Days of Creation - Must they be Consecutive?

[one.opinion]

17 minutes ago, Tristen said:

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.

I was just curious about the possibility, I'm not even close to confident enough to make an argument for it.

[one.opinion]

5 minutes ago, ezekiel said:

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. 

I followed your post until this point. What do you mean by this?

[simplejeff]

24 / 16 <> 7

24 / 16 ~ 25 / 15

20 / 10 = 20 / 10 = 2.0000000000000000000000000000000000000

[Tristen]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I was just curious about the possibility, I'm not even close to confident enough to make an argument for it.

Hey One,

I understand your point, but I think when you ask if it is within the realm of logical "possibility" to read an idea into a communication from God for which there is no textual basis, you set a very low (and potentially dangerous) standard for Biblical interpretation. In my opinion, when you start down that path you should experience flashing red lights, the ringing of alarm bells, and the tingling of spidey senses (in a spiritual sense, of course).

To close down that "possibility" would require an unreasonable degree of redundancy. The Bible would be huge. I.e. God would have had to summarised His account in Genesis 1 with the caveat, "By the way, when I say day, I mean day in the ordinary, everyday, 24 hour sense of the word. And when I number the days, I mean that the start of the subsequent day immediately follows the end of the previously numbered day. And when I say I created something on a particular day, I mean that I created literal, physical entities which did not exist before the day I created them (and I am still using day in the ordinary, everyday, 24 hour sense of the word - so don't even go there)." (Somewhere in Genesis 1)

Such caveats are completely unnecessary for, and intrinsically obvious to, everyone reading the account without an agenda to fit ancillary ideas into the narrative.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

To close down that "possibility" would require an unreasonable degree of redundancy.

Thanks, Tristen, I posted the question for opinions, certainly not to argue the validity of the point. I appreciate the input, all.

[SkyWriting]

On 11/10/2017 at 1:07 PM, 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?

The Creation account refers to Adam and Eve and The Garden Paradise.
Adam was removed from that place so we are not still in the Garden. 
Unless you can find it somewhere with an Angel guarding the entrance
then that creation was not this earth.  

Edited November 11, 2017 by SkyWriting

[dprprb]

On 11/10/2017 at 2:34 PM, shiloh357 said:

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.
 

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.

Perhaps there was too much quackery surrounding it but I thought that I nailed this one down tight...

God By going back to Gen 1 (to Flood the world in Noahs time) He infuses that Scripture with the purpose of His visit "the earth was filled with violence"  There is no preamble to Gen 1:1 where Satan caused a flood and any Scripture you are using to justify that Gap theory is Scriptural support that I encapsulate here that is 'superimposed' ...which as a by product kills local Flood theory.  Your truth antenna are picking the signal up but backfilling a preamble story to support that truth or rescue PreColumbian societies from the Flood is incorrect.

 

God is the only being that gives Scripture meaning. 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

9 hours ago, dprprb said:

Perhaps there was too much quackery surrounding it but I thought that I nailed this one down tight...

God By going back to Gen 1 (to Flood the world in Noahs time) He infuses that Scripture with the purpose of His visit "the earth was filled with violence"  There is no preamble to Gen 1:1 where Satan caused a flood and any Scripture you are using to justify that Gap theory is Scriptural support that I encapsulate here that is 'superimposed' ...which as a by product kills local Flood theory.  Your truth antenna are picking the signal up but backfilling a preamble story to support that truth or rescue PreColumbian societies from the Flood is incorrect.

 

God is the only being that gives Scripture meaning. 

 

You need to actually speak English instead of using convoluted wording.  I have no idea what you just wrote or what your main idea is. 

[simplejeff]

Edit: "English added below" 1 यूहन्ना 3:1-5Awadhi Bible: Easy-to-Read Version (ERV-AWA)

हम परमेस्सर क सन्तान अही

3 इ सोचिके देखा कि परमपिता हमका केतॅना पिरेम करत ह जइसेन कि हम पचे बेटी-बेटवा कहवावा जाइ सकी अउर वास्तव मँ उ हमहिं सब अही। इही बरे दुनिया हमका नाहीं पहिचानत, काहेकि उ मसीह क नाहीं पहिचानत। ² पिआरे बन्धुअन, अब हम परमेस्सर क सन्तान अही, मुला आगे चलिके हम सब का होबै, एकर जानकारी हमका नाहीं कराई गइ अहइ। जउन कछू होइ, हम इ जानित अही कि मसीह क फिन परगट होइ प हम पचे उही क तरह होइ जाब, काहेकि उ जइसेन अहइ, हम ओका उही तरह देखब। ³ जउन मनई ओसे अइसी उम्मीद रखत अहइ, उ खुदक वइसे पवित्तर करत ह जइसे मसीह पवित्तर अहइ।

⁴ जउन मनई पाप करत ह, उ परमेस्सर क नियम क तोड़त ह, काहेकि नियम क तोड़ब पाप बाटइ। ⁵ तू तउ जानत अहा कि मसीह सब मनइयन क पाप क नास करइ क वास्ते प्रकट भवा अहइ। अउर इहउ बात जानत अहा कि ओहमाँ कउनो पाप नाहीं अहइ।

Awadhi Bible: Easy-to-Read Version (ERV-AWA)

Awadhi Bible: Easy-to-Read Version Copyright © 2005 World Bible Translation Center

---------------------

1 John 3:1-5Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) 3 See what love the Father has lavished on us in letting us be called God’s children! For that is what we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it has not known him. 2 Dear friends, we are God’s children now; and it has not yet been made clear what we will become. We do know that when he appears, we will be like him; because we will see him as he really is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in him continues purifying himself, since God is pure. 4 Everyone who keeps sinning is violating Torah — indeed, sin is violation ofTorah. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and that there is no sin in him. Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) Copyright © 1998 by David H. Stern. All rights reserved.

[Justin Adams]

On 11/10/2017 at 7:59 PM, 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.

Radio dating is misleading. Genesis is not.