2nd day he only needed 65 million of our years...yet with his hand on the clock, only 24hrs may have ticked away each time.

Note that each day of the creation account ends with "and the evening and the morning were the...day" *only after* God finished what he was creating and saw that it was good. The day; time followed him.

But even with all of this said, what's interesting is that in the very first verse it says,

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; and the earth was formless and empty and dark...and God's spirit *hover across the surface of the waters*"

-there was a heaven created

-there was an earth (without shape)

-that earth was empty and dark

-there was water (that he hovered across)

...and this is all before God says, "let there be light, as well as before it says "the first day".

So the earth was here (proven by the water God cruised across), for an undetermined amount of time, *before* the account officially begins.

So this tells me that the creation account is not about the creation of the earth, so much as it's about the creation of God's kingdom ON the earth; built for "those made in his image and likeness".

This is my take on it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to redo this post as a probe for all the people that might not believe in a literal 6 days of creation.  I am afraid I made my initial post too loaded, and I just wanted to meet the people who don't believe in a literal 6 days like I don't.

 

Let's shift gears.  I will do this within the same thread without me reposting topics that will simply get "merged" anyway.

 

Let me turn this post into a "shout-out:"

 

If you are a Christian who does not believe in a literal 6-days of creation, can you let me know who you are?  I would like to meet those who understand what I mean, that's all.

 

"Where ya AT, non-literal creationists?"

 

XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm excited that this site has such a robust list of topics to discuss! I can't wait to chime in on other discussions.

 

I know, right?! Its a matter of keeping up with them! lol

 

My belief was "science and faith must somehow mesh, I simply must figure out how". 

 

Fully agree

 

I start asking myself "just how long was a day if there wasn't even a sun and moon to mark off the first few 'evening/morning' intervals until the 4th iteration of that measurement?" I can't very well say it was 24hrs as measured by man. Man wasn't there. Also, scientifically we know that time is relative. It's based on point of view.

 

Is it possible that this Being of such emmense power could hold the 24hr day *until* he finished whatever task he set out to do? Yes, I think so.

Perhaps on the first day he needed 12 trillion of our years. Then on the 2nd day he only needed 65 million of our years...yet with his hand on the clock, only 24hrs may have ticked away each time.

Note that each day of the creation account ends with "and the evening and the morning were the...day" *only after* God finished what he was creating and saw that it was good. The day; time followed him.

 

The argument with the sun only being created on the 4th day comes from James Dobson. Do you need the sun for day and night? All you need is light and darkness - which was created on the first day. (Genesis 1:5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.) And the sun would become the light bearer from the 4th day onward.

 

Why can't it mean 24hrs as measured by man simply because man wasn't there? Such an assumption could only be valid if you excluded the power of inspiration and the communication from God of what happened before man was created.

 

Certainly time is relative. Imagine there is a house. Time is different within the house than outside it (time dilation). There is a writing competition. 3 days to write a novel. One day outside the house is one year within it. One of the contestants enters the house. He spends 3 outside days (3 years wihin the house) writing a great novel. He emerges. Would it be correct to say that the novel was written in 3 days when  all of its creation took place within the house and thus the time-frame within the house?

 

If you say the "day" could have been any fluctuating length of time do you mean God stopped the rotation of the earth so there was no change in light and darkness? Since Genesis' focus on evening and morning [cyclical change between light and darkness] suggest that is what determines the day. If God stopped the rotation of the earth to give evolution time, how do you think such creations would have faired when suddenly their environment completely shifted? One half of the planet would be in constant darkness and the other exposed to constant light.....

 

Also, if God would in his inspired scripture arbitrarily change the meaning of a word which is not determinable from the text's context or the writer's historical/linguistic context, and particularly when different words with established meaning could be used, what does that say about the reliability of scripture and indeed the integrity of God? 

 

To illustrate: imagine I told you that the next day I will gift you a Ferrari. In every conceivable meaning both in language usage and the way you know me to use the words "day" and "Ferrari" you actually expect me to give you an actual Ferrari tomorrow – at most 24hrs from now. I know that you will draw this highly reasonable and expected meaning but will not correct your misunderstanding. How would you feel about my integrity/honesty if I stopped the rotation of the earth (because I’m super awesome!) so the sun never set and the present “day†continues for another 80 years, then the sun sets and the next morning I give you a battered second hand Ford Focus?

 

 

Also, as far as I am aware, evolution teaches that the sun predates the earth. No matter how long you make the "day" last you'd also have to modify the order/sequence of creation for the sun to predate the earth. 

 

God wouldn't need trillions or millions of years. Considering the power of God He could have created everything in 6 seconds, 6 minutes, 6 microseconds etc. 

 

Or you could say that instead of the day following God, God confined his creation activity to the day - which is well within his power.

 

 

But even with all of this said, what's interesting is that in the very first verse it says,

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; and the earth was formless and empty and dark...and God's spirit *hover across the surface of the waters*"

-there was a heaven created

-there was an earth (without shape)

-that earth was empty and dark

-there was water (that he hovered across)

...and this is all before God says, "let there be light, as well as before it says "the first day".

So the earth was here (proven by the water God cruised across), for an undetermined amount of time, *before* the account officially begins.

So this tells me that the creation account is not about the creation of the earth, so much as it's about the creation of God's kingdom ON the earth; built for "those made in his image and likeness".

 

Yes some people believe that some form of creation in our dimension predated the 6 days. However, reading the whole of Genesis 1:1-5 and importantly the effect of the conjunctions "and" I think it includes these creations in the first day:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

But even so, life on earth was only created in the 6 days so even if we accept that some kind of material creation existed this does not assist in evolution taking place.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the last post is so long and hides my request to shift gears as the OP, I will simply post this again so it is at the end, and clearly viewable:

 

I am going to redo this post as a probe for all the people that might not believe in a literal 6 days of creation.  I am afraid I made my initial post too loaded, and I just wanted to meet the people who don't believe in a literal 6 days like I don't.

 

Let's shift gears.  I will do this within the same thread without me reposting topics that will simply get "merged" anyway.

 

Let me turn this post into a "shout-out:"

 

If you are a Christian who does not believe in a literal 6-days of creation, can you let me know who you are?  I would like to meet those who understand what I mean, that's all.

 

"Where ya AT, non-literal creationists?"

 

XD

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, good idea. :)

Loaded posts get loaded retorts.

 

Also for your knowledge, Gordon Freeman believed in a  6 day creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot believe in a literal six-day creation.  If that were the case, then I should also believe the earth is immovable and doesn't revolve around the sun, because that's what the Bible "literally" says, too.

Science is the observation of created things, and God created all things.  Therefore, I trust science.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My patience with the mainstream christian church is running thin. I think everyone is entitled to finding people they care about without having to "lose their soul" in the process. I shouldn't have to believe in a literal 6 days of creation to mingle with my fellow believers in Christ when He Has done so much work in preparing me to know better about how the world really got started. As a physicist and a follower of the Christ, I find it is not even possible to even have the same conversation about these things with literal creationists, it is simply an exercise in how many people will expect me to discuss certain things on preconceived terms. In order to have true scientific inquiry, one must be willing to change one's mind in the presence of new information when prompted.

Let me just spare the noise that I can already hear rumbling from 2000-year-old imminent unscientific ideas, and just cancel that stampede. I want to ask a question in the face of new information I will present below. I don't want a debate, because I think it will be literally mistaken for a pontification. Therefore I will ask a question or a follow up with only a yes or no answer, and this will be treated as a poll.

The main question is: "Do you believe in a literal 6 days of creation?"

If the answer is "Yes," I invite you to read the following theological article below:

http://www.wisdomintorah.com/wp-content/uploads/Creation-as-Temple-Building-and-Work-as-Liturgy-in-Genesis-1-31.pdf

After reading the following theological article above, have you changed your mind?

Personally I find this very important, because I cannot find a single christian who has enough of a compatible point-of-view to have a meaningful conversation with about what God has done in my life. As a fellow waiter-until-marriage, its already rare anough to find a lady that can follow Christ enough to maintain her celibacy before marriage. Even more so, I cannot afford to find a lady who might have done so, only to have an incredibly disrespectful take on how the cosmos got started in total contradiction to everything we have observed in so mny different but yet compatible branches of the sciences. I thought my expectations of christians had been reasonable, but I find I cannot compete with the religious stongholds of the mainstream christian church who cares about nothing more than deliberately holding sciences back just to authoritatively save face in the presence of new information...

Please! There has GOT to be a christian out there that doesn't expect me to apologize for being a true physicist who loves Jesus. This issue is dear to my heart, and is a huge reason why I have to remain celibate this long into my life. I simply cannot find a respect for science and faith in Jesus sufficient enough in christian ladies. Frankly, it is rather a waste-of-time for me to remain with the site if people refuse to understand how damaging literal creationism really is to me personally, and how damaging it is to the world. It politically holds back education progress and has people now making decisions based on what they BELIEVE instead of what they KNOW. Hell, why doesn't everyone just yell at Jesus for making me a physicist who shames your beloved pastor for getting everything wrong on these issues?

I guess this is just my last resort to probe for any understanding I can find. This stuff has simply been going on too long into the 21st century for me to put up with it any longer if that's what the poll reveals. I hope that there are some people who get it, but, if not, I must leave you in despair...

Okay first of all, that's a long FREAKING article.

Second of all, why is it so important for you that others believe in a changeable "6 day creation" period? Whether that be passion or logic.

Thirdly, kind of branching off of the second, is if we have accepted Christ as our Lord and Savior, what does it matter if we believe literal or "figurative"?

A. There are seventh day Adventists, and there's nothing wrong with celebrating church on a different day. It doesn't change the week, the day, and the only issue I can see is if they've misunderstood other past rules or whatever (stoning homosexuals that's always taken out of context) but aside from that...

B. There are also people who believe the second coming of Christ has already happened, is happening, and will happen in the future and that there are also three different times God will take up the church (before during and after Satan comes) This doesn't really make MUCH of a difference either ALTHOUGH I personally believe it can because if you know the signs of the times (one of them is the Jews will change the flag which recently happened) then you can better prepare for your life and making the most of it in my opinion and maybe you will minister to others more but I kind of feel like we should be making the most of each day anyway however it's good to know what to look for. But I don't see the direct correlation or point with the literal 6 day thing as with this topic. Or is that all in the 13 page article. HAHAHA

Fourthly, you seem to be angry in this post. And also a little closed-minded. No offense. Maybe I am misunderstanding that. Can you explain that?

My personal belief is that God made the earth in six days. The bible days it, and I also believe the earth is only around 6,000 years old. Carbon dating has been proven to be unreliable past a certain point with the way they've been doing it. I think people sound like fools when they mention "hundreds of millions of years."

Get back at me. HAHAHA

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay and maybe your articles not that long it's just all foot notes. Personally I was expecting something TOTALLY different in content.

Okay so the hepatic pattern of sevens...just because other things and events in the bible are taking seven YEARS does not mean that God took seven years. God is GOD. He can do WAY more than man can do in 7 days. If God rested after making man, was Adam just sitting there for 7 years? What was He doing? I don't see any mention of that in the bible.

FURTHERMORE, obviously these are all mimicking God. But again, God is God. Because we are mimicking God in certain ways, that doesn't make what He does any less significant. In FACT, I would suggest that suggesting God took His time would be taking away from the fact that God Himself is SO powerful and craftful that He can in fact create the earth and everything in it in 6 days. YES Moses mimicks the theme of 7, but maybe that's Gods way of letting us know "I created the tablets, the temple through my people" with the hidden theme of sevens so that we would know how to identify the imprint/fingerprint of God and what is Him and what isn't Him.

To me it looks like what you are saying is that we think we are so significant to the point where we should drag God down to our level and say, "Man couldn't create the world in seven days, so neither could God." That is comparing God to our standards, something we spend our whole lives if we are honest trying to get outside our small-minded way of thinking and into Gods perfect plan so that we might actually see what God has done for us and that He is greater than anything we could ever possibly do. I don't agree with "not six literal days" because I believe my God is bigger than that, I believe my God is grander than that, and I believe my God is a God of power. He modeled "7 days" so that we might model every week after Him and think of Him. He modeled 7 days so that each week, we would know we need to be creating life and life more abundantly among us. Obviously it changed from the Sabbath to Sunday later on...

In Revelation, God says 7 years of tribulation, a thousand years reign of Christ. You talk about mimickery (or rather your article does....but you know what I mean), but don't you think that there has to be SOME mimickery between Revelation the most confusing book ever of figuratives and Genesis? God knows what 1000 years is and how to say it, and He says what He means and means what He says. When He says 7 days he means seven literal days.

I would even go as far as to say, that this is one way Satan is trying to DOWNPLAY the significance of God and His grandeur. Be aware.

Get back to me. Tell me what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now