Pope: "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve"

[Greg Long] Of course Ex. 20 doesn’t mention 6000 years. But in it God clearly states that He created the entire universe in six (literal) days. Once you land on six literal days, as I believe Gen. 1 and Ex. 20 so clearly state, it becomes quite difficult to avoid a young earth conclusion.

The runway you hope to land on is strewn with debris. You have, I believe, lowered your landing wheels prematurely. Indicators, which I’ve mentioned, point to figurative language. Ex. 20 in no way is speaking about a young earth but a principle of “Sabbath”.

Anyway, I have to wear a chef’s hat today and even a construction hat later on possibly, so I’ll leave you folks for your own discussion unless something significant is uncovered.

Alex, I’m not the first person who said it, but…I don’t know how much clearer God could have been that He created in six literal, 24-hour days. As if “the evening and the morning” (clearly indicating a day’s timespan) as well as ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, etc.) in Genesis 1 weren’t enough, God explicitly tells us that the entire basis for the Sabbath rest on the seventh day (which is an actual literal, 24-hour day) is because God rested on the seventh day of the creation week.

One more time:

Ex 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

“In six days.” Not “in the day (which could be an indicator of a figurative time period) that the Lord made…” but “in six days.” Again, between Gen. 1 and Ex. 20, I really don’t know how else God could have said it in order for us to believe these were literal, 24-hour days.

It’s actually your figurative runway that is strew with figurative potholes that prevents you from even getting off the ground with the truth of creation in the first two chapters of the Bible that leads to figurative theological wreckage. :)

Besides the evidence of metaphorical language of 1.1-2.3 from 2.4-7, the structure of this section clearly points to a poetical device.

Not sure what metaphorical language you are referring to, but the whole passage is actually narrative. There is nothing that points to poetry in Gen 1:1-2:7.

With respect to Exod 20, it is a hard to make sense of the passage if the “days” are long periods of time, or no periods of time at all (i.e., just frameworks). God wasn’t telling his people to work for long periods of time, or to work in parallel structures. He was telling them to work for six days and then rest on the seventh day because that is the pattern he set for us. If he didn’t set that pattern, then there is no pattern to follow for a Sabbath day.

A simple way to think about origins is this:

Assuming a naturalist worldview, where there is no such thing as the supernatural, then cosmic evolution MAY be scientifically supported in that we can see when the Big Bang happened. I can say “science says ______” and affirm that it’s not true and be completely consistent. That’s because I don’t take science as the last word in what constitutes truth.

The big word in there is “assuming.” I don’t assume a naturalist universe, and I don’t assume it for quasi-scientific reasons. The probability of the world we inhabit existing on its own in a naturalistic world is basically nothing, therefore I can logically say we’re not in a naturalistic world even on naturalism’s own terms. Once I open up to the possibility of a supernatural, all bets are off in terms of what evidence tells me from science, especially from before humans existed where such evidence is observable and repeatable.
This is why I can and do remain a literal 6-day creationist no matter the “science.” This is also why many “scientists” are terrified of creationism. It upends their naturalism. In their worldview, they are the masters of their fate and they are answerable to no one (for what happens in their bedroom and with their bank account). Creationism is a call to the accountability of creation, and a God who made the earth in six days is in my opinion much scarier than one that did it over millions or billions of years. The longer the time the less powerful and less accountable we would be.

[Greg Long]

Alex, I’m not the first person who said it, but…I don’t know how much clearer God could have been that He created in six literal, 24-hour days. As if “the evening and the morning” (clearly indicating a day’s timespan) as well as ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, etc.) in Genesis 1 weren’t enough, God explicitly tells us that the entire basis for the Sabbath rest on the seventh day (which is an actual literal, 24-hour day) is because God rested on the seventh day of the creation week.

One more time:

Ex 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

“In six days.” Not “in the day (which could be an indicator of a figurative time period) that the Lord made…” but “in six days.” Again, between Gen. 1 and Ex. 20, I really don’t know how else God could have said it in order for us to believe these were literal, 24-hour days.

It’s actually your figurative runway that is strew with figurative potholes that prevents you from even getting off the ground with the truth of creation in the first two chapters of the Bible that leads to figurative theological wreckage.

I don’t want to get in the middle of your runway and potholes with Alex but it’s puzzling to me how “evening and morning” in your words clearly indicate a day’s time span. Evening and morning seem to indicate the night when God was not active. According to Collins, “’and there was evening, and there was morning’ brackets the night and marks the end points of each workday of God.” Similarly Ex. 12:20 (per other comments) might place the emphasis on the pattern and not the duration. I’m not saying it couldn’t have been 6 literal 24 hour days but the language itself doesn’t demand it. To claim that it is clear ignores the work of conservative Hebrew scholars like Collins, Waltke, Archer, etc. They might be wrong but if it is that clear I wonder what they are missing.

The Days of Creation: A Semantic Approach

Argues the case for yôm in Gen. 1 referring to literal days through a semantic study of the word, and addresses several arguments against this position.

Conclusion:

The syntagmatic relationships of yôm in Genesis 1 have been considered and it has been demonstrated that, when used with a number, the pattern is always a normal time period. If ‘night’ is combined with yôm, it always denotes a 24-hour day. If yôm is used with either ‘morning’ or ‘evening’, they too refer to a literal day. When ‘morning’ and ‘evening’ are used together, with yôm, it always signifies a solar day. So the syntagmatic relationships that yôm has illustrate clearly that the meaning is to be; considered a normal time period, consisting of one axial rotation of the earth, called a ‘day’.

The various words that could have been substituted for yôm have been considered by the paradigmatics. There was the possibility that an ancient creation might have been communicated. There were three good ways of saying this in Hebrew. The possibility that the events of creation could still be continuing (that is, theistic evolution) was examined. If this was the intended meaning for Genesis 1, then any one of four choices could have been selected. There is the possibility that the time factor was meant to be ambiguous. If this was the focus of the passage, then the Hebrew language had three possible ways of communicating this point. The Hebrew language also had the potential to communicate that all the events on a ‘day’ were done instantly. The paradigmatic relationships of yôm are indeed significant.

The point of discussing the semantic approach should be rather obvious. God, through the ‘pen’ of Moses, is being redundant for redundancy’s sake. God is going out of His way to tell us that the ‘days’ of creation were literal solar days. He has used the word yôm, and combined this with a number and the words ‘morning’ and ‘evening’. God has communicated the words of Genesis 1 in a specific manner, so that the interpreter could not miss His point. God could not have communicated the timing of creation more clearly than He did in Genesis 1.

(I don’t post the above article to suggest that it is the be-all and end-all of this debate, only that it gives one of the exegetical arguments that provide the basis for my view on the issue.)

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Had the privilege of hearing Dr. Oats from Marantha Baptist University and Seminary preach. His text was a chunk of 1 Cor 15 where he showed how theology was more like “a bowl of spaghetti than a bunch or bread sticks” (his analogy) because you cannot simply tug on one thread in isolation. Each thread touches many other parts which, in turn touch many more parts. Using the mention of Adam, he specifically showed how removing historical Adam as depicted in Genesis 1-3, touches inspiration, anthropology, hamartiology and soteriology. Sadly, the Big Bang absolutely contradicts and undermines the Divine Creator, making Him either a liar or a fool.