Why are there 7 days in a week?

[otseng]

Why are there 7 days in a week? Certainly there are no astronomical cycles based on 7 days. So why 7 days? Could it be that God set it up that way from the very beginning?

[DTho]

For a bit of clarification, I'm not arguing that God didn't create the universe; nor, that God didn't do so in a period of 144 hours (as we currently understand the measure). What I am saying is that it may be a bit presumptuous to assume that "yom/yowm" (credit to those that actually had the patience/interest to look up the proper word) equates to a 24-hour day.

Could God have created the Earth, et cetera, in six days? Sure. Could God have created the universe in six milliseconds (or less)? Sure. Could God have simply "started the ol' ball rollin'" and allowed the universe (as we know it) to "self-form" over the course of many, many millions of years? Sure. Could "God" not even be a factor at all? I'd say, perhaps.

How, I might ask, does one jive the apparent (scientifically-established) geological age of the Earth with it's Biblically espoused youth? I'm not proposing that one trust Earthly science more than the Bible; however, even the most Biblically entrenched must at least address this question (if only in their own minds).

I'm not, necessarily, questioning the legitimacy of the Genesis account; however, one (it seems to me) must assume that the creation story (presuming its validity) was presented to us, from God, in a way that would be comprehensible to our limited and flawed human intellects, especially those of the day, i.e., I don't think it is unreasonable to assume God may have "dumbed down" the tale so we humans could wrap our minds around it.

Regardless how "yom" may be properly translated, it neither invalidates the Bible nor modern science (as I see it). A year is as a day, after all . . .

-DT

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

How, I might ask, does one jive the apparent (scientifically-established) geological age of the Earth with it's Biblically espoused youth? I'm not proposing that one trust Earthly science more than the Bible; however, even the most Biblically entrenched must at least address this question (if only in their own minds).

Well, the Bible isn't specific in dating the earth. It's fairly specific on the time man has spent here though. But there's really no contradiction between the "scientifically-established" geological record and Genesis.

The most simplest answer is to posit that God created the earth with age. The chicken came before the egg and the plant before the seed. Adam was created a man, not a zygote. Everything in creation was mature. In this context it's more than reasonable then to believe that God created both the universe and the earth mature with age as well.

I also subscribe to the Gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, where the fall of the angels occured. The time between the original creation (v1) and the recreation (v2) could have been any amount of time. The Genesis account then picks up at that recreation in which God renews creation in six 24-hour days.

[DTho]

EI: That's not a totally unreasonable answer; however, I might ask you what the purpose of creating an apparently aged Earth would be (not to say God couldn't have done so)? Is that not a premeditated deception on God's part? Does that not draw into question the Truth which is God?

Scientific evidence also appears to suggest that humans, or, at least pre-humans, existed far prior to the genealogically-given account of how long we have been here since creation. Is this "falsified evidence," created by God, in order to perpetuate the overall deception?

I am unfamiliar with this theory of "recreation" between 1:1 and 1:2 that you allude to. It seems to me that any such conclusion would be an exceptional stretch; however, I'm willing to listen and learn . . .

-DT

[DTho]

EI: That's not a totally unreasonable answer; however, I might ask you what the purpose of creating an apparently aged Earth would be (not to say God couldn't have done so)? Is that not a premeditated deception on God's part? Does that not draw into question the Truth which is God?

Scientific evidence also appears to suggest that humans, or, at least pre-humans, existed far prior to the genealogically-given account of how long we have been here since creation. Is this "falsified evidence," created by God, in order to perpetuate the overall deception?

I am unfamiliar with this theory of "recreation" between 1:1 and 1:2 that you allude to. It seems to me that any such conclusion would be an exceptional stretch; however, I'm willing to listen and learn . . .

(Bump)

Hmmm . . . is that against “the rules?” Guess I’ll find out . . .

-DT

[otseng]

(Bump)

Hmmm . . . is that against “the rules?” Guess I’ll find out . . .

I believe you're the first person to bump a thread here.

No, there are no rules (yet) against bumping threads. If it is abused, perhaps a rule will be created against it. And, btw, this goes for any type of activity on the forum. I've tried to minimize the amount of rules here. But, if I find that someone is abusing a freedom, then I will consider placing explicit rules to curtail that action.

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

Thanks for bumping the thread up. I completely forgot about it...I guess that's the problem when I overextend myself by posting on too many threads!

EI: That's not a totally unreasonable answer; however, I might ask you what the purpose of creating an apparently aged Earth would be (not to say God couldn't have done so)? Is that not a premeditated deception on God's part? Does that not draw into question the Truth which is God?

I honestly can't answer that. I am in no position to fully understand God's intentions. But I will say that I don't see such a thing as premeditated deception by God. To many believers, creation itself makes God's existence self-evident. It doesn't matter how old the earth is; the fact that it exists, and we too exist, ought to be proof enough. The Bible does not attempt to date the earth or explain such things we know now via science, so I don't know how such a thing can then "draw into question the Truth." No scientific fact is contradicted by Scripture. I simply assume that God does not see that our knowledge of the earth's age has any relevance to His existence and subsequent revelation as well as our salvation.

Scientific evidence also appears to suggest that humans, or, at least pre-humans, existed far prior to the genealogically-given account of how long we have been here since creation. Is this "falsified evidence," created by God, in order to perpetuate the overall deception?

The evidence can suggest a number of things depending on your worldview and thus your own interpretation. The ape-like creatures (pre-humans) that once lived are not necessarily our ancestors. It seems as if one needs to establish macroevolution as a cold hard fact before you can accuse God of "falsifying evidence." Until then, it's just a philosophical assumption based on the evidence; one of many.

I am unfamiliar with this theory of "recreation" between 1:1 and 1:2 that you allude to. It seems to me that any such conclusion would be an exceptional stretch; however, I'm willing to listen and learn . . .

Well, I believe this is actually what the Bible teaches. I'm answering your questions above, even though I believe none of those questions necessarily apply within my worldview. I gave my arguments for the Genesis Gap in this thread (page 2). You're more than welcome to bump that thread too if you want to discuss/debate that any further.

[DTho]

No, there are no rules (yet) against bumping threads. If it is abused, perhaps a rule will be created against it.

I’ll try not to abuse it. I was simply interested in that Genesis 1:1-:1:2 “recreation” thing, and sincerely wanted to know what that was all about.

I honestly can't answer that. I am in no position to fully understand God's intentions.

That is, quite possibly, the best/most honest answer I’ve ever read in my [several] years of Internet religion debate. I have a profound amount of respect for someone that can simply say, “I don’t know” when they don’t know. Bravo.

Anyway . . . I went to your linked post, EI, but, unfortunately, my attention span waned as I read. If you would be so kind, could you possibly condense all that into a paragraph or two? You are, of course, under no obligation whatsoever to compensate for my short attention span, so, I won’t be “offended” (or any such nonsense), if you don’t indulge me; I’d simply appreciate it. Regardless, thanks for your time and for getting back to the issues I raised . . .

-DT

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

No, there are no rules (yet) against bumping threads. If it is abused, perhaps a rule will be created against it.

I’ll try not to abuse it. I was simply interested in that Genesis 1:1-:1:2 “recreation” thing, and sincerely wanted to know what that was all about.

I honestly can't answer that. I am in no position to fully understand God's intentions.

That is, quite possibly, the best/most honest answer I’ve ever read in my [several] years of Internet religion debate. I have a profound amount of respect for someone that can simply say, “I don’t know” when they don’t know. Bravo.

Anyway . . . I went to your linked post, EI, but, unfortunately, my attention span waned as I read. If you would be so kind, could you possibly condense all that into a paragraph or two? You are, of course, under no obligation whatsoever to compensate for my short attention span, so, I won’t be “offended” (or any such nonsense), if you don’t indulge me; I’d simply appreciate it. Regardless, thanks for your time and for getting back to the issues I raised . . .

-DT

Thanks for the kind words DT.

As for your request, I can repost the outline to my argument. I defended each premise at length in the thread:

1.) God created the angels prior to creating the heavens and the earth (the universe).
2.) [Corollary] God then created the heavens and the earth. God’s creation was perfect. (He created animals at this time too.)
3.) The universe was first created to be ruled over by angels.
4.) Some of the angels, led by Satan, sinned against God.
5.) These angels were cast down from heaven.
6.) The sin of the angels and God’s following judgement resulted in the subsequent destruction of His creation – just as man’s original sin was felt throughout God’s (second) creation.
7.) The only time this event could have happened is between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

The earth prior to the fall of the angels was most likely was like the new recreation - containing plants and animals (there is a logical reason for this). That would explain the curious fossil records - it's the same earth after all. The time that elapsed between Genesis 1:1-2 could have been any amount of time. The bottom line is for many people to understand is that Scripture does not necessitate the belief in a young earth.

I guess beyond this, you'll have to ask me more specific questions or read that thread.