Millions of Years Limits God More Than Six Days Does
Actually, insisting on six ordinary earth-rotation days of creation is not limiting God, but limiting us to believing that God actually did what He tells us in His Word. Also, if God created everything in six days, as the Bible says, then surely this reveals the power and wisdom of God in a profound way— Almighty God did not need eons of time. However, the billions-of-years scenarios diminish God by suggesting that mere chance could create things or that God needed huge amounts of time to create things—this would be limiting God’s power by reducing it to naturalistic explanations.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
It is possible that both the six-days and millions-of-years theories are correct. Keep in mind that in the Bible, unfortunately the exact verse escapes me, it is written that to God a thousand years is like a day and a day is like a thousand years. This suggests that God's perception of time is in fact different than man's perception of it. One 'day' does not necessarily conote an actual earthly rotational period, but in fact a specific period of time. The first day could be the period of time in which God used the laws of physics, which He created, to form the star that would become our sun, hence creating light. Jumping ahead, the final day in which God created man could be the period of time in which God perfected the life form that would be His ultimate creation: man. If this theory is correct, than there would have been many years between the creation of lesser beings such as plants or animals and the creation of man, and therefore there is little evidence of man existing for millions of years even though we find fossils that date back hundreds of millions of years. We must remember that God is perfect, and has to be explained through human terms, and since humans are imperfect, the explanations are sometimes difficult to understand. So we do not need to decide between the Genesis version of the beginning and the 'millions-of-years' version, we must simply find how the two are in fact one and the same.
Agreed, 100 percent! This is my frustration with people who want to find every possible motive to discredit Creationism, they seem to want everyone to accept their viewpoints without question while they seemingly want to question and discredit anyone who does not see from their points of view. There are a number of people within the scientific community who say that the Biblical account of Creation can be verified, regardless of how many days it took to be accomplished. I believe in the 6-day Creation because our Heavenly Father is a perfect Being who can speak things into existence, He does not even have to raise a finger. Man did not exist for millions and billions of years, but the heavens and the Earth were around that long. As Scripture says, God is not man and His ways are not our ways. It is fruitless and futile, in my opinion, for us, such plain and frail mortal beings, to analyze supernatural events that are way beyond human thought and rationalize a supernatural Being into such minuscule humanity, a God who is bigger and more powerful than the Solar System and Milky Way that He created. "Vanity," says the preacher in Ecclesiastes, "Everything is vanity."
God created the universe therefore God created science . If science is a lie then God is a liar. Scientist have shown that the world was not created in six days. If you except the day age theory God and science agree and science has to explain how the writer of Genesis knew that plants came before the sun appeared in the sky.
Mike, my apologies to you, but I am surprised at the numbers of people here who appear to be somewhat hostile towards the existence of a Supreme Being, namely God, Yahweh, Yahwah, YHWH, The I Am That I Am, and so forth. This is not a question, but if we are dealing with a Highly Intelligent Being who created everything that we hear, taste, see and feel, then why must we question the possibility that He may have precisely created the present Universe in six days, Hebrew etymology aside? I believe that there are some things that we were not meant to completely understand, and this happens to be one of them. Why can't we just be content in knowing that God created our present Universe and world in a series of 1-2-3-4-5-6 and rested on 7. It doesn't matter if the Creation happened in 6 days or 6 millennia, but I always choose the former. There are many passages in the Bible that are quite literal, so it could be a fact that the Universe as we know it was indeed created in six days. Again, this is what I call the hair-splitting approach: Like the disciple Thomas, we demand to justify everything, including the supernatural, unless we can see it ourselves. If you believe in God as I do, then some things we must accept because of our faith, any presence of doubt will show our absence of faith. There are simply some things that we will never be able to explain because they are far beyond the frailty of the human mind. No matter how hard people try, there will always be things that human beings will never be able to explain.
We have two different literal interpretations. One agrees with science the other doesn't. It seems more logical to take the literal interpretation that agrees with both. The added advantage is that with the old age interpretation non-believers have to deal with the fact that Genesis I is far more accurate then should be possible. They wrote things that they could not possibly known.
Once again we are attempting to split hairs over things that are beyond the frailty of the human brain. Creation as explained in the Scriptures is not a lie, true science has already confirmed what Scripture has explained. I will not split hairs with people over issues that are not worthy of divisive debate, such as the validity of science and the accuracy of the Bible. We are not God, God does not lie, and some things are better left alone, especially when people are seeking to disprove the existence of God.
I am not disputing God and I hardly think the difference between a day and a billion years or so is splitting hairs. This is a valid discussion between two creationist groups. My question would be what scientific evidence is there that the world could have been created in six days?
I think you hit the nail on the head here. This entire argument is based on our limitations AND projections. Why do we have to be so arrogant as to think we could understand creation, or any of God's other activities, purposes, or ways? Romans 1 tells us that God reveals aspects of his divine nature--We witness the evidence, not necessarily comprehend it.
My basic problem with "science" on these matters is that it is not true science. Agendas are littered about.
"My basic problem with "science" on these matters is that it is not true science."
I don't think you are qualified to be the arbiter of "true science". :-)
"My basic problem with "science" on these matters is that it is not true science. Agendas are littered about."
Your premise is true, that agenda's (rather biases) are littered about, but I completely disagree with your conclusion. First, religion is far worse when it comes to having agenda's littered about. Second, the scientific process is specifically designed to weed out the agendas through the peer review process. A scientist publishes their findings with all the details of how they came to their conclusions. Other scientists then try to poke holes in the experiment or redo it to see if the results truly hold. This process is the best process we have for understanding the world.