[Kathy.Ca]

This is something that is extremely important in an age where even 'Christians' misunderstand the clear teaching of the Bible. Why? Because in these end days, we should stand tall on the Rock without hesitation, and allowing the Word of God to teach ourselves as well as leading the lost to Christ. How can someone truly accept Christ if they cannot understand (or believe) the first Chapter of His Word? Does it require a degree in science to accurately understand Genesis? It's truly sad that some 'Christians' have allowed their sinful natures to corrupt their understanding of this highly important Book of the Bible. Ok, I know everyone is going to try to debate me on this, but this is what I believe. I have also done a considerable amount of time writing this article and composing my thoughts prayerfully to write this, so please show some respect and don't think I'm some sort of science rejecting, uneducated nitwit. I have a college background (were I did rather well, and did take several science courses), and am currently studying for seminary. Ok, onto the reasons I believe that Genesis should be taken as it is presented.

As I have stated before, I personally believe that it is important for a Christian to believe in a literal 7 days for creation for a couple of reasons. First, it sets the tone for how scripture should be intrepreted: in the context it is presented. If the hebrew word 'yom' is intrepreted as 'ages', instead of the literal 'days' that it is clearly presented in Genesis, this leads to a slow dissolution of the Bible in general. If the founding book in the Bible cannot be intrepreted in it's clear context, how can the rest of the Bible be understood?

'The entrance of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple.' (Psalm 119:130 NKJV)

When reading the Bible, it becomes clear that God has chosen to reveal His truth to us through His word, the Bible. Now a fundamental requirement of understanding the Bible is a grasp of (at least) a spoken language, and (hopefully) a written language. Without these, there cannot be communication. Language consists of words used in a specific context that relates to the reality around us. With these, God can reveal things to man, and man can communicate with God as these words have a meaning and an understandable message.

Taking Genesis 1 at face value, without doubt it says that God created everything in all creation in six literal (24-hour) days. If you were going to be brutally honest, there is no way that you would have gotten millions of years out of these passages. In every single instance that someone has not intrepreted literal 24-hour days in these passages, it is because they have not allowed the words of scripture to speak to them in context, as language requires for communication. They have been influenced by ideas outside of scripture. In doing so, they have set a precendent that could allow for any word to be reintrepreted by the preconcieved ideas of the person reading the words. Untimately, this leads to a communication breakdown, as the same words in the same context can mean totally different things to different people. Here is a quote from bible scholar who do not accept the literal 6 days creation account:

' From a superficial reading fo Genesis 1, the impression would seem to be that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four-hour days...This seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet Earth was created several billion years ago.' - G.L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody Press 1994

It's almost as if Mr.Archer views nature as the 66th book in the Bible, with more credibility than all of the others. However, when we take a look at what other theologians from the past have to say on the very same subject, we have an entirely different attitude:

'We are invited, bretheren, most earnestly to go away from the old fashoned belief of our forefathers because of the supposed discoveries of science. What is science? The method by which man tries to conceal his ignorance. It should not be so, but so it is. You are not to be dogmatic my bretheren, it is wicked; but for scientific men, it is the correct thing. you are never to assert anything very strongly; but scientists may boldly assert what they cannot prove, and may demand a faith far more credulous than any we possess. Forsooth, you and I are to take our Bibles and shape and mold our belief according to the ever-shifting teachings of so-called scientific men. What folly is this! Why, the march of science, falsely so called, through the world may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppossitions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles.' -The Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Unfortunately, 'Christians' who use historical science (propounded by and large by people who ignore God's written word) to intrepret the Bible, to teach us the things of God, have issues back and front. They forget that we are fallen, fallible creatures, and that we need God's written word illuminated by God's Holy Spirit to properly understand natural history. The respected, systematic theologian Berkhof said:

'Since the entrance of sin into the world, man can gather true knowledge about God from His general revelation only if he studies it in the light of Scripture, in which the elements of God's original self-revelation, corrected, and intrepreted. ... Some are inclined to speak of God's general revelation as a second source; but this is hardly correct in view of the fact that nature an come into consideration here only as intrepreted in the light of scripture.'

To accurately understand the meaning of 'day' in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for 'day', yom, is used in the context of scripture. Consider the following:

1. A classical, well-respected Hebrew lexicon has seven headings for the meaning of 'yom', but defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading 'day as defined by evening and morning'.

2. The phrase 'evening and morning' are used for each day in the six days of creation.

3. Outside Genesis 1, 'yom' is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordianry day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?

4. Outside Genesis 1, 'yom' is used with the word 'evening' or 'morning' 23 times. 'Evening' and 'Morning' appear in association, but without 'yom', 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Again, whoy would Genesis 1 be the exception?

5. The plural of 'yom', which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, ex 'in those days'.

[Kathy.Ca]

6. Dr James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University), who himself does not believe that Genesis is true history, nonetheless admitted as far as the language of Genesis 1 is concerned that '...so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at and world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience, (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story, (c) Noah's flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.'

Likewise, 19th century liberal professor Marcus Dods, New College, Edinburgh, said '... if, for example, the word 'day' in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless...'

If we are prepared to let the words of the language speak to us in accord with the context and normal definitions, without being influenced by outside ideas, then the word for 'day' in Genesis 1, which is qualified by a number, the phrase 'evening and morning' and for day one the words 'light and darkness' - boviously means an ordinary day (about 24 hours).

Martin Luther wrote about this because some church fathers were saying that God created everything in one day, or all in one instant:

' When Moses writes that God created Heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise and comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.'

Why did God take so long? How come not in one instant, or in one day? The answer is in Exodus 20:22, 'For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it. In fact, the seven day week has no basis outside of Scripture. God commands His people to work for six days and rest for one- one reason He deliberately took so long (6 days) to create everything, to set an example for man to follow. What kind of week is it that is millions of years long (it makes no sence!!)? Many people say that this is only an anology, however Bible scholars have shown that this commandment 'does not use anology or archetypal thinking but that it's emphasis is 'states in terms of the imitation of God or a divine precedent that is to be followed.' (G.F. Hasel 'The Days of Creation in Genesis 1: Literal 'Days' or Figurative 'Periods/Epochs of Time. Origins, 1994)'.

Two Objections to Literal 'Days' (There are more, but for the sake of time we will only go into two of them here)

1. 'Science' has shown that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old, therefore the 'days' of creation must be long periods of time.

Objection: The age of the earth is being determined by man's fallible methods, is based on unproven assumptions (were you there?). --> This unproved age is being used to force an intrepretation on the language of the Bible. Thus, man's fallible theories are allowed to intrepret the Bible. This ultimately undermines the use of language to communicate. Also, as soon as one allows millions of years for the fossil record, one has accepted death, bloodshed, disease, thorns, and suffering before Adam's sin.

The Bible is clear that death, bloodshed, disease, thorns, and suffering are a consequence of sin. (John Gill, 'A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, 1760. This is not a new idea.)

After Adam disobeyed God, the Lord clothed Adam and Eve with 'coats of skins' (Gen 3:21) What happened in the garden was a picture of what would happen with Jesus Christ, who shed His blood on the cross as 'the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world' (John 1:29). If the garden were sitting on a fossil record millions of years old, then there was shedding of blood before sin. This would destroy the foundation of the atonement. Romans 9:22 tells us the whole of creations 'groans' because of the effects of the fall of Adam, and will be liberated from ' the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God'. Plus, there are thorns in the fossil record, they had to be formed after Adam and Eve sinned. Because death was the penalty of sin, Jesus suffered a physical death, shedding His blood, to release Adam's descendants from the consequences of sin. The Apostle Paul talks about this in depth in Romans 5, Romans 1, and Corinthians 15.

Objection 2

According to Genesis 1, the sun was not created until day four. How could there be day and night (literal 24 hour days) without the sun for the first 3 days?

The sun is not needed for day and night! What IS needed is light and a rotating earth. One the first day, God made light. The phrase 'morning and evening' implies a rotating earth. If we have light from one direction, and a spinning earth, there can be day and night. Perhaps it was done this way to not provide it with the priority in creation man has tended to give it. Throughout the ages, mankind has worshipped the sun, from the ancient Egyptians to the Aztecs. God warned the Israelites not to worship the sun like pagan cultures around it did in Duteronomy 4:19, but rather to worship the God who made the sun. Evolutionary theory postulates that the sun must of come first, and that the sun's energy on the planet eventually gave rise to life. Like the pagan beliefs before it, the sun is given credit, in a sence, for the wonder of life.

[Kathy.Ca]

A few other problems with long 'days'

1. If the plants made on day three were seperated by millions of years from the birds and nectar bats (created on day five), and insects (day six) necessary for their pollination, then such plants could not have survived. This problem is especially acute for species with complex symbiotic relationships with each other.

2. Adam was created on day six, lived through day seven, and then died when he was 930 years old (Gen 5:5). If each day were a thousand years, or millions of years, this would make no sence.

3. Some people want the days of creation to be long periods of time in an attempt to harmonize evolution or billions of years with the Bible's account of origins. However, the order of events according to long age beliefs does not agree with that of Genesis. Consider the following:

Bible:

Earth before the sun
Earth covered by water initially
Oceans first, then dry land
Life first created on dry land
Plants created before the sun
Land animals created after birds
Whales before land animals

Evolutionary/Long Age speculation:

Stars and sun before the Earth
Earth a molten blob initally
Dry land, then the oceans
Life started in the oceans
Plants came long after the sun
Land animals came before the birds
Land animals before the whales

Clearly, those who do not accept the literal six days are the ones reading into the passage their own preconcieved ideas.

Ok, in conclusion, why does it matter?

1. It is a matter of how one approaches the Bible, in principal. If we do not allow the language to speak to us in context, but try to make the text fit ideas outside of scripture, then ultimately the meaning of any word in the Bible depends on man's intrepretation, which can change according to whatever ideas are in vogue.

2. If we allow 'science' (which has wrongly become synonymous with evolution and materialism) to determine our understanding of scripture, then this can lead to a real slippery slope of unbelief through the rest of scripture. For instance 'science' would proclaim that a person cannot be raised from the dead. Does this mean that we should 'intrepret' the resurrection of Jesus Christ to reflect this? Sadly, this does happen, and claim that Jesus' teachings live on in His believers. Don't fool yourself.

People need to realize that the Word if God is something very special. It is not just the words of men. Like Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 'You recieved it not as the word of men, but as it is, truly the word of God.' Proverbs 30:5-6 says 'Every word of God is pure...do not add to His words, lest He reprove you, and you be found a liar.' We need to 'tremble at His word' (Isaiah 66:5) and not forget that: 'All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, throughly equipped for every good work.' (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

I hope this helps everyone. It really did when I read it. I hope that everyone that reads this reads it in its entirety, and prayerfully considers it. I took much of the material from the Book 'Revised and Expanded Answers Book, 1990' by Ken Ham, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, and edited by Dr. Don Batten Ph.D

http://answersingenesis.org/
:)

[MamaWolf]

This is fascinating. I've always believed in a literal 6 days, and this helps me back up my beliefs when I talk to those who believe differently. Thanks for posting this!

[Pepper]

Thanks for posting this Kathy! I've printed it out so I can study it in depth.

Pepper

[Anita]

It might be a good idea to replace the word "Christian" with "Born-again Christian" or "Christians who believe in Rapture", because ALL Christians don't believe in the writings of John Darby or Edward Irving. I'm just thinking that as more diverse groups enter this forum, it might make it easier for Christians who don't think THESE are END TIMES to contribute to threads that more closely represent their beliefs if the word Christian didn't just apply to RR Christians.

Discerning readers might want to check this link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rapture.htm) to understand what I'm talking about.

[DarkRose]

Thanks, Anita, looks like an interesting like to check out.

[Anita]

Just as William Miller's writings of 1843 led to "The Great Disappointment", Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins [co-authors of Left Behind are promoting a resurgence in Darby's interpretations of scripture. Since many of Null's first forum members tended to frequent TB2k and Rapture Ready forums, it makes sense that many of the first Christians to this forum believe in Rapture, as well as its imminency. With forum growth, I expect to see Christian posters who aren't familiar with this particular sect of Christianity. With that thought in mind, I made the suggestion that Kathy be a bit more specific with terms.

Here's more information on Left Behind:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 24, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Apocalypse (Almost) Now
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

If America's secular liberals think they have it rough now, just wait till the Second Coming.

The "Left Behind" series, the best-selling novels for adults in the U.S., enthusiastically depict Jesus returning to slaughter everyone who is not a born-again Christian. The world's Hindus, Muslims, Jews and agnostics, along with many Catholics and Unitarians, are heaved into everlasting fire: "Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and . . . they tumbled in, howling and screeching."

Gosh, what an uplifting scene!

If Saudi Arabians wrote an Islamic version of this series, we would furiously demand that sensible Muslims repudiate such hatemongering. We should hold ourselves to the same standard.

Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, the co-authors of the series, have both e-mailed me (after I wrote about the "Left Behind" series in July) to protest that their books do not "celebrate" the slaughter of non-Christians but simply present the painful reality of Scripture.

"We can't read it some other way just because it sounds exclusivistic and not currently politically correct," Mr. Jenkins said in an e-mail. "That's our crucible, an offensive and divisive message in an age of plurality and tolerance."

Silly me. I'd forgotten the passage in the Bible about how Jesus intends to roast everyone from the good Samaritan to Gandhi in everlasting fire, simply because they weren't born-again Christians.

I accept that Mr. Jenkins and Mr. LaHaye are sincere. (They base their conclusions on John 3.) But I've sat down in Pakistani and Iraqi mosques with Muslim fundamentalists, and they offered the same defense: they're just applying God's word.

Now, I've often written that blue staters should be less snooty toward fundamentalist Christians, and I realize that this column will seem pretty snooty. But if I praise the good work of evangelicals - like their superb relief efforts in Darfur - I'll also condemn what I perceive as bigotry. A dialogue about faith must move past taboos and discuss differences bluntly. That's what blue staters and red staters need to do about religion and the "Left Behind" books.

For starters, it's worth pointing out that those predicting an apocalypse have a long and lousy record. In America, tens of thousands of followers of William Miller waited eagerly for Jesus to reappear on Oct. 22, 1844. Some of these Millerites had given away all their belongings, and the no-show was called the Great Disappointment.

In more recent times, the best-selling nonfiction book of the 1970's was Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth," selling 18 million copies worldwide with its predictions of a Second Coming. Then, one of the hottest best sellers in 1988 was a booklet called "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988." Oops.

Being wrong has rarely been so lucrative.

Now we have the hugely profitable "Left Behind" financial empire, whose Web site flatly says that the authors "think this generation will witness the end of history." The site sells every "Left Behind" spinoff imaginable, including screen savers, regular prophecies sent to your mobile phone, children's versions of the books, audiobooks, graphic novels, videos, calendars, music and a $6.50-a-month prophesy club. This isn't religion, this is brand management.

If Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins honestly believe that the end of the world may be imminent, why not waive royalties? Why don't they use the millions of dollars in profits to help the poor - and increase their own chances of getting into heaven?

Mr. Jenkins told me that he gives 20 to 40 percent of his income to charity, and that's commendable. But there are millions more where that came from. Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins might spend less time puzzling over obscure passages in the Book of Revelation and more time with the straightforward language of Matthew 6:19, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth." Or Matthew 19:21, where Jesus advises a rich man: "Sell your possessions and give the money to the poor. . . . It will be hard for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

So I challenge the authors to a bet: if the events of the Apocalypse arrive in the next 10 years, then I'll donate $500 to the battle against the Antichrist; if it doesn't, you donate $500 to a charity of my choosing that fights poverty - and bigotry.

Gentlemen, do we have a deal?

---
Kristof provides a forum and responds to Email criticisms of his opinion articles. I didn't see either for this particular article, perhaps because of the Holiday. Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/24/opinion/24kristof.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fNicholas%20D%20Kristof)



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top

[SmartAZ]

Taking Genesis 1 at face value, without doubt it says that God created everything in all creation in six literal (24-hour) days.
It says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." You have to read several more verses before you get to 24-hour days, and you have to read all the way to the 21st verse before anything more is created.

The hardest part of studying the bible is reading what it says instead of what you THINK it says. The second hardest part is admitting that you don't know what some of it means. It is a disgrace to pretend you know something when you don't.

Here's something you can do: When you run across anything you don't understand, stop and write your question on a paper. Stick that paper on the wall, up near the ceiling where it won't get knocked off. You don't need to get the papers down because you know what each one says. From time to time, God will send you an answer for one of those questions, and then you can take it down and retire it, perhaps with an appropriate ceremony. Until then you can simply let them hang there, unanswered. The big advantage here is that if there is any discussion that touches on one of those topics you can say, "That is one of my unanswered questions to God and I will get back to you when He sends me an answer." That way you don't have to say, "I don't know," and you are spared from having to make up baloney.

[et95648]

Hi,
Cathy, thank you for your comments on why we should believe the Bible. I agree with you that God said it and that should be good enough for us Christians.
The problem is one that the Apostle Paul addressed. I Corinthians 2: 11-16 " For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Sprit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."

[SmartAZ]

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Did you get that? "In the beginning". That is very specific. Six days, or a thousand years, or whatever, is no longer "in the beginning". Then, sometime later, the earth was without form and void. We know it was sometime later because the word 'void' is translated 'vain' in Isaiah 45:18, where God says He did not create it that way.

The earth was in darkness for some period of time. We don't know how long. Some people dismiss this as "the gap theory". Well, it is not a theory, it is a simple matter of being honest enough to admit we don't know about this part. It is not a dishonor to admit you don't know something; it is a disgrace to pretend you know something when you don't. And if the bible doesn't tell you, you don't know. The bible doesn't tell us how long this period of darkness was, but we do know there was one. Sloppy students say that God created the sun on this or that day. The bible says He created it "in the beginning". So the earth was somehow dark in spite of the sun shining on it. Maybe because of the "waters above".)

Sloppy students refer to "creating grass" and "creating birds" and "creating insects", but they weren't created; God simply spoke them into existence. Verse 11 says, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." God didn't have to create grass and herbs, he only had to command the earth to produce such things.

Man is a more confusing topic because sloppy students assume that 'formed', 'made', and 'created' mean the same thing. They don't 'Formed' means 'pushed into shape'. The man's body was formed from the dust. 'Create' means to bring into existence something that did not previously exist. Verse 21 tells us that "God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth". I don't read Aramaic, but people who do tell me that the original is a little clearer, specifying "soul for whales and living breathing things." So God didn't have to create a soul for man because he already created soul in verse 21. He only had to make another one. Then, after all that, God creates man in His image. God's image is spirit (John 4:24). He has no appearance or form or comeliness (or homeliness either). That is why the bible says "I formed thee, I made thee, I created thee." If those words all meant the same thing, God would have said, "I created thee, I created thee, I created thee."

God does not use words as sloppily as people do. He uses our words, but he purifies them (Psalm 12). If you want to understand the bible, you need to respect God's use of words. Fortunately, He defines them for us, right there in the bible where they are used. What does 'beginning' mean? It's the first word in the bible: that's a pretty good demonstration of what God means by it! What is a day? It is first used, and defined, in Gen 1:5.

Don't be a sloppy student. Read what the bible says without injecting what you think it ought to say, or what other sloppy students have told you it says. (And a lot of those sloppy students have high sounding titles before and after their names!)