For what it's worth, the General Assembly of the PCA ruled that "in the space of six days" in the Westminster Standards shouldn't be interpreted as necessarily affirming a literal 144-hours.

Thus officers in the PCA not only can reject six literal day creationism, they don't even have to declare an exception to the Westminster Standards in order to do so.

I actually personally know very few six literal day creationists in my PCA circles, though I am told they are out there.
garver | Homepage | 01.29.04 - 8:10 pm | #

A few interesting sites to view:

http://www.middletownbiblechurch...ces/ scienc4.htm
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.creationscience.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.oneplace.com/ministri...ers_in_genesis/
Ed Yong | 01.30.04 - 1:15 pm | #

I suggest James Jordan's book, Creation in Six Days, where he interacts with the various types of non-literal views on an exegetical level. It is unhelpful for either side to simply generalize about "literal" interpretation.
Tim G. | Homepage | 01.30.04 - 1:25 pm | #

My Bible reads six days. If I can't trust the validity of the opening chapters, what right do I have to trust any of it?

If we change our interpretation to avoid confusing people who want to believe in a big bang, we've already lost.
Doug | Homepage | 01.30.04 - 1:51 pm | #

Hey, Doc. Just to clarify, you do not question Creation as in you are not an evolutionist.

Sometimes, it seems like the postings are "baited" where you take up in the name of science and if anyone disagrees with you they are considered "ignorant." As your former student, I respect and admire you, but sometimes you come across harsh with comments like that - agree with me or you are ignorant.

There are a lot of science and other scientists that also point to a young earth.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that science supports Creation versus evolution. So, back to the debate on old earth versus young earth. Science also supports the young earth approach.

Brings us back to Doug's post - what does the God say through the Bible? Six days with day 7 as rest.

In the end, does the debate matter on old earth, young earth as to the Saving Grace of Jesus?
Ed Yong | 01.30.04 - 2:15 pm | #

Ed,

I do not mean to come across as "agree with me about an old earth or you are ignorant." I do mean to come across as "dogmatically elevate six day creationism to a test of orthodoxy and then you are ignorant", because it was NOT a test of orthodoxy in the early church.

And in the end, as you say, nothing matters save Christ and Him crucified. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep digging into His Word and Creation.

Doug: old-earth Christians are NOT challenging the validity of Genesis, just the interpretation. We affirm a historic Adam, Eve, and garden of Eden. We affirm that God created the universe by divine fiat.

Doug and Ed: six days are six days--are weeks in Daniel 9 literal 168 hour weeks?
David Heddle | Homepage | 01.30.04 - 2:30 pm | #

OK, Doc. We should continue to dig into God's Word. We just have to be careful not to let studying the Word of God be a division among Christians. Many good Christians end up arguing over things that just aren't worth arguing over in the grand scheme of things.

I don't have the references off the top of my head, but even in the realm of science, there are too many inconsistencies on the model of the solar system (old earth). The models that scientists use on the formation of planets just don't work.

Look at the fossil record. How many animals die and are let alone to get buried whole? Many of the fossils depict a rapid violent death and burial. Then you have frozen mammoth in Siberia with flowers still in their mouths. The mammoth remains depict a rapid change in temperature instead of time to rot. To me, that type of rapid change points to the Flood event.

I know, we can go back and forth on this for a long time. So, at this time, I must agree that we disagree.
Ed Yong | 01.30.04 - 4:07 pm | #

I agree with Doug that I find it alarming that the very first words we read in the Bible are not meant to be read literally, especially when just about everything else in Genesis is interpreted literally. Hermeneutically I find a position of old-earth creationism to be difficult to reconcile. I recommend (don't flame me, please) John MacArthur's "Battle for the Beginning" on this topic. Even if you do not agree with his conclusions, he can help point out some of the dangers a non-literal view can pose.

To your point, though, I agree that belief in a literal 6-day creation is not necessarily a valid test of orthodoxy.
Tim | Homepage | 01.30.04 - 11:10 pm | #

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi- ...ssage=genesis+1

Here's a link to Genesis chapter 1. You'll notice that after each day's work, there was evening, and there was morning. I don't believe the "day of the Lord" has any such wording after it.

I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men and the Divine and final authority for Christian faith and life.

There is nothing omitted that should have been there and nothing there that should not have been. If the divine word of God says there was an evening and a morning between each day, that is enough for me. Faith will do the rest if I am unsure about the science of it all.

We all must make a choice in our walks. Is our Bible accurate or is it faulty? If it is not accurate, there is no point in going on in our lives. If it is faulty, there is no God that is in control.

Like Tim, I'm not trying to start a flame war, but this debate goes much deeper than the age of this rock we call home.
Doug | Homepage | 02.01.04 - 3:54 pm | #

Doug, nobody here is denying the inerrancy of scripture. We all believe scripture is inspired and without error. Agreeing on that still leaves the question of interpretation. Some of us, to take a favorite example, believe the "he" in Dan. 9:27 refers to Christ while others think it refers to the antichrist. All well intentioned bible believer--reaching diametrically opposing conclusions.

This debate has nothing whatsoever to do with innerancy. Augustine, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Francis Schaeffer and many others strongly affirmed the innerancy of scripture, but did not infer that Genesis demands six literal 24 hour days. Don't confuse inerrancy with a choice of a literal hermeunetic-- a fairly modern approach. Many of the prophecies of Christ's first coming were NOT fulfilled literally. Indeed, it can be argued that the Jews took too much of a literalistic viewpoint and this contributed to their failure to recognize the Messiah.
David Heddle | Homepage | 02.01.04 - 5:34 pm | #

All parties agree on the exegesis. It's literally talking about days, just as 'seed' in the parable of the sower is literally talking about seeds. Hermeneutics then lets us see what those literal seeds in the story mean -- the gospel. In the story, though, they're being used literally, but it's not really talking about seed but what the seed in the story signifies.

Within the first creation account, 'days' literally refers to days. The question is what that account is doing. Is it being used to illustrate spiritual principles and theological claims distinguishing God's creation from pagan creation stories, or is it a chronological, scientific account about 24-hour periods in history? Old-earthers say the former. Young-earthers the latter. The exegesis is the same, but what it means in terms of what it's really saying is different.
Jeremy Pierce | Homepage | 02.01.04 - 7:57 pm | #

Even a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 doesn't satisfy the literal mind. How can there be light and dark when there is no sun, stars or moon? This is rhetorical, so I'm not expecting an expanation. What is appropriate, in my opinion, is to look at that disparity and recognize that there is a deeper truth to be discovered. This is the beauty of Scripture.
J.C. | 02.02.04 - 12:18 pm | #

I have only read one full book by Schaeffer, so I am admittedly ignorant of many of his views. In light of that, could you let me know where to read Schaeffer's view on creation? Obviously, Schaeffer was an incredible thinker, and I would like to read his view on this. Thanks!

Keith Webb
Keith Webb | 02.03.04 - 1:13 am | #

Keith,

see this post which contains the reference.
David Heddle | Homepage | 02.03.04 - 5:18 am | #

Was Adam created as a newborn infant? Your answer to that question could strongly impact whether or not you believe God could create a new rock with some apparent traits of "age". A God that can speak creation into existence, could he not speak creation into existence "fully developed". Could there not already be diamonds and other gems in this creation, that apparently take millions of years to form?
Scott | 04.23.07 - 12:07 am | #