Days of Creation - Must they be Consecutive?

[one.opinion]

It is generally assumed by those that read the Genesis creation account literally that the days are consecutive. However, consecutive days are not specified in Genesis 1. Exodus 20 is often used to suggest that the creation days are consecutive, but the week could very well be symbolic. Is there strong Biblical reason to reject Gap creationism?

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

It is generally assumed by those that read the Genesis creation account literally that the days are consecutive. However, consecutive days are not specified in Genesis 1. Exodus 20 is often used to suggest that the creation days are consecutive, but the week could very well be symbolic. Is there strong Biblical reason to reject Gap creationism?

1.  The Hebrew is sequential in Genesis 1 with respect to the order of creation events and there is no way around that.

2. There is nothing symbolic at all.  Symbolism cannot be arbitrarily assigned to a passage we don't want to accept literally.   Symbolism is supplied by the author, not the reader.

3.  Yes, there is a huge reason to reject Gap creationism.   For one thing, the Hebrew grammar completely torpedoes the idea that Gen. 1:2 is a continuation of v. 1.   Secondly, the Gap theory completely contradicts the redemptive nature of God revealed in Scripture.

[simplejeff]

15 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Is there strong Biblical reason to reject Gap creationism?

Mainly because the SPIRIT of YAHWEH is not the source of that.  It came from a false source.

16 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

but the week could very well be symbolic.

This is a gross assumption , or myth, or worse,  taken from pagan sources, always contrary to Yahweh and all Scripture.

(in the context/ thread/ idea(s) presented here.

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Secondly, the Gap theory completely contradicts the redemptive nature of God revealed in Scripture.

I honestly have read very little regarding the Gap hypothesis, so am unfamiliar with it would contradict the redemptive nature of God. Would you mind explaining?

Also, I was actually thinking more specifically between Genesis 1 verses 5 and 6 (Days 1 and 2).

Verse 5: "God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

Verse 6-8: "And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."

Is it possible that there was a time gap between the end of verse 5 and the beginning of verse 6? If not, could you explain why that would not be possible?

(Sorry, I probably should have expounded a bit more in the OP.)

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, one.opinion said:

I honestly have read very little regarding the Gap hypothesis, so am unfamiliar with it would contradict the redemptive nature of God. Would you mind explaining?

The Gap theory holds that there was a pre-adamite race of human beings on a pre-adamite earth, and God destroyed that race of humans to extinction, wiped out the face of the earth and basically started over with Adam and Eve.  The problem is that it means that sin's origin is pre-Adam, which contradicts Rom. 5:12-21.   Secondly, God's nature is redemptive.   God never judges man in the Bible to the point that humanity cannot be restored and redeemed.  God's nature among other things is redemptive so for God not to have a plan of redemption for a race of human beings and chooses instead to destroy them into extinction simply doesn't jive with the revelation of Scripture regarding His nature and operations.
 

Quote

 

Also, I was actually thinking more specifically between Genesis 1 verses 5 and 6 (Days 1 and 2).

Verse 5: "God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

Verse 6-8: "And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."

Is it possible that there was a time gap between the end of verse 5 and the beginning of verse 6? If not, could you explain why that would not be possible?

(Sorry, I probably should have expounded a bit more in the OP.)

 

Why would there be a gap in time?  There is nothing in the text that indicates such.  The text indicates an immediate succession of events.  A reading of the text indicates there was no gap, so unless you can find some indicator in the text, there is no probability of a gap between day 1 and 2.

[one.opinion]

20 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Why would there be a gap in time?  There is nothing in the text that indicates such.  The text indicates an immediate succession of events.  A reading of the text indicates there was no gap, so unless you can find some indicator in the text, there is no probability of a gap between day 1 and 2.

No textual indicator, I was just thinking that a gap may provide a resolution to why radiometric dating suggests that the planet is ancient. I can see problems with gaps between other days, but not days 1 and 2.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, one.opinion said:

No textual indicator, I was just thinking that a gap may provide a resolution to why radiometric dating suggests that the planet is ancient. I can see problems with gaps between other days, but not days 1 and 2.

Radiometric dating will date just about anything as ancient, even stuff we know is not ancient.

[Tristen]

The text explicitly defines each day as consisting of day and night, evening and morning. Then it numbers the days in "consecutive" order.

As with any communication, it is "possible" to read ideas into the message that don't actually exist in the text itself - if one is so motivated. I find that approach sets a very dangerous precedent for interpreting scripture (technically called eisegesis).

I don't see any objective reason to submit the authority of scripture to the highly assumptive process of "radiometric dating". The actual facts don't "suggest" anything about the age of the earth until interpreted to do so.

[ezekiel]

Gap really ! God rest not. Just a way that they may write off the things they do not understand instead of asking the Holy one of Israel rather Christ for the truth. Just as the book of revelation, just because it is the next verse it must happen next. Isaiah , the best one that has put most in order, The book of Genesis rather creation are three fold, one creation of the cosmos, two creation of earth, three the molding of His spirit in us at a 6000 year period. If you say it is a 24 hour time then just hold on because the days will soon be 16 hours. That will change you mind. 

[simplejeff]

No, sorry.