Is the Creation account in Genesis Literal?

[Bubba]

I found this article and thought it made good sense. Bubba

http://www.angelfire.com/nuggetsfromgodsword/index.html


"Is the creation account in Genesis literal?



Hebrew for "day"

The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1 is "yome" (Strong's 03117). It can mean a 24-hour day or the daylight portion of it (day as distinct from the night).

Without exception, in the Hebrew Old Testament, the word "yome" is never used to refer to a long period of time, as in thousands or millions of years.

In Hebrew, should the word "yome" be used in an indefinite sense, it will be clearly indicated by the context that the literal meaning is not intended.



First-time use not symbolic

Some people say that the word "day" in Genesis is used symbolically.

This is impossible as a word cannot be symbolic the first time it is used. It can only be used symbolically if it first has a literal meaning.

For example, we are told that Jesus is the "bread of life". We know what this means because we understand the literal meaning of "bread", and are able to apply it symbolically to Jesus. The word "bread" cannot be used in this sense unless it first has a literal meaning.

Likewise, the word "day" cannot be used symbolically the first time it appears in Genesis, as this is where God introduced the word "day" and defined it as He created it.

Some might argue that this point is flawed because Job is an earlier book, in the sense that Job lived before the time of Moses. But this is to imply that the Holy Spirit was outdated when He inspired Moses to write Genesis, and that He made a mistake when He put Genesis as the first book of the Bible.



The Bible itself defines "day"

Many Christians forget that the Holy Spirit himself has defined the word "day" the first time it appears in the Bible. A basic rule of thumb in Bible study is to let the Bible interpret the Bible.

Genesis 1:5
5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

The first time the word "day" is used, it is defined as "the light" to distinguish it from "the darkness" called "night".

The phrase, "and there was evening, and there was morning", is used for each of the other five days of creation. This shows that there was a clearly established cycle of days and nights (periods of light and periods of darkness).

Incidentally, those who argue that the word "day" in the above verse means millions of years must answer the question, "What is a night?"



Daylight without the sun?

But how could there be day and night when the sun was not created yet, until day four?

The word for "light" in Genesis 1:3 means the "substance" of light that was created. Then, on day four in Genesis 1:14-19, we are told of the creation of the sun, which was to be the source of light henceforth.

The sun was created to rule the day that already existed. The day merely had a new light source.

Perhaps God deliberately left the creation of the sun to the fourth day to show that He is the light, the source of life and the sustainer of life, because He knew that man would one day worship the sun as the source of life.



Problems with taking "day" to mean millions of years

Our seven-day week


Exodus 20:9 tells us that we are to work for six days and rest for one. This is why we have a seven-day week.

Exodus 20:9
9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

The reason for this is found in verse 11:

Exodus 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

This is a direct reference to God's creation week in Genesis 1. To be consistent, whatever is used as the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1 must also be used here.

So, if we take "day" in Genesis 1 to mean millions of years, then we should do the same for Exodus 20:11, which would make nonsense of our seven-day week. We don't work for six million years and then rest for 1 million years!

What are "years" and "seasons" then?

Genesis 1:14
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

If the word "day" here is not to be taken literally, then, to be consistent in our interpretation, neither should the words "seasons", "days" and "years". What do they mean then?

Likewise, we are told in Genesis 1:26-31 that God made Adam on the sixth day. We know that Adam lived through the rest of the sixth day and through the seventh day. Genesis 5:5 says that he died when he was 930 years old.

If we take "day" in Genesis 1 to mean millions of years, how do we understand Adam's lifespan of "930 years"? What is a "year"? Or, for that matter, a "night", a "week", a "month"?

Covenant with day and night

Jeremiah 33:25,26
25 This is what the Lord says: 'If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth,
26 then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.' "

God's "covenant with day and night" began in Genesis 1. There is no clear origin and definition for day and night in the Bible other than Genesis 1. Therefore, this must be where the covenant began.

However, this covenant would make no sense and be on shaky ground if "day" is not taken literally in Genesis 1. And, again, what would "night" mean?



A day as a thousand years?

2 Peter 3:8
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Psalm 90:4
4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

The two verses are used by many to teach that the days in Genesis must each be a thousand years long.

But the verses are not saying that God defines a "day" as "a thousand years". That would contradict His original definition in Genesis 1:5. Also, note that the word "like" is used.

In both cases, the truth being presented is that God is neither limited by natural processes nor by time. The Creator of time is not bound by time.

Also, neither verse refers to the days of creation in Genesis. In 2 Peter 3, the context is Christ's second coming. In Psalm 90, the context is Israel's rebellion in the wilderness and the mortality of man.

The verses also indicate that God, not bounded by time, can do in a very short time what men or nature would require a very long time to accomplish, if they could succeed at all.

Interestingly, evolutionists say that the chance, random processes of nature required millions of years to produce living things and man. Many Christians have accepted this by saying that God took millions of years to create, which is the very opposite of what 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 are saying.



Bloodshed and death

When Adam and Eve sinned, they tried to cover their sins with fig leaves -- a works religion (and a reason why Jesus cursed the fig tree in Matthew 21:19).

God had to clothe them with animal skin, instead, which meant that an animal was killed -- a blood sacrifice, for without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22).

So, according to the Bible, blood was shed only after man sinned. There were no killings before that. Also, man and animals were originally instructed to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29,30). Man was only allowed to kill and eat animals after the flood (Genesis 9:3).

Evolution, however, teaches that there was bloodshed and death ("survival of the fittest") for millions of years before man existed.



Jesus, Luke and Paul took it literally

Many Christians believe that the creation account in Genesis is only symbolic -- sort of like a fairy tale or legend.

What is their authority for deciding what is literal and what is symbolic in the Bible? Are they making their decisions based on a popular man-made theory?

As Christians, we should let the Bible tell us whether the creation account in Genesis is symbolic or literal.

Perhaps the best proof that it is literal is the fact that Jesus himself took it literally:

Matthew 19:4
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

Mark 10:6
6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

Jesus was quoting from Genesis 1:27. Can you imagine His listeners replying, "But Rabbi, that is not to be taken literally!"

Luke took the creation account in Genesis to be literal too.

Luke 3:38
38 the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

How can a genealogy be a genealogy if it lists a man who didn't really exist?

And like Jesus and Luke, the apostle Paul took it literally too.

Romans 5:14
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22,45,47
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

1 Timothy 2:13,14
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

All these verses would be meaningless if Adam and Eve were not real first man and first woman."

 

[LostSoul]

Bubba,

Fascinating post. The use of scripture too to clarify this point of view is also very enlightening. I will not lie, it does support my views on Creation in terms of the book of Genesis. Even if they had not though, it would have been well worth the read. For one would be amazed at what one can learn from rereading a passage or two of scripture. Again, thank you for sharing this.

May God Bless You

Danielle

 

[allanpopa]

I most certainly would not consider the B'reshith mythology as historical or literal.

Allan

 

[Ret]

"Is the creation account in Genesis literal?

Genesis 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

Perhaps God deliberately left the creation of the sun to the fourth day to show that He is the light, the source of life and the sustainer of life, because He knew that man would one day worship the sun as the source of life.

Bubba....I believe Genesis to be 'literal' [natural] as well as 'symbolic' [spiritual], as I read about it in the Bible. These verses illustrate...THE BEGINNING....

John 1:1-5
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. KJV

John 9:5 Jesus said 'I am the light of the world'...the same 'light' of the first day in Gen 1...this light was not 'comprehended' because darkness.

1 Corinthians 15:44 ....There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. KJV

Be Blessed....Ret

 

[Free]

So then is science just wrong in it's observations and theories or was God deceptive in making the universe appear old?

 

[Bubba]

So then is science just wrong in it's observations and theories or was God deceptive in making the universe appear old?

Free,
When ones presupposition is wrong, the truth can be very elusive. Not long ago Mount St. Helens erupted and many presuppositions were proven wrong; one such thought was that it took millions of years to form petrified wood, within 10 years or so wood petrified. Many say that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form; mud slides from the eruption made a canyon 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon within months. It is truly amazing what a catastrophic event can do… like a worldwide flood for example.
Peace, Bubba

 

[mechanicdb]

So then is science just wrong in it's observations and theories or was God deceptive in making the universe appear old?

well, there is a reason they are called theories....and it's the same reason we have faith.

 

[JustAsking]

I most certainly would not consider the B'reshith mythology as historical or literal.

Allan

Interesting that Jesus did.

 

[Imagican]

Nicely prepared offering.

But, it is a 'given' that the understanding of men five thousand years ago is NOT what it IS today.

Perhaps, being 'literal' to the extent that it could be UNDERSTOOD by those that it was delivered to, it was as 'symbolic' an offering as, let's say, Revelation.

How do you suppose God could have explained or offered, the intricate details of creation to men that didn't even know the body is made of individual specialized cells. And HOW long did it take mankind to BEGIN to understand that sicknesses and deseases were caused by individual cells as well?

When describing the 'creation' of man from DUST, I am quite sure that Moses and those after him would well have taken this LITERAL. Yet we KNOW today that this would have been 'representative of the elements that we are MADE of rather than LITERAL 'dust'. And we know now that we return to the basic elements that we are formed of when we 'return to the earth'. What do you reacon Moses knew of the 'elemental chart'? Or atomic numbers? Or, imagine trying to TELL someone five thousand years ago that the 'chunck of gold' they held in their hand was actually made up of billions upon billion of ATOMS?

Tell you what, try to explain to your six year old child the intricate process of sex. Or procreation. The infamous 'talk of birds and bees' symbolizes PRECISELY what I offer here. We are bound to explain things in a manner condusive to the UNDERSTANDING ability of those to which we TEACH.

In this light, how do you suppose God could have explained that it took BILLIONS of years, (a number incomprehendible to those at the time of Moses), for the Earth to be prepared for mankind? And of what consequence could the actual TIMELINE be to those with such a rudimentary understanding of the world around them.

Suffice was to offer that there WERE time periods involved with creation and they are most certainly to be held symbolically in that 'on the seventh day, (time period represented by a DAY), He rested.

To attempt to take Genesis in a literal sense is to attempt to IGNORE all that we HAVE learned concerning the history of this planet. Do you NOT believe that God GAVE us the intellect to be able to UNDERSTAND? And that HE KNEW that when the time was right WE WOULD?

Not only is this easily discerned through 'common sense', we also have the words offered IN the Bible that explain that we DO learn as we 'age'. And this is to be accepted as on an INDIVUAL basis as well as concerning mankind in GENERAL. For once our 'eyes' were opened, we were exposed to the ABILITY to learn and understand. That inherent understanding is UNLIMITED except by time and maturity. For we have that offered in scripture as well: 'Genesis 1:3:
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. This perfectly well offers that not only were we 'created in the image of God', we were also given the capacity to UNDERSTAND AS GOD. That we have not yet reached this level by no means negates that FACT that we have the POTENTIAL.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Bubba]

Mec,
Through discovery man has learned amazing facts about their world and this process has been ongoing for eons. Yet, do not forget that man was in the beginning as near perfect as he will ever be and according to the 2nd Law of Thermal Dynamics, it has been downhill ever since. In modern times due to the science of medicine, refrigeration heating and etc., man lives longer in modern countries, though this is not the case in second and third world countries.
In respect to time, the whole radiometric system is a circular concept with geological strata, where the latter was arbitrary given long period of times back in the 1800’s and has not significantly changed since. The Mt. St. Helens eruption gave these same strata makeup’s a short period for development and unlike the speculations of old, we have a scientific witness and again imagine a world wide flood. Also, we propose that change in organic and inorganic material stays at a constant with God, but this is not the case, Jesus changed grape juice into wine without the necessary ferment process we expect in our realm. Thus, the appearance of age is no big matter to God, especially if He so chooses to confuse the scientific model that modern man thinks is carved in stone. Adam is a great example, of creation given the appearance of age, though just created back in Genesis. The bottom line, if one believes in thousands of years or 4.6 billion years for the age of the earth, it is still a matter of faith in both camps.
Grace, Bubba

 

[Rick W]

Until there's a way to conclusively test for newly created material or objects, created where there was absolutely nothing then I'm with Bubba.
"it is still a matter of faith in both camps."

Face it. If I were to give you something that was created from nothing just minutes ago how would you know? And no matter what you did with it the object in question would still have to display an age longer than just a couple minutes since it's very existence would be proof when compared to all other things that existed before it and how they all came to be at present.

And that's all we have to go on, what we see now.

We have no laws, no mathematical formulas and no theories of how things come into being where nothing whatsoever existed before. We have nothing regarding the mechanics of a creative power to form something from nothingness. Zero. All we have are the laws, formulas, theories based solely on what already is through our conceived laws of change, something from something else.

History?

If God created a fully grown man around the corner moments before you met him how old would you say he would be? Surely the fact that there are nutrients within the bloodstream demonstrates some time had gone by for the simple reason of digestion. It takes time for the body to absorb what it needs to produce energy. Fully grown? That fact alone clinches any argument the fellow is way over a year old anyway because of our observation of how people are born, grow and mature.

We base history/age on what we observe through what already exists and the processes in progress from which we deduce age. Christ fed the masses, twice. If you got hold of one of those fish not knowing where it came from then how old would you suppose it to be? It's right there in your hand. Surely you would venture much more than a few minutes or even a couple hours.

So to explain the ages of things we must use what we observe, come up with some chain of processes/events that explains it all on our terms. We don't have laws for anything else but. Is there any possibility that our quest for another beginning has overshot the actual event of Creation?

Again, until we can test for the creative power of God, have some knowledge of the mechanics of creation then...

it is still a matter of faith in both camps.

 

[wavy]

Genesis is literal. That is why it is wrong.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Bubba]

Genesis is literal. That is why it is wrong.

Thanks,
Eric

Eric,
Even if someone is not a believer in a Creator of the Universe (God), if one was to be honest with the text, the author can only be taken as literal. If you believe it to be true or not doesn't change the genre of the literature.
Peace, Bubba

 

[wavy]

Bubba,

I 100% agree. Genesis is literal therefore it is wrong.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Bubba]

Eric,
I do not know you very well, though I have read some of your posts. Obviously you realize that I believe Genesis to be literal and if all that is there is translated correctly, which for the most apart; I think it is, it is also right. I am sure, if prodded, you will begin to give a reason why you believe it to be “literal therefore it is wrongâ€Â, but this thread primarily was started with the theistic evolutionist in mind. The truly amazing aspect of my theological bent is that even someone who is an atheist or of an agnostic position, will someday be given revelation of Christ and every knee will bow with acceptance of His Lordship over all creation that He created from the very beginning. Yet, it is best to forego all that correction in this realm (granted this is my opinion).
May God reveal His Son in fullness, Bubba

 

[Imagican]

I am well aware of the events of Mt St Helens. While it may well be that SOME of the geological events that happen in a relatively short period of time may appear to be much longer does NOT negate that we have learned much in regards to estimating age. Is our ability PERFECT? Absolutely not and that is what makes even POSSIBLE to bring up such arguments against what we HAVE learned.

If what YOU believe is to be accepted on ANYTHING but faith, please explain how the dinosaurs and the ancient skeletal remains of men are SO vastly different in apparent AGE?

Some would say that they coexisted. But through our methods of dating, this would be an IMPOSSIBILITY. Do you reacon that the science community is simply 'making up' their evidence. Merely PRETENDING to have methods of dating and such? And if so, to what means? Simply to discredit the Biblical story of creation?

I can assure you that there are many scientist that have no desire to deal with religion in any manner other than their study of the world around them. For these, there would be no REASON to 'create' anything. But to mearly attempt to UNDERSTAND.

Neither the story of 'creation' or the story of Noah is as has been believed and taught for the past five thousand years. And it is NOT a 'breach of faith' for me to say this.

There was a REASON that these stories were offered in the manner in which they were. Not for the sake of deception, but for the ability or lack thereof of UNDERSTANDING.

While you would contend that man was 'created perfect', I will not argue for or against this statement. But I will point out that we WERE created with the capacity to LEARN not created with complete UNDERSTANDING. It has taken much time and effort for us to reach the level of understanding that we possess at the present.

In other words, you don't honestly expect me or anyone else to BELIEVE that Adam and Eve were aware of the FACT that the moon and planet upon which they stood were but two of BILLIONS UPON BILLONS upon trillions of pieces of matter floating in an vast universe. Or that procreation was accomplished through an egg being furtilized by a SINGLE cell.

My point: For God to offer information to these, it was needed that the information be offered in a WAY in which it could be accepted and understood. He if had offered information concerning the genetic composition of the abundant lifeforms on this planet, Moses would have simply droped his jaw and said, "Huh?"

It's NO DIFFERENT with the formation of this planet and the lifeforms that PREDATE mankind. There was little purpose in informing man of the intricate details. Suffice was to offer that it was accomplished in SIX 'time periods'. Men could relate to days so that is what was offered. Since years or decades STILL would not have been able to convey the nature of the VAST amount of time that it took, God chose to use the 'day' as the representative of each 'time period'.

For we KNOW that time is irrelevant to God. He deals with EVENTS, not time. Time was 'given' to us for the sake of our limited livespans in the flesh. But HOW do you explain eternity or MILLIONS of years to someone that hasn't even grasp the concept of a number SO HIGH?

The most amazing part of this whole debate is that there are STILL those that would chose to limit their understanding to that of those that lived FIVE THOUSAND years ago. Even to the extent that they would pick up their cell phone or sit down at their COMPUTER to debate such issues. Accepting, (picking and choosing), that which appeases the flesh yet choosing to ignore WHERE it COMES from.

I guess ALL that science has offered that DOESN'T contradict the 'teachings of the church' is OK, but whenever science PROVES that the churches are WRONG, then it's the science that MUST be mistaken for the church MUST be RIGHT. Yet undisputable historical records PROVE that the churches have been WRONG more than they have EVER been right, (Please note that when I distinguish between churches and The Church, that I will use a capital to emphasize The Church, body of Christ).

And HOW, may I ask, does a 'five billion year old earth' alter ANY truth offered by God through The Word?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Bubba]

Mec,
One still must deal with the Scripture presented at the beginning of this thread and if the presupposition is that the earth is billions of year's old, then serious problems exist not just with the Genesis account but with the whole of Scripture. I once believed in evolution prior and after becoming a Christian, but was challenged by a Jehovah Witness (what a source right?) that began an adventure into a young earth scenario. After many books and articles I have come to the position that the young earth position makes a great case. Have you ever read the arguments from their perspective? Anyway, I leave you a couple of sites that I found within minutes of reading your response, please check them out.
Grace Bubba


http://www.carewinnipeg.com/DinosandMan ... olina.html






http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/deception.html

 

[Imagican]

Mec,
One still must deal with the Scripture presented at the beginning of this thread and if the presupposition is that the earth is billions of year's old, then serious problems exist not just with the Genesis account but with the whole of Scripture. I once believed in evolution prior and after becoming a Christian, but was challenged by a Jehovah Witness (what a source right?) that began an adventure into a young earth scenario. After many books and articles I have come to the position that the young earth position makes a great case. Have you ever read the arguments from their perspective? Anyway, I leave you a couple of sites that I found within minutes of reading your response, please check them out.
Grace Bubba


http://www.carewinnipeg.com/DinosandMan ... olina.html

Bubba,

We KNOW that evolution exists. What Darwin discovered is obvious in it's revelations.

Have WE, (mankind), evolved? That's a 'tricky one'.

But that the earth has been here for a VAST amount of time is apparent in that in order for it to be READY to support mankind, it took TIME to become what it is today, (and has been for thousands of years).

I find no contradictions that MATTER contained within The Word. Where the contradictions arise is when men try to discern things that they 'get WRONG'.

A literal 'six day creation' makes NO sense whatsoever to me. And when we combine this idea with the information that we have TODAY, then we are able to come to a more PROPER conclusion than was formulated by those of the past that little or NO information upon which to base their understanding. For it would stand to REASON that an IMORTAL God unbound by the restraints of time, could take AS MUCH as NEEDED to perform His 'creation'. That He was UNABLE to explain to His 'creation' the exact AMOUNT is irrelevant. Time 'periods' would have most certainly been sufficient. And what we have learned through a STUDY of the Planet and the universe itself, lends to support the EXACT sequence in which God stated He performed 'creation'.

Is a 'rock' 237 million years old as defined by 'carbon dating' or some such other means of measurement? I am not even concerned with such matters as 'an exact DATE'. That it has been PROVEN to be WELL over 10,000 years disproves the 'traditional' belief of the story of 'creation' as offered in Genesis. NOW. If we determine that ANYTHING on this planet can be CONFIRMED to be OVER 10,000 years, then we can AUTOMATICALLY assume, (concure in my opinion), that the earth was NOT created in a LITERAL 'six days'. At this point we CAN come to the conclusion that God used 'days' as representative 'time periods' in order to offer an explanation of 'creation'.

You know, the church taught for MANY MANY years that the Earth was the 'center' of the universe. They believed that the earth was FLAT. It took those that CHOSE to understand the TRUTH to discover that these were FALSE assumptions. And only a matter of TIME and study to find that the TRUTH was MUCH LARGER than originally 'thought'.

LIsten, the SIMPLE FACT that light travels as a MEASURABLE rate offers ALL the proof needed to plainly SEE that the time periods of DAYS are irrelevant as to the creations of a 'star' 15,000 LIGHT YEARS AWAY. That means that the light that we see from such a star WAS CREATED AT LEAST 15,000 years ago. And we have found them to be VASTLY further away that that. But the mere 15,000 light year distance PROVES that creation took place BEFORE the traditionalists have believed and taught for hundreds upon hundreds of years.

There is NO REASON for God to BE deceptive in such a manner. We were GIVEN the intellect we possess for a REASON. The reason IS understanding of TRUTH.

As Paul stated to the Corinthians begs repeating TODAY: ''9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

While MANY will scream, "YOU TOOK THAT OUT OF CONTEXT", they are WRONG. For these words are TRUTH whether in reference to CHARITY or in reference to UNDERSTANDING PERIOD.

Blessings,

MEC

13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.









http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/deception.html

 

[Bubba]

Mec,
Darwin discovered that within the species there can be changes, he did not see a specie change into a different specie. The article I included on my last post about the discovery in South Carolina had basically every sort of fossil from human to dinosaur within 18 inches of strata for 6000 square miles. Some of the dinosaur fossils were said to be extinct 65 million years ago, yet they are side by side of the Mastodon, deer, and humans and etc... The whole find seems to support a world wide flood.
The creation account may not make sense to you, but the literal account is what we are left with. The author (God) did not leave you with the choice to speculate if days really mean millions of years (see first post again). Now if you want to say that you believe in some sort of "gap" theory that the earth once had been existence prior to Adam and Eve, with death and dying, then again what do you do with scripture that states death came into play because of the "Fall"? Plus, this belief does injustice to the reason Jesus came as Saviour according to Scripture (Romans 5:12-20).
The fact that many false beliefs have been expounded upon by the church in the past does not take away the literal genre of the creation account in Genesis. I truly think if a reasonable person spent some time studying what others believe about a young earth, they would find that there is much to support their position and that old earth science has many difficulties, such as the articles I included on my last post. So, to say that the earth has been proven to be much older then thousands of years, one has to accept that radiometric dating is accurate and that God does not create with the appearance of age, the latter can be proven wrong by Scripture as stated in other posts. To say, that for light to reach earth takes thousands of years, does not take away God's ability to light up the earth with the very rays whose source is not even created yet. In the Revelation, their no longer is the need of the sun or moon (Revelation 21:23), God supplies the light as He did in the beginning.
Grace, Bubba

 

[Bubba]

This is a segment from a article of Ken Ham. Bubba
"…if you take Genesis in a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation. However, the reason they don’t believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called ‘science’ that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.When someone says to me, ‘Oh, so you’re one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth creationists,’ I reply, ‘Actually, I’m a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist!’ (which means I’m a young-Earth creationist!).
Here’s what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sinâ€â€this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah’s day).
Also, the word for ‘day’ in the context of Genesis can only mean an ordinary day for each of the six days of Creation.
Thus, as a ‘revelationist,’ I let God’s Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible’s genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man’s ideas about the age of the universe."