Do modern day Christians still believe in 6 day creation?

Apart from what it says in Genesis (1:9) itself: God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
Unless you're positing a vastly slower rotation for Earth, of course.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seattle:

Obviously, the Sun was not the only source of light during the Genesis creation account. Your initial claim, that there was no light in existence prior to the creation of plant life has been debunked by Scripture. The Bible clearly says there was light on Creative Day #1 (Genesis 1:3 and 5). Plants did not appear until Creative Day #3 (Genesis 1:11-13).

How would you, or any human for that matter, know what took place back there? The Genesis creation account does not present minute details of when and how the creating was done. It simply summarizes some of the important things that affect life on planet earth. If Scripture were to present all of the minute details of the creation account, we would end up with volumes of books on the creation account alone.

How would you know that? No human beings were in existence when creation was occurring. All you or any other person can do is speculate, as you are presently doing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seattle:

The only "big fail" is your above comments. The moon reflects light from the Sun. So the Genesis creation account is correct when it speaks of the moon as the "lesser luminary". The account does not provide minute details such as which of the two luminaries actually produces its own light and which one does not. However, the account makes it clear that the Sun is the more powerful of the two as far as the production of light is concerned.

"And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary [the sun] for dominating the day and the lesser luminary [the moon] for dominating the night, and also the stars." (Genesis 1:16)


And the above scriptural summarization is right on point. The sun indeed dominates the day, and the moon dominates the night--unless you want to argue that you can see the sun shining at night.

Your conclusion, that the Bible's creation account is wrong, is based upon your expectation that two single Bible chapters (chapters 1 and 2 of the book of Genesis) are supposed to provide point by point details of how every single thing was created. What reasonable person would expect two Bible chapters to do what can only be explained in volumes of books? And who has time to read volumes of books along that line?

Again, the Bible simply gives summarizations. It tells us only what we need to know: namely, that Almighty God Jehovah created the heavens and the earth and the various things that exist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No.

 

Dywyddyr: Calling the light day and the darkness night has nothing to do with the length of rotation for each 24-hour day within the Creative Day. Your above comment (bolded in red) has more to do the definition "light" and "darkness".

Jehovah is eternal and therefore is not restricted by human time spans. So while the earth does indeed turn within a literal 24-hour time span, God does not apply each of those 24-hour time spans to himself. He applies 24-hour time spans only to humans. He can stretch how he counts a "day" to whatever amount of years he chooses. Below is one such example.

"However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." (2 Peter 3:8)

You see that? From God's viewpoint, a thousand years can be counted as a day, despite the fact each of the 365 days within each of those 1,000 years do indeed have 24-hour rotations of the earth. In other words, it is not the rotations of the earth that are being counted by the Almighty. It is his decision on how many thousands or how many millions of years are considered one "day" to himself.

Young earth creationists (YEC's) frequently use the verses from 2 Peter and Psalms 90 to argue that earth is only 6,000 years old. But not only does the scientific evidence indicate earth could not possibly be a mere 6,000 years old, the Hebrew word "yom" (which means "day") refers to 24-hour time periods as well as undermined periods of time.

Alter2Ego

 

Um, no.
One occurrence of light followed by an occurrence of dark is, by the Bible's own claim, one day.

Allegedly.
Any evidence?

Right, so he specifies the length of a day and proceeds to ignore it.

Allegedly.
Any evidence?

Or is this just some waffle to justify a claim?

 

Dywyddyr: Um, no. When counting each Creative Day at Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, and 23, Scripture says: "And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day. . . " OR ". . . a second day," etc. The Bible account says nothing resembling "this is a literal 24-hour day."

The same Hebrew word "yom" (day) is used throughout the Bible, even in instances where Scripture says a day is like a thousand years to Jehovah. So at Genesis 1:5, for example, where it says: "there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day," that expression is with reference to the beginning and end of a single Creative Day of undetermined length--likely tens of thousands of years or even millions of years.

But since you want to argue that "light followed by an occurrence of dark " is always with reference to one literal 24-hour day, suppose you explain to the rest of the forum how that could be the case at the following verse of scripture. Keep your eyes on the words are bolded within the quotation, particularly the word that is in all caps and underline.

"For a thousand years are in your eyes but as YESTERDAY when it is past, and as a watch during the night." (Psalms 90:4)

QUESTION #1 to DYWYDDYR: Since the word "yesterday" normally refers to "light followed by an occurrence of dark = one literal 24-hour day," how could the expression "yesterday" be likened to 1,000 years from God's viewpoint while at the same time be confined to a literal 24-hour day?

Alter2Ego

 

Ah right.
So now you're resorting to "because it didn't specify it wasn't it can't have been".
Got it.

Oh that's easily answered: the Psalms (and the Bible as a whole) are nothing to do with reality.
It's a myth and resorts to unsupported claims and "poetic language".

 

"How do I know" and "you weren't there" are responses. There is a lot of evidence for my remarks. However, you weren't there either and your only evidence is the Bible which is what we are discussing in the first place.

The comment about the Bible would be too long if the creation were really described...are you kidding?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's already a long book. No one would mind if it were a little more factual.

As far as no one wanting to read about those things. People do it all the time in biology, geology, cosmology, etc.

 

Dywyddyr: You realize your claim at Post 26: "light followed by an occurrence of dark " = one literal 24-hour day has been debunked by Psalms 90:4.

The Bible made no such claim, as already demonstrated at 2 Peter 3:8.

Enough said.


Alter2Ego

 

Debunked?
What you mean is, the Bible is self-contradictory.

Um, actually it did make that claim, as shown by the quote from Genesis.

Quite.
The Bible is such a convoluted mish mash of myth, nonsense and drivel that one can find just about anything one wants in it.
But it's useless as a guide to physical reality, and deluded to consider it so.

 

Bronze aged observation with no modern science. They were doing the best they could to make sense of the world based on what they knew. It's an out dated hypothesis that has taken on a huge life of its own.