God’s days vs man’s days?
Published: 24 November 2013 (GMT+10)
S.K. from the United States writes in response to Our young solar system, wondering why we ‘limit’ God to six-day creation. Dr Jonathan Sarfati, responding with comments interspersed, points out that it’s not about what God could do; it’s about what God said he did.
Max Alexander, STFC, SPL
In the last part of your post, you mention how the universe is only about 6,000 years old.
Indeed we do. See How does the Bible teach 6,000 years? But really, you should have searched the site first, not only because that is what you affirmed you did before posting, but also because it is normal courtesy to find out what and why someone believes something before criticizing.
How is that the case when the telescopes pick up light from objects millions and billions of lightyears away? The fact that the light is reaching us is proving that the universe is at least as old as the distance is long that the light crosses.
No it doesn’t. Big bangers likewise have too many light years per year, and recognize this as the Horizon Problem. See Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.
If there is some info you have to dispute that, please let me know.
- How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
- If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them?
- Did God create light in transit?
- Was the speed of light faster in the past?
- Does this have anything to do with the ‘big bang’?
I also don’t understand why it is so hard to imagine that the “days” in the bible are different in length from the “days” we experience.
I do: because Exodus 20:8–11 makes it clear that the creation days are the same length of days as those of our working week, and the grammar and related Scriptural context supports this. See The numbering pattern of Genesis and Chapter 2 of the Creation Answers Book, which covers:
- Six days? Really?
- Are the days of creation ordinary days? Could they be long periods of time?
- Why six days? Is Genesis Poetry?
- Does the length of the days really affect the Gospel?
- How can there be ‘days’ without the sun on the first three days?
- Does Genesis 2 contradict Genesis 1?
- What about the framework hypothesis?
There are a great many things that we as humans cannot comprehend about God.
Indeed, but even more, it’s hard to comprehend that some humans think they know better than what God actually said He did!
One of which may be the time it took God to make everything. God, who is infinite, could count a day as a hundred million of our days or more or less.
The point is that Scripture is God’s revelation to man, so what God means must be what man means, and God’s logic must be man’s logic, or there is no revelation! See Why is CMI so dogmatic on 24-hour creation days? and especially the section The days were ‘God’s days’ not ‘man’s days’.
SK: God, as an infinite being can be anywhere, everywhere, anywhen, and everywhen.
Indeed He can. You might be interested in this feedback response to a critic about God’s “omni—” attributes.
In that sense what right do any of us have to say that anything is exactly this way in what God meant?
Because no one in CMI is questioning what God could do, but believing what He said He did. But apparently you believe that God is incapable of communicating historical truth.
Just questions that have been on my mind. Thank you for your time.
You’re welcome, but in future it would be good if you could spend some time using our search button on the top right (we have almost 9,000 articles) and our Q&A pages. I.e. it’s better that I teach you how to fish than give you a fish.
Very good article but then they are all good and I enjoy reading them but don't understand how anyone who claims to know God at all can have problems believing God could have made everything in six literal days because there is such power behind Gods word that he only has to speak the word and that would be enoug indeed I am a little amazed that he took as long as six days.
Indeed, and the likely reason He took so long was to provide a pattern for our working week (Exodus 20:8–11).
The fundamental reason why people question the scientific integrity of the Bible is found in the beginning of the Bible…
«THE SERPENT WAS more crafty than any wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Is it true that God has forbidden you to eat from any tree in the garden?’ The woman answered the serpent, ‘We may eat the fruit of any tree in the garden, except for the tree in the middle of the garden; God has forbidden us either to eat or to touch the fruit of that; if we do, we shall die.’ The serpent said, ‘Of course you will not die. God knows that as soon as you eat it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods knowing both good and evil.’ When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good to eat, and that it was pleasing to the eye and tempting to contemplate, she took some and ate it. She also gave her husband some and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they discovered that they were naked; so they stitched fig-leaves together and made themselves loincloths.— Gn§3:1-7»
Disbelievers attempt hide from the truth/light by stitching together the fig-leaves of their scientific opinion, just as Adam and Eve did. But doing that always was a vain attempt cover the naked truth of their lack of faith in the Truth made flesh.
Great response. At times I find it difficult to understand why it is so hard to view the Genesis creation as literal. I must remind myself repeatedly that many people like myself, being raised in secular school systems that teach a religion (evolution) as science fact, have been taught millions and billions of years. They are trying to make it make sense with their own Christian faith and it cant work. What better way to destroy than to weaken the foundation. Make people doubt The Word (which is Jesus Christ) and the will loose their faith. God bless CMI and its staff, Thank you.
I am a Christian. I disagree with your 6 literal day interpretation of Creation.
I agree with 2 Peter 3:8–9. I realize Peter was urging patience but that doesn't mean he had forgotten what the length of 24 hour day is or the tremendous difference with one thousand years.
I read your article by Jonathan Sarfati. His claim that Peter's words were out of context in regard to Creation, “The first thing to note that the context has nothing to do with the days of creation” is an interpretation known as Procrustean Bed logic. When a Scripture passage has the expression, “To this Day”, you, of course, are not talking about the year 2013 in regard to whatever was being discussed, are you?
Jonathan wants to take the words of Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit about Creation, literally but refuses to do so for Peter's words, inspired by the same Holy Spirit, because "as" is a simile? I'm sorry, that is an interpretation that I cannot agree with.
I agree, as a Christian, that God Created us intact, there is no evolution and we were Created less than a few hundred thousand years ago. I believe this because of all the accurate scientific data you have provided about radioisotope dating techniques.
That said, the radiocarbon-14 dating of Egyptian mummies gives us a pretty accurate metric for gaging confirming the accuracy of C-14 dating. All the other dating methods look severely flawed. But the ice man from the alps is about 6,000 years old and I really think we were around for quite a while before that.
I think you should go where the science leads you because, after all, God is the author of all truth and all science. Don't box yourself into a Procrustean Bed. You do not need a six literal day interpretation of Creation to confirm the inerrancy of God's word.
It's not ‘my’ interpretation that Peter is using a simile; it's the grammatical-historical or originalist interpretation of the text. Also, as explained, Peter did not have creation week in view. Exodus 20:8–11 did, and there is no doubt that the creation days were the same length as that of the working week. Indeed, why not instead use Jesus' words “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” (John 11:9) because at least this is the same kind of day as in Genesis 1:5.
Also note that “to this day” is yet another contrast with the Creation Days, which had both evening + morning and a number.
People can argue that an all powerful God could have created things over vast ages with evolution’s suffering and death but would a God of love have done it that way? It's all about the character of God. What kind of a kingdom are we seeking; one that succeeds by survival of the fittest or one where righteousness and peace reign?
Indeed, that is probably the worst problem of all for long-age compromises, as explained in a number of our articles, including Response to the evolution appeasers.
This is a pretty good Literal-Creationist response to what appears to be theistic evolution. It’s very curious that Christians who accept old Earth chronology consistently accuse Christians who accept God’s word for what happened of ‘limiting God’ to a six day creation. It all boils down to who you believe. The only reason for all the variations of Day-Age ‘theology’ is that, having accepted the word of some people who weren’t there, that the universe is billions of years old, you now have that problem of stuffing billions of years into a creation account that is at pains to indicate to us six literal 24 hour days. Just because some pea-brain who is just as much a knucklehead as I am says that light has been crossing the universe for billions of years doesn't make it so. A billion years is a long time. We only live 70 or 80. God’s word only adds up to some six or maybe seven thousand. The question is, whose word are you going to take for it? No one is going to have to stand before Charles Darwin or Carl Sagan and give an account.
Should I be forced to reason against 6 literal days, then I would ask: " Why so long?" because my God can do all of that in much less than 6 days. Thank you for all your articles.
ps. I have just finished reading all the Featured and Feedback articles on you website. Thanks again.
I'm sure we are exhorted somewhere to “Let God be true and every man a liar … ”! Thanks for the feedback and response article!