Was the World Created in 6 Days...?

[Rev7]

You do know that some Christians actually believe the World was created in 6 days, right? There are actually some here that believe that. You wouldn't want to be put in that group just as my friend would hate to be confused with a group who believes "Jesus and Satan are brothers.

 

According to the Bible:

 

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

 

So which is correct: Was the World created in 6 or 7 days?

[jrrtoken]

Where's the "Neither/20 million years" option?

[EnderWiggin]

There are two ways to go about this, either we:

 

1. Discuss the overwhelming evidence that proves evolution is true, thus invalidating the claim that the earth was created in an extremely short timespan

 

or

 

2. Discuss the overwhelming evidence that proves the bible is not a text that can be taken word for word literally as truth, which should allow the ideas of faith and evolution to cohere and form one belief for you (as it has for me).

 

 

 

Since option 2 is how I feel right now, try investigating the original hebrew text. The word in hebrew is not 'day' but 'yowm' which could be translated into 'day' 'era' 'age' or 'time'. Thus, it took God 6 "eras" or 6 "ages" to create the earth and on the 7th, he rested.

 

This site, while obviously biased, discusses this point: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html

Another, which is obviously a faith-based site, reiterating the possible usage as "time period": http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03117&version=kjv

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

So which is correct: Was the World created in 6 or 7 days?

Clearly the text shows that it was created in 6 "days".

 

Whether or not that is a claim that has any supporting evidence is another matter entirely. There are multiple branches of science which have accumulated an overwhelming amount of corroborating evidence which would tend to lead right-thinking people to a different conclusion.

[Rev7]

2. Discuss the overwhelming evidence that proves the bible is not a text that can be taken word for word literally as truth, which should allow the ideas of faith and evolution to cohere and form one belief for you (as it has for me).

 

 

 

Since option 2 is how I feel right now, try investigating the original hebrew text. The word in hebrew is not 'day' but 'yowm' which could be translated into 'day' 'era' 'age' or 'time'. Thus, it took God 6 "eras" or 6 "ages" to create the earth and on the 7th, he rested.

 

This site, while obviously biased, discusses this point: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html

Another, which is obviously a faith-based site, reiterating the possible usage as "time period": http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03117&version=kjv

 

_EW_

Okay, makes sense....we have the word 'yowm'...now where is the overwhelming evidence...

There are multiple branches of science which have accumulated an overwhelming amount of corroborating evidence which would tend to lead right-thinking people to a different conclusion.

Was that really necessary?

[Achilles]

Was that really necessary?

Was it really necessary to point out that anyone who takes the time to learn what the science shows will know that the world wasn't created in 6 "days"? Yes, considering the alarming number of people that believe so, I would state that it does indeed appear to be necessary.

 

(9:30)

[M@RS]

There are two ways to go about this, either we:

 

1. Discuss the overwhelming evidence that proves evolution is true, thus invalidating the claim that the earth was created in an extremely short timespan

 

or

 

2. Discuss the overwhelming evidence that proves the bible is not a text that can be taken word for word literally as truth, which should allow the ideas of faith and evolution to cohere and form one belief for you (as it has for me).

 

 

 

Since option 2 is how I feel right now, try investigating the original hebrew text. The word in hebrew is not 'day' but 'yowm' which could be translated into 'day' 'era' 'age' or 'time'. Thus, it took God 6 "eras" or 6 "ages" to create the earth and on the 7th, he rested.

 

This site, while obviously biased, discusses this point: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html

Another, which is obviously a faith-based site, reiterating the possible usage as "time period": http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03117&version=kjv

 

_EW_

 

Problem with your Era theory.

 

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind.

 

Then. From verse 11 (God creates plants) to verse 20 (God creates animals and insects).

 

20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22

 

The plants had to go without pollination for an era(s)? If that was true they would've died (that's basic science). So, it had to be in one day.

 

I don't understand how you can claim to be a christian, and then claim you don't believe the Bible (or at least say so by saying you believe in evolution). Does it not say to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength? And, to love God is to love (and obey) his teaching (or his word).

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

death to those who do not believe the king james bible, the true word of god

[Ray Jones]

The plants had to go without pollination for an era(s)? If that was true they would've died (that's basic science). So, it had to be in one day.

Oh, so trees and all that stuff grow in one day --clearly a basic science fact.

 

I don't understand how you can claim to be a christian, and then claim you don't believe the Bible (or at least say so by saying you believe in evolution). Does it not say to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength? And, to love God is to love (and obey) his teaching (or his word).

As I understand it, being Christian and believing in the bible are not synonymous claims.

[EnderWiggin]

The plants had to go without pollination for an era(s)? If that was true they would've died (that's basic science). So, it had to be in one day.

 

Actually no. Not at all. Not even close. Plants don't require animals to pollinate, they're actually quite fine on their own. Many actually can self pollinate if the need arises (ie if there are no animals around).

 

Angiosperm reproduction is also quite different from the reproduction of gymnosperms, don't forget. (ie double fertilization to form the cotyledons in the seed coat).

 

Your rudimentary knowledge of "science" is not enough to indicate anything. By the way, some plants have evolved to have adaptations to allow plants to have more variation. These adaptations include tricking animals into helping pollinate, instead of using the wind and proximity to do it.

 

I don't understand how you can claim to be a christian, and then claim you don't believe the Bible (or at least say so by saying you believe in evolution). Does it not say to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength? And, to love God is to love (and obey) his teaching (or his word).

Because unlike fundamentalists, I think critically about what I believe. I can love God with all my heart without disagreeing with Evolution.

 

(By the way to love God is not "to love (and obey) his teaching (or his word)". To love God is to Love God.)

 

The Bible is a book, (even you can agree) that was written by humans. Humans have biases and predjudices, have points of view and make mistakes. So the original writers could have made an error. And then, the people who translated it from Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek (respectively) to Latin and then English could have also done the same.

 

I believe in what the bible is saying, but more an overall sense. "Adam and Eve" weren't writing down the story of creation in the nude so who wrote it? And who's to say that they wrote it perfectly?

 

Riddle me this:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

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

 

2And 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.

 

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

 

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

 

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

 

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

 

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

 

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

 

11And 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.

 

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

 

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

 

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

 

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

 

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

 

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

 

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

 

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

 

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

 

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

 

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

and

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

 

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

 

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

 

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

 

9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

 

11The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

 

12And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

 

13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

 

14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

 

15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

 

16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

 

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

 

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

 

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

 

21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

 

22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

 

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

 

25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

 

The real question is, why do these two stories (Gen 1 and Gen 2) differ? More, how is it possible for them to differ?

 

_EW_

[mimartin]

The plants had to go without pollination for an era(s)? If that was true they would've died (that's basic science). So, it had to be in one day.

Are you saying God couldn't pollinate the plants without animals? Your argument seems to question God’s power.

[Q]

So which is correct: Was the World created in 6 or 7 days?

I think that the correct answer would be that it doesn't matter how long He took.

Was that really necessary?

This is the Senate, Rev, where anti-theistic propaganda is the rule.

[Achilles]

This is the Senate, Rev, where anti-theistic propaganda is the rule.

Yet, you're still allowed to post here. Don't you think that poses a logical problem for your rhetoric?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Was that really necessary?

I honestly don't see the problem. You asked a question and received an answer, and Achilles added his opinion. Religious thoughts, no matter how much they mean to you, are not above correction if they interfere with the knowledge we have of the world we live in.

[Totenkopf]

Actually, his opinion wasn't necessary, nor was it topical. It was merely an opportunistic slap at theists. Whether you think the world evolved or was created by someone/thing, the OP made it clear he was talking about a passage. Whether you think said material is "full of it" is immaterial. However, it might have helped some people here if he'd added "according to the Bible" (though it was clearly implicit in his post).

 

Actually, the English text you provided could be interpretted two ways. He finished his work on the 7th day and rested or he finished it by the end of day 6 and rested all of the 7th. However, noone was around to see any of this and mimartin's point is quite valid. If God created the universe, then surely He could pollinate the plants w/o the help of insect or animal.

[EnderWiggin]

Actually, his opinion wasn't necessary, nor was it topical. It was merely an opportunistic slap at theists. Whether you think the world evolved or was created by someone/thing, the OP made it clear he was talking about a passage. Whether you think said material is "full of it" is immaterial. However, it might have helped some people here if he'd added "according to the Bible" (though it was clearly implicit in his post).

 

Actually, the English text you provided could be interpretted two ways. He finished his work on the 7th day and rested or he finished it by the end of day 6 and rested all of the 7th. However, noone was around to see any of this and mimartin's point is quite valid. If God created the universe, then surely He could pollinate the plants w/o the help of insect or animal.

 

....really?

 

Your continuous lack of comprehension when it comes to these debates is starting to become a bit suspicious. If you read the OP (including where I was quoted) you'd see that this thread was spawned from a mini-debate Rev7 and I were having because I touted evolution over the 6-day theory. His bible verse is a representation of his point of view. He's presented a claim and hopes to have us prove it false (to the extent we can).

 

So the material being "full of it" is in fact not so irrelevant. In fact, it is inherent to this debate, one that you seem woefully confused with. And if he had added "according to the bible" it would have made this thread absolutely pointless, something I thought was implicit as well. Guess we were both wrong

 

@topic - here's a nice little youtube clip that helps with this:

 

_EW_

 

http://www.lucasforums.com/converse.php?u=152722&u2=110940

[Totenkopf]

....really?

Your continuous lack of comprehension when it comes to these debates is starting to become a bit suspicious. If you read the OP (including where I was quoted) you'd see that this thread was spawned from a mini-debate Rev7 and I were having because I touted evolution over the 6-day theory. His bible verse is a representation of his point of view. He's presented a claim and hopes to have us prove it false (to the extent we can).

 

Seriously, dude, can the snarkiness. It's obvious from the context of the quotes that Rev7 provided that he's talking about a question of 6 vs 7 DAYS (days/eons/eras whatever you want to call it). It wasn't a question of religion vs science as achilles derided it with his aside. He didn't ask if it was correct that it was 6 days vs 4-6 billion years. Your whole argument about miscomprehension is, as usual, misplaced. Leading me to question your motives as well. Even you referenced quote shows that the debate revolves around the # of "days" and not whether God or evolution/big bang created the earth. My observation about achilles' comment was spot on, your apparent inability to comprehend that notwithstanding. Frankly, when you read the question in the OP, it's pretty explicit that he wants top know whether the answer is 6 or 7 (not whether "skydaddy" had a hand in it at all).

[EnderWiggin]

No problem, it would be easier to discuss in a thread. I am open minded to this. I do believe that evolution has occured--that can be proven. I know that micro-evolution has occured; however, I do not think that macro-evolution has occured.

 

At any rate, I am interested in what you have to say, so I will most likely start a thread. You mentioned to start one in the Senate....?

 

Does that sound like 6 v 7 days to you? Talk of evolution?

 

I guess it's not so obvious what he meant, since you're still having trouble with it.

 

_EW_

[SkinWalker]

Was that really necessary?

 

Actually, his opinion wasn't necessary, nor was it topical. It was merely an opportunistic slap at theists.

 

I disagree. I think it was an opportunistic slap at poor critical thought.

 

And I think it *is* necessary to point out that an a priori acceptance of religious superstition over empiricism and scientific observation is just plain silly. If someone wants to publicly post his/her superstitions in a debate forum, he/she should be prepared to defend those superstitions rationally and have the silliness objectified.

 

That the statement is a "slap at theists" is wrong. Completely and utterly. There are plenty of theists who are also "right thinking" when it comes to science and reality. There is simply no good reason to accept believe the planet was "created" according to the biblical myth or according to any other ancient myth.

[Kurgan]

Genesis 1-11 (roughly) is mythical, not historical. That idea that one must hold to what is essentially Young Earth Creationism as literal scientific fact in order to be a "true Christian" (or true Jew) is simply incorrect, and at least a billion will disagree with you if you say it does.

 

And before somebody says "well that's just a modernist cop-out" I'll have you know that allegorical interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures (including Genesis) is at least 2,000 years old.

 

Of course there is a difference between claiming the creation was a short process vs. it was a recent AND short process, but either one presents insurmountable problems with the mountain of scientific evidence.

 

 

But there's always the real cop-out that God miraculously created the universe in a week, and made it only appear as if it were billions of years old (which I don't hold to either, in case you were wondering)! This may be well within God's power, but it also begs the question...

[Totenkopf]

I disagree. I think it was an opportunistic slap at poor critical thought.

 

And I think it *is* necessary to point out that an a priori acceptance of religious superstition over empiricism and scientific observation is just plain silly. If someone wants to publicly post his/her superstitions in a debate forum, he/she should be prepared to defend those superstitions rationally and have the silliness objectified.

 

That the statement is a "slap at theists" is wrong. Completely and utterly. There are plenty of theists who are also "right thinking" when it comes to science and reality. There is simply no good reason to accept believe the planet was "created" according to the biblical myth or according to any other ancient myth.

 

If his question had been 6 days vs 4-6 billion years, I'd agree with you. While I think you make some valid points otherwise, I'd say you're wrong about the nature of the potshot.

[Sabretooth]

death to those who do not believe the king james bible, the true word of god

I prefer the Douay-Rheims Bible because somebody did a Find and Replace before it was released to make 'burnt offering' into 'holocaust'.

 

Let me offer you a holocaust.

[edlib]

The original Hebrew language leaves some wiggle room for interpretation as to 6 literal 24-hour days as we know them (although how is there any way to tell how long a day is before creation of the Sun?) or 6 discreet "steps" of somewhat indeterminate length.

 

So each "day" as described could be years (perhaps millions or billions) long.

 

In that sense, the scientific and religious accounts could be seen as almost lining up to a certain extent. (Big bang creation of the universe; formation of stars; formation of our sun and solar system; Earth becoming a wet planet; evolution of the animal world; the rise or humans...)

 

Although, one has to wonder: For a deity of such power, why bother to do it in steps at all? Seems to me the authors of the book were imposing humanistic limits on their creator.

 

Then there's the not so small issue of 2 separate and somewhat differing creation stories in the first couple of chapters of the book of Genesis.

[SkinWalker]

Then there's the not so small issue of 2 separate and somewhat differing creation stories in the first couple of chapters of the book of Genesis.

Which is consistent with a culture that was in the process of moving from a set of polytheistic cults to a monotheistic one, which borrowed heavily from, and embellished just as heavily, existing Mesopotamian mythology (i.e. Gilgamesh, the earliest known written story).

[Achilles]

So each "day" as described could be years (perhaps millions or billions) long.

Indeed it could. However even if we were to resolve this one issue, it still would not match what modern cosmology tells us about the formation of the universe.

 

To your point, why would it take an omnipotent being 6 million/billion years to create a universe? He/she/it is capable of kicking off the big bang with a thought, yet we need multiple generations of stars/novae in order to form heavy elements? What do we win by successfully shoe-horning actual science into a 2000 year (or more ala OT) old series of stories?