Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
Jun 25,2009, 9:45PM

The Six Days of Creation: Fact or Fiction?

The Six Days of Creation

By Allen Epling

      Much discussion has been made of the description in Genesis of all things being made by God in 6 days. For 3 millennia the standard view of this was that the time period was 6 earthly days. It has only been in the last 20 to 30 years that serious consideration has been given to alternative theories of what those passages mean. Many faithful simply dismiss it as an unsolvable mystery. Others reject any scientific explanations of the creation outright simply because to do so, to them, means accepting the idea that the six days are wrong. There are several popular, possible explanations for the 6 days of creation and I will list them for your consideration.

       1.God simply willed all things into being through a supernatural event that took 6 earth days to complete and simply aged everything instantaneously to look old. This is the traditional concept.

      2. There is the idea that God created all things in 6 days that were not earthly days           but heavenly days, which were longer time periods than on earth.

      3. Another theory is that there is a gap of billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. and that the 6 days were a later event.

     4.There is also an idea among the intelligencia that because the Babylonian Creation describes a 6 day creation also, that the Hebrews, while in exile, took that story and incorporated it into the Torah.

      All of these theories have merit but are just theories. I have a problem with number one because it requires an unnecessary supernatural event when God did not have any reason to be in a hurry. Why do so much in 6 earthly days when you control time anyway and 1 billion years is nothing compared to infinity.

     Some say it is literal and why not accept it at face value.

     Because it would be the least natural way to complete the project and I believe God always chooses natural means over supernatural means when He has a choice. After all he did create the physical laws of the universe for some reason. Why violate them when it is unnecessary. This sometimes causes a problem with man because it is human nature to prefer a miracle over a natural event.

     Another reason is that there are clear instances in the Bible of God using figurative language to describe an event, such as the Angel standing on the four "corners" of the earth in the book of Revelations. For many centuries, believers accepted that at face value, "literally", until it was proven that the earth was round.

     Also, the first day was a time period before the first "day" happened on planet earth. There was no sun or earth to revolve to cause a "day" as we define it, until the second Genesis "day". How can we be sure that our definition of a day is the same as God's? If He wrote the book of Genesis, as I believe He did, then our definition of a day came later, after His. Our day is based on an earthly event, while God's day is based on Heavenly events. After all it does say, "In the Beginning, God created the HEAVEN and the Earth. Heaven came first.

      Theory number 2 has merit simply because the Bible says it does. II Peter 3:8 says that "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years...". This is a clear statement that our days are not the same as the Lord's days, and according to Genesis, His days came first. Even Albert Einstein, probably the greatest pure theorist of the last century, became famous for proving that time is a flexible dimension. If he were not right, all of our revered GPS units would fail to operate.

      Theory number 3 describes what some call the "Gap" theory, but that is a stretch that is unnecessary. Why have the gap at all if you still have the same problem with the 6 days after the "gap".

      Theory number 4 is illogical because the Torah contains details of the creation never mentioned in the Babylonian description. Those who hold to that theory forget that the Hebrews had a tradition of preserving stories of the creation by word of mouth, such as the lineage of Adam all the way down to Jesus, and it sometimes was more accurate than written text. I would suggest that it was the Babylonians who borrowed the story from the Jews while they were in exile. Daniel did have a tremendous influence on the spiritual beliefs of the rulers. Where is that level of detail and accuracy in the Babylonian Creation Epic, which is a rambling, illogical, though entertaining story.

     There is a another way that the 6 days can be true and still be compatible with science as we know it. This is my own unproven, yet possible hypothesis.

     At the moment God created the universe, scientists say that an event took place that they call "The Big Bang". This explosion resulted in the universe being instantly created by an enormous expansion of, not only matter and energy, but space itself, so that everything that we can observe today was begun by this event. Space is a dimension, such as length, width, and height. If space is a dimension and expanded, why not time, which is also a dimension, a concept accepted by most scientists and mathematicians?

     If time did expand in this way, like space and matter, then time should have expanded much faster in the earlier period of creation than the present. The result would be that time ran faster then and is gradually slowing down as the universe ages, like a balloon that slowly reaches it maximum size.

     If time ran faster in the early universe, than now, God's consistent clock could have indicated one day while perhaps 1 billion years were passing in moments just after the creation of the universe. As the universe expanded, and creation progressed further, this difference would diminish to where, perhaps on the seventh day of God's clock, only 1 million years of earth's time passed. This would allow time for all the processes to take place that our science book say happened.

     We still have no idea of how our clock compares with God's clock today but the Bible 2000 years ago said that one day of God's time was equal to 1000 years of man's time. God Himself said to Adam, that "in the day that you eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you will surely die." Adam lived for 930 years, well within a "day" of God. To say a day is 24 of our hours would be to say that God was wrong about that.

     If science says that man began as a species on earth 2 million years ago, which could have been the 6th day on God's clock, and then we would have no conflict between the two.

     I realize that all of the above ideas are possible and plausible, and any statement on them would be hypothetical at best, as no one can say for sure. The point I would like to make here is that there are explanations for this passage that are compatible with what we know to be true, and anyone looking for the truth should begin with an unbiased, open mind to all possibilities. That is not always true of both scientists and the Christian Fundamentalists.

     To say that anything is certain is foolish and for any scientist who believes in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal, such a statement would be hypocritical.

     This article is part of a continuing feature dealing with the Evolution Vs Creationism debate. Each week a new topic will be dealt with presenting, hopefully, a balanced, educated viewpoint, while ALWAYS upholding the divinity and sanctity of the Bible. The basic tenet of this article is that every word of the book of Genesis is factually, historically, and scientifically true.

     For the book from which these thoughts were taken, visit

     http://www.beyondgenesis.com

The Six Days of Creation: Fact or Fiction?
The Six Days of Creation By Allen Epling       Much discussion has been made of the description in Genesis of all things being made by God in 6 days. For 3 millennia the standard view of this was that the time period was 6 earthly days. It has only been in the last 20 to 30 years that serious consideration has been given to alternative theories of what those passages mea...
Most recent comments
1.June 27,2009, 1:30PM
Sorry, I meant to say http://www.mrelativity.net not .com.
--aepling
2.June 27,2009, 1:25PM
To Dr. E, apparently you are familiar with some science or you wouldn't know about "Vacuum (Quantum) Fluxuations and Alan Guth's Inflation theory, however the latest ideas on the creation come from String theory in which the universe didn't come from "nothing" but was a result of the collision of two "external universes" of higher diminsions than our own, part of the multiple universe theory. According to current thought in that discipline, all of our galaxies and energy, seen and unseen are a result of that event, which actually caused the Big Bang. I plan to write an article soon on the possibility that "String Theory" actually predicts places that the Bible calls Heaven and Hell. I also have papers at http://www.mrelativity.com on the Big Bang From a Multidimensional Perspective, along with others on Dark Energy, and Time that you might be interested in reading. All that this means is that God is even bigger than we imagined. The one thing I agree totally with you on is that science is rapidly catching up to the Bible.
--aepling
3.June 27,2009, 8:55AM
Mr. Epling starts out by saying that God creating the universe in six days "requires an unnecessary supernatural event." He also said: "Why violate (the physical laws) when it is unnecessary." The big bang is a supernatural event. It has been disproven scientifically. "Something," does not come from "nothing," via natural processes. It requires a supernatural agent. Why do you think the big bang is no longer considered a part of evolution?
Evolutionary scientists no longer believe that space, time, matter, or energy existed before the big bang. That idea has been discarded. They say an explosion created space, time, matter, and energy. That is scientifically impossible and they know it. A so-called "vacuum fluctuation" presents the same set of problems.
Dr. Epling claims that God's days are based on events in heaven. There are no "days" in heaven, that is a concept created for man on this planet.
Mr. Epling says: "anyone looking for the truth should begin with an unbiased, open mind to all possibilities." For Mr. Epling that appears to mean: "except take the Bible literally." You don't have to compromise the Word of God Mr. Epling when it comes to science. Give science enough time and it will eventually catch up to the Bible.
--Dr.E
4.June 27,2009, 2:32AM
Luke 10:21 (King James Version)

21In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

I rejoice that the world considers me unwise and uneducated. Thank you.
--NateS777
5.June 26,2009, 12:31PM
Mr. Epling, meet Criterion, formerly known as michael-j. He lost the former login name when the moderators barrd him from the forums for his slander, libel, and abuse of the flagging system used on the article forums. It's a weakness of the system that people removed from these CP forums can simply return with the same hostility under a new name.
--mathetes
6.June 26,2009, 12:20PM
"It concerns me that some Christians, in their desire to alleviate the apparent conflicts between science and the Bible, will give more weight to the former at the expense of the plain meaning of the latter."

Pathetic. Mathetes is upset that not all Christians are as uneducated and stupid as he is.
--criterion
7.June 26,2009, 12:18PM
"I appreciate the advances true science brings, but I would rather base my life on the sure foundation of what God has revealed in His unchanging Word."

Translation:

"I know nothing about science but I think I'm smarter than every scientist in the world. Also, when the choice is science or supernatural magic, I will always choose magic, because I'm childish and insane."

You can't censor me this time Mathetes.
--criterion
8.June 26,2009, 11:12AM
"It is the perfect way to explain why what took billions of years is described as having taken place in a few days."

It concerns me that some Christians, in their desire to alleviate the apparent conflicts between science and the Bible, will give more weight to the former at the expense of the plain meaning of the latter. Science continually changes: evolution may one day go the way of Ptolemaic cosmology and spontaneous generation. I appreciate the advances true science brings, but I would rather base my life on the sure foundation of what God has revealed in His unchanging Word.

Sorry for the repeat below.
--mathetes
9.June 26,2009, 11:06AM
"And, as Epling points out, there is much in the Bible to suggest that God's days are much longer than ours."

I would not say "much in the Bible...." Quite a few verses say God is eternal, unchanging, and outside or beyond time. The latter is what God (through Peter) wants us to understand: 2Peter 3:8 "But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day." When the WHOLE verse is quoted, it becomes obvious God was not giving us a ratio for converting His days to our days; He was showing that time is meaningless to Him since He created it and is outside it.
--mathetes
10.June 26,2009, 11:06AM
"And, as Epling points out, there is much in the Bible to suggest that God's days are much longer than ours."

I would not say "much in the Bible...." Quite a few verses say God is eternal, unchanging, and outside or beyond time. The latter is what God (through Peter) wants us to understand: 2Peter 3:8 "But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day." When the WHOLE verse is quoted, it becomes obvious God was not giving us a ratio for converting His days to our days; He was showing that time is meaningless to Him since He created it and is outside it.
--mathetes
11.June 26,2009, 10:41AM
"And, yes, science can date things. It's called carbon dating and it's based on the constant, natural laws of chemistry that God created."

You are right that radiometric dating is based on God's natural laws. However, to calculate the age of an object, one must make several unproveable assumtions: that one knows how much of the parent element was present at the start; that the rate of decay was constant; and that there was no contamination that added more of either the parent or daughter elements. Therefore, one can never know the age of an object. This is in addition to the idea stated below that God created things ready for use, such as bread, the earth, and a man named Adam. How old was Adam when God made him in Gen. 2 - age 18 years? Age 30 years? Or was Adam 1 day old? The same applies to the trees from which Adam ate and the ground on which he stood.
--mathetes
12.June 26,2009, 9:54AM
And, yes, science can date things. It's called carbon dating and it's based on the constant, natural laws of chemistry that God created.

Again, a defense that looks like one never took a science class.
--Cheisa
13.June 26,2009, 9:51AM
No one is debated what God created or that He did, indeed, create it. What is being explored here is the probability that early man, inspired by God, writing Genesis did not have the same understanding of time that only God has. The Creation story is put in terms we could understand, but there's nothing to say that those "days" are as we know them, 24 hour periods. God has His own timetable.

And, as Epling points out, there is much in the Bible to suggest that God's days are much longer than ours. It is the perfect way to explain why what took billions of years is described as having taken place in a few days.
--Cheisa
14.June 26,2009, 9:45AM
Waht a well thought out article by a believer in God. It offers a plausible explanation for two things we know to be true: The Word and the approximate age of our planet. It provides reconciliation for what we know is written in the Bible and what we know about the history of the earth and it creatures, including ourselves.

With this concept of "God time" we don't have to believe inane things like the earth is only 6000 years old. Any grammar school student who's taken a science class knows that's untrue. One can be able to defend one's faith without presenting such a ridiculous precept as that for evidence. Genesis can be true right along side what we know to be true about our planet.
--Cheisa
15.June 26,2009, 7:06AM
What God creates cannot be dated by science. When The Lord created bread for the thousands it was edible food ready to be consumed, if a scientist had been there that day he would of told you (not witnessing the miracle) that the grains of that bread were months old. When God creates something ready for use as He did this earth and universe science cannot determine the accurate age. God trumps science not vice-versa. If you don't believe God or don't seek to find him you won't. Why if you believe The Lord fed thousands with the miracle of the bread do you find it hard to believe God created the world in six days and it wasn't that long ago. Don't be afraid of the scientists and their followers laughing at you. The natural man is no where you should place your faith.
--NateS777
Comment on this Story
Don't have a christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click here
Copyright © The Christian Post. All right reserved.About Us|Contact Us|Media Kit|Registration|Terms and Conditions|Disclaimer|Corrections