Seventh day dating


Genesis 1 needs to be interpreted in its own context and not by an irrelevant verse written 1500 years later. These tactics would be laughed to scorn if they were attempted in any other field of study.(2) Let us grant, for the sake of discussion, the mathematical formula that the theistic evolutionists desire. We should certainly not tolerate them in the study of God's Word.One day's flood activity could build up layers of sediments that would normally take a thousand years to form by uniformitarian (slowly acting) processes. But what does it do to language as a tool to communicate meaningful information?2 Peter 3:8 has nothing whatever to do with the length of the creation week. If words have this kind of infinite flexibility, then the art of communication is in deed a lost cause.The claim, then, is that the days of Genesis 1 are really long periods of time, which correspond to the major periods of evolutionary geological history. Their rationale is uniformitarian in nature: Jesus promised to come quickly, He has not come yet, therefore He is not going to come at all.A Refutation of the Day-Age Theory Most Bible-believing creationists maintain the day-age theory is an unbiblical option for the following reasons: (1) It is axiomatic in hermeneutics (the science of biblical interpretation) that "a text without a context is a pretext." Just as a tape recording can be edited to make the speaker say whatever the editor desires, so the Scriptures can be juggled to suit a person's fancy or predisposition. Peter refutes these uniformitarian assumptions with a reference to the Flood and the certainty of judgment for these scoffers.The primary usage of any term is always given priority in any translation and secondary uses are tried only when the primary usage does not make sense in the context in which the term is set.


A pertinent suggestion here, in light of the passage's reference to Creation and the Flood, is a possible allusion to the flood's rapid buildup of the sedimentary layers of the so-called geologic column.

Then, responding to the charge that Christ has failed to fulfill His promise, Peter writes the words in question, and concludes by reaffirming the certainty of the second coming of Christ.

Verse 8 was never intended to be a mathematical formula of 1 = 1000 or 1000 = 1. While we mortals think 1000 years is a long time, God can scan 1000 years of history — past and future — as quickly as we can scan from one end of the horizon to the other.

But 6000 years is only a drop in the bucket compared to the time required to make the evolutionary system work. If you were able to see the noun form of ship, in isolation and without a context, which of the three definitions would first come to mind?

A lack of a vast time period is the death knell of the evolutionary process. Obviously the definition listed as #1, or the primary definition of the word.

So it is in Genesis 1: all the surrounding words convey, to the unbiased reader, the idea that each activity is confined to one of the particular 24-hour days of this creation week. The word "day" appears over 200 times in the Old Testament with numbers (i.e., first day, second day, etc.).


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>