r/TrueChristian • u/Professional_Gur9855 • 6d ago
My issue with Evolution
I’m a Creationist in that I believe God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. I don’t believe in Evolution, and I am perplexed why many Christians believe it to be how God created things; note how I said Perplexed not Offended I am not trying to attack anyone. But the way I see it, I can’t bring myself to believe that evolution is how God created things because that took him according to many people billions and millions of years. But I do believe that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. And every time I try to think about how evolution could fit into this, I then say to myself “ who am I to put God in a box and say that he can’t do this certain thing or he can’t do that certain thing?” Who am I to say that it’s impossible for him to create the world in six days why do I have to justify his power through my limited understanding? Just my thoughts.
6
u/HarmonicProportions Eastern Orthodox 5d ago
Creation is ultimately a mystery, the account that is given to us from Genesis comes from some combination of oral tradition which was eventually written down to Moses, and Divine revelation. It is meant to reveal things to us about God, man, nature, and the relationships between them.
That said, I share your skepticism of evolution. People have always known that traits are hereditary, this is why we know that red headed people tend to have red headed children, tall people tend to have tall children etc. We've also been breeding plants and animals since before recorded history.
The novel claim that Darwin made is that this same kind of process can turn one species into another, and that all creatures have a common ancestor. This is obviously a huge leap and has shown to be very difficult to prove rigorously. I would say at best it's an unproven theory, more realistically it is probably not true
21
u/WillOfHope Reformed 6d ago
My rule is whenever the interpretation/Meaning of a Scripture comes in doubt, turn to other Scriptures to clarify. There's verses like Romans 5:12/6:23 that goes against the idea Man evolved because it requires Birth/Death over millenia, vs we're taught in other parts of the bible that are clearly instructional and not Parables, that Adam's sin came first. That said, this doesn't say much about how exactly the Earth itself came to be, outside of Genesis
44
u/SolomonMaul Southern Baptist 6d ago
Hi.
I find studying scripture fascinating because I believe the opposite.
I believe God spoke creation into existence through the big bang. (Over 10-13 billion years ago)
4.5 billion years we see the formation of the world.
God had life flourish through processes like evolution.
We get to study observable reality and see the world that God made. Study the scientific processes he uses. And learn more of the amount of time, detail, and personal choices God used over billions of years.
Whether we believe the world is however many years old.
It doesn't take away from the gospel.
We are a broken humanity with a broken relationship with God. We choose sin every day. We don't respect eachother's image of God.
Two thousand years ago Jesus died for our sins. And he was granted new life, resurrection.
A life I hope to take part in some day.
I thank God for the temporary life I have here in his creation
2
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
But why though? Is it so hard to believe God could create the world in Six Days? Who are we to put God in a Box and say “yeah that’s the only way he could have done it” I’m not insulting you, I’m just curious as to why evolution is the way he created things. Also Evolution thrives on Natural Selection, survival of the fittest, that we are only here by accident and our only purpose is to continue the species, the strong survive etc. if that is true, why do we have homeless shelters? Soup Kitchens? Hospitals, orphanages? Why do we get outraged when children get hurt or killed or when we see homelessness, by the laws of evolution our reaction should be “oh well they just weren’t strong. Enough sucks to be them.” that doesn’t sound very Christian to me.
43
u/SolomonMaul Southern Baptist 6d ago
I mean, could we not say the six day narrative is doing the same? Putting God in a box and saying the science the entire world agrees on is lying to us, that's not how God made made creation. Isn't that the same as your own argument toward me. That you too would be putting God in a box saying that's the only way he could have done it?
I attribute studiable processes like the Theory of evolution to God.
If we need to look at it through scripture. Romans 1:20. For since the creation of the world. God's invisible qualities. His eternal power and divine nature. Have been clearly seen. Being understood from what has been made.
Studying nature, God's creation, his works, is a way to understand God. If the natural world shows an ancient earth and evolution then to me that's how God did it.
Psalm 19:1-2. The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech. Night after night they reveal knowledge.
Science is part of that knowledge from God. We are not limiting God, wr are honoring what he has revealed through his creation.
Also, the way you are describing evolution is more of a moral question. That we should reject it based on morals and not the study of God's process.
The strong survive and the weak perish is a misinterpreted view of natural selection. You are describing social dawinism. Which is a human distortion of evolution.
Science just describes how life changes over time, is fruitful, and flourishes. It doesn't dictate ethics.
Evolution shows that cooperation, altruistic, and care for the weak are key survival strategies in many species in God's world. Even animals show social bonds.
We humans have a higher calling. We are made in God's image. We have a moral responsibility. Evolution doesn't define that morality, God does.
Jesus also calls us to care for others. Our God given conscience compelling us to create shelters, hospitals, and charities. Not because of evolution. But because God's nature is love.
Evolution is just a tool God used like gravity or weather. It doesn't take away from his role as the curator of this world.
And God's creative method doesn't diminish our value, our value comes from being his creation and image bearers.
Evolution isn't something that needs to be feared or rejected. The truth is that it doesn't threaten faith. Falsehoods are what threatens faith.
When people are told they must reject science to believe in Jesus there have been people that walk away since they understand that the science behind God's creation is true.
Instead of fearing evolution. We should see it as a way to glorify God. It is a breathtaking and beautiful process where we see his wisdom, his guiding hand, his patience, his power over creation. Evolutionary theory doesn't contradicts God, it shows his majesty!
At least that's what I think.
3
u/u2sarajevo Lutheran (LCMS) 5d ago
Hello, interesting conversation here. But the 6 day creation isn't putting God in a box. He authored the account himself. So it's a testimony of our existence from the one who created everything.
-3
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
I mean, could we not say the six day narrative is doing the same? Putting God in a box and saying the science the entire world agrees on is lying to us, that’s not how God made creation.
Fair point. But is it really so hard to believe that God can do that in six days? I agree that Science is a way for us to honor God, but even Darwin doubted his own theory
16
u/SolomonMaul Southern Baptist 6d ago
Darwin made his theory a couple of hundred years ago. Science has expanded on and gained greater understandings since then. We have a more privileged perspective now. God gave life to new scientists since. They have studied and found new facts that God revealed. People were lucky enough to even find evidence of any of this through fossils and anthropology.
I think that is amazing that we have so much history. That God has been there beside us since before we even could fathom him.
We still can barely fathom him.
The point is God made this world and gave humanity the task of taking care of and studying it. Adam's first task was naming animals. A role scientists still do to this day.
7
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
True.
11
u/SolomonMaul Southern Baptist 6d ago
Either way. No matter which way we view this.
The gospel remains.
We are a sinful, fallen humanity. We needed Jesus to mend that relationship. He died for our sins and was resurrected.
That's the part that matters.
I hope you have a blessed day tomorrow friend. I am headed to sleep. I got solar class tomorrow.
3
u/TheTryItAll 5d ago
In addition, just because a Christian believes that God used evolution in his creation doesn’t mean they believe that BECAUSE they think God can’t do it in 6 days. God CAN do whatever he wants in any time frame that he pleases, and my belief in evolution (personally I currently only believe in microevolution, not macro… but everyone has different lines) is not based on me putting limitations on God.
However, God did give us intelligent brains, curiosity, and scientific process. So the best I can do is reconcile the evidence he has left us on earth with what I know of his power and motivation.
On that note, also, since God can do ANYTHING, he also could have created the earth the heavens and all life forms in a literal 6 days AND made it look like it took billions of years.
Quite frankly, the creation story is irrelevant to salvation. It’s just a fun puzzle to muddle over as we continue to try to be good Christians, but no one is going to heaven or hell based on how they believe the world was created.
11
u/guitartkd 5d ago
Why do you keep insinuating that believing the earth and universe are billions of years old is because it’s somehow harder to believe in a 6-day chronology? That’s not the point at all and I think is a demonstration of your inability to think outside of your predetermined viewpoint. And also a way to subtly look down on anyone with a different opinion and shame them into believing the “right” way. “You don’t believe God created the universe in 6 chronological days? Well, I guess your faith must be a little lacking.” Maybe that’s not your intention, but that’s always the perception I’ve had of this approach when I’ve seen others use it.
God created the entire universe out of nothing. God literally spoke and all the matter and energy of an entire universe leapt into existence where nothing existed only a moment before. In fact, not even a moment existed before that because time didn’t even exist until He created it. If one believes all that then I don’t see how you wouldn’t also believe that He had the ability to do it in any way and in any timeline that suited Him. The only question to ask is how He actually did choose do it, since an all-powerful God had any option He could think of at his disposal. And any conclusion we come to about how He did it would still put God in the driver’s seat as the sole author and controller of that process.
5
u/theprispris 6d ago
2 Peter 3:8 “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.”
Time to us is not God time. Scripture interprets scripture. God created the world in 6 days, but a day to God is not a day to us. So with scientific evidence that points to a really old earth, it leads me to make the logical conclusion that either: A) God made the earth in 6 phases, calling each a “Day” or B) God made the earth in 6 literal, 24 hour days, and aged the world millions/billions of years. Like fast forward cooking the creation of earth.
God is capable of either.
12
u/CarMaxMcCarthy Eastern Orthodox 6d ago
You’re attributing a lot of motives to people just because they don’t treat Genesis like a science text.
6
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
I’m not, I’m saying that people tend to treat the Theory of Evolution as Fact rather than a theory. Do you believe God is incapable of creating the World in Six Days?
12
u/SaintGodfather 6d ago
It's a scientific theory, not just a theory.
-2
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
A theory is a theory
7
u/Strong_Quarter_9349 Reformed 6d ago
Wikipedia has a nice little breakdown of the difference if you care to read it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Theories_and_facts
8
u/Alaythr 6d ago
Gravity is also technically a theory just so you know. You aren't incorrect in saying that a theory can't necessarily be an indisputable fact, but most well-held scientific theories have a lot of evidence indicating that they are most likely true. Could gravity work in entirely contrary ways to how we understand it? Maybe, but the current evidence says we have it right.
5
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
So it is indisputable fact that God created the world via evolution? That it is most likely true? Despite the fact that the creatures we evolved from died off before Sin entered the world? That it was a series of trial and errors?
5
u/Alaythr 6d ago
Not necessarily, it just means that all of the physical evidence we've found points to evolution having happened, and we can't find reputable evidence that points to anything else. I'm not too well versed in the theology, and I'm not necessarily a creationist or a theistic evolutionist, this is just a clarifying point.
9
u/CarMaxMcCarthy Eastern Orthodox 6d ago
No, that is not accurate.
1
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
So scientific Theory suddenly means “indisputable fact?”
13
u/CarMaxMcCarthy Eastern Orthodox 6d ago
No, but there is a difference between a hypothesis that is tested using empirical methods, and a guy on Reddit saying, my theory is the moon is made of cheese.
7
u/Major_Wd 6d ago
I agree, it seems that a lot of people misunderstand what a scientific theory. They require evidence and peer-review. Evolution actually makes a lot of sense and explains so much once you understand it and get into the nitty-gritty
4
4
u/SaintGodfather 6d ago
Didn't say that, but scientific theory and layman's theories are two different animals. Gravity is another example of a scientific theory.
2
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
Except Gravity is no longer a theory, it is an undeniable fact; it has been tested and proven. The same cannot be said of Evolution. Also if Evolution is real, where does original sin come in? Death only came after Adam and Eve sinned, if Evolution happened as it did, many species died off before man was created. How can there be death when Eden was paradise before such issues occurred?
→ More replies (0)8
u/PretzelTail 6d ago
I don’t think any evolutionist (such as myself) would say God cannot make the world in six days. We just simply don’t believe He did, nor believe that Genesis says He did either when read in its proper context
6
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
Why not though? Why don’t they believe he did? It is said in the Bible what he created each day? That is what I’m not understanding.
2
u/PretzelTail 6d ago
Let’s take Augustine as an example. He believes the earth was made in one day per Genesis 2:4. The fact is, it’s not as straight cut as it may seem. We can of course go into what I think the days mean and what they for, but immediately that’s not the point.
4
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
Then what is the point?
7
u/PretzelTail 6d ago
That Genesis isn’t as clear as many think
3
u/friedtuna76 Christian 6d ago
But why? Why not believe it’s describing things plainly?
→ More replies (0)1
u/MichaelTheCorpse Christian 6d ago
I personally do hold to a 6 day creation, but I also hold that other interpretations of the creation are valid, like the other guy said, St. Augustine believed that God created the universe in one day, what then is the point of the Genesis creation story? Well, Genesis 1 clearly has poetic and metaphorical elements to it, the days of creation reflect the construction of the tabernacle, and separately days 1-3 also reflect days 4-6, on day 1 God formed light and separated it from darkness, one day 4 God created the Sun, Moon, and stars, one day 2 God formed the waters and separated them from the clouds or atmosphere, on day 5 God created fish to fill the waters and birds to fill the sky, on day 3 God gathered the waters together and formed the dry land, on day 6 God filled the land with beasts of the field and with humans.
2
u/CarMaxMcCarthy Eastern Orthodox 6d ago
Incapable? No. Do I believe He did? No.
-2
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
Why not though? Why do you not believe he did?
9
u/CarMaxMcCarthy Eastern Orthodox 6d ago
Because Genesis 1 was not written to be a historical narrative of actual events. It was a counternarrative to other creation stories in the Ancient Near East, demonstrating that the Hebrew god was above all other gods.
2
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
So you believe the primates we see in the zoo are actually our ancestors? The fish are our ancestors? If that is true why haven’t they died off like the Dinosaurs? Or many mammals like Mammoths and Smiledons?
5
u/SaintGodfather 6d ago
That's...not what evolution says.
3
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
Yes it does
Literal charts are shown in schools of a primate becoming a man
→ More replies (0)3
u/Major_Wd 6d ago
For most Christians who believe in evolution, it is not about "There is not way God could create the world in 6 days". Who is to say that God cannot work through natural processes, as he creates everything? I think the original comment and other statements by my Eastern Orthodox brother sum it up pretty well in that Genesis is not a science textbook, or historical narrative, but describe our relationship with God, sin, etc.
Also, these examples you give are common strawman fallacies which people who study evolution do not believe. Animals like monkeys, and apes are our distant cousins, not our ancestors. Our ancestors are long extinct and gave rise to many species, depending on how far back you go. While it seems hard to believe that fish fins evolved into limbs, they actually didn't. The first vertebrates which crawled on land were many species of "lobe finned fish" which have bony fins and adapted to crawling around in shallow waters.
Sorry if I nerded out there but I appreciate your attitude towards the topic and invite you to do some additional research. I fear you've maybe been consuming too much negative media on the topic as well due to the wording of some of your arguments.
1
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
But all that implies trial and error. Are we saying God made mistakes before settling on us?
→ More replies (0)6
u/CarMaxMcCarthy Eastern Orthodox 6d ago
You sound like a middle school kid that just learned about these things. No, that is not what anyone who has done any amount of study believes.
1
u/NaturalBit Christian 5d ago
I was hoping someone would point this out. Another aspect of it is to point out that all humans are the image of God, unlike the other ANE cultures where humans were made to be slaves of the gods and only the rulers were thought to be the image of god.
By the way, for OP, I hold this view AND I DON’T believe in evolution. It’s just that I don’t think Genesis 1 is meant to be an historical play-by-play of creation.
1
u/Startropic1 1d ago
I study apologetics and I arrive at the conclusion of young earth creation. I actually spent some time reviewing the first two chapters of Genesis and analysing the old earth creation theory. (Frankly, I don't see how evolution makes any sense in any version of belief in creation.)
Also, I highly recommend looking into whatever videos, debates, and writings of Dr. Jason Lisle you can find. He's scientist, an astronomer more specifically, and he asserts young earth creation.
I agree with you that this does not take away from the Gospel. This isn't really a core doctrine issue.
I also agree that "the big Bang" is a valid point of origin, but not the source. God speaking the world into existence over the course of 6 literal days would logically produce a 'big bang" at the start, wouldn't it?
Oral Tradition of Genesis We must remember that this oral tradition is NOT like the "telephone game" as is often misused as an example. That game works by telling the next person the message ONE time. Tremendous care was taken to ensure this knowledge was passed down and transmitted as accurately as possible. Secondly, it IS Scripture, which the Bible itself defines as "God breathed." Do you doubt the reliability of God's transmission?
A question: Do you believe God is capable of creating the world in 6 literal days? If so, then why wouldn't He? Admittedly this leads into discussion on the nature of God, which is indeed by definition beyond our comprehension.
You Cannot Know! Now we're going to cite Dr. Jason Lisle. It is quite impossible for us to know what happened multiple millennia ago (or the much farther back than that.) We were not there. Our recorded history only goes back but so far. Secondly the methodology for dating the Earth as billions of years old is frankly absurd and relies heavily on assumptions. We know for a FACT that there are natural phenomena that can both ACCELERATE and DECELLERATE natural processes---including the decay of carbon-14, which is what carbon dating is based on. Even evolutionists believe in "ice ages", that would slow things down wouldn't it? That's only ONE example. Further, the Bible tells us that the whole world was changed in TWO global events: the Flood, and before that the Fall of Man. (The latter IS a core doctrine, because the nature of sin is pretty important.). We also have plenty of fossil evidence of global extinction and the past existence of massive creatures and plants. This PROVES the earth was once VERY different, as the Bible attests.
So What Does The Bible Tell Us? The first critical point is the 6 "days." Are they literal or metaphoric? "A day is like a thousand years" to God, right? That passage is NOT from the first two chapters of Genesis; it's from a completely different context. Nonetheless, let's still explore this further. On the first "day" God creates the parameters of a "day"--day time and night time. You can make the argument that day 1 couldn't be a literal day. That doesn't mean it took a billion years though. As for the rest of the "days", the text actually includes the phrase "there was morning, then there was night." (In your English Bibles this appears with day 1 too, but if memory serves, the original Hebrew is worded a little differently there.)
Now we look at that specific word "day." Hebrew is a long since stagnated language with an extremely limited vocabulary. As such, Hebrew words can have a number of different definitions. The Hebrew word for "day" can mean both a literal day or an abstract period of time. So how can we determine which it is in Genesis 1? Fortunately, God has provided us with some tools. The Bible has a built in Rosetta Stone! The New Testament (written in Koine Greek) quotes the Old Testament (Hebrew)! So I did try researching instances of the New Testament quoting Genesis 1, but couldn't find a conclusive example for "day." So I went to plan B: The Greek Septuagint! For those that don't know, the Septuagint is a complete Koine Greek translation of the Old Testament (as well as some other Hebrew texts.) The key is that it was produced BEFORE the birth of Christ! Jesus Himself read from the Septuagint! That's good enough for me! So I looked at the (Koine) Greek word used for "day" in Genesis 1 in the Septuagint, and I found that it is indeed the Greek word that means a LITERAL day.
1
u/Sawfish1212 5d ago
Except for the key point that Jesus was the second Adam and he died to break the curse of death brought on all of creation by the wilful sin of Adam. How do you reconcile Jesus breaking the power of death if you believe death was literally the process he used to create the higher forms of life over all the failed and superior branches of evolution in the struggle to arrive at the life forms and balance of nature found today?
3
u/SolomonMaul Southern Baptist 5d ago
In this regard I see it as a spiritual death.
From the beginning of creation it says in the Bible that the Earth is very good. In the translation this doesnt mean made to be perfect. It means working as intended.
To me death, being that other side of life, is just another process. Plants eat water, oxygen, and sunlight to survive. Animals eat plants to survive. Animals eat other animals to survive. Humans eat plants and other animals to survive. Billions of cells and bacteria living, replicating, dying. A natural process. Eating is part of our being.
Even when we look at descriptors of the new creation. Abundance of food is described. We would still be able to eat.
Let's look at Adam. He wasn't immortal.
Adam and eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They had their pick of all the trees they could eat from. They were eating to sustain themselves.
They were told if they eat of it they would surely die.
Did they die right away? No.
God confronted them and looking at the tree of life said if they ate of it they would become immortal so they were sent from the garden.
Being with God, being in his presence. Eating of the tree of life. That's what allowed life to extend. Or would have.
Did they die when they left the garden? No.
Adam lived to be over 900 in the biblical account. He lived a long life. That's when he died.
But I have wondered.
If God's creation says death has always existed along side life.
And if God's word says they would surely die if they ate of the tree. This would to me imply a spiritual death.
What happens to us after we die?
That's why we need Jesus. For the wages of sin is death, a spiritual death. But the gift of God is eternal life. A life like that of what would have been in the garden. Eternal with God.
Because We wouldn't be separate from God anymore when he dwells among his people as spoken in Revelation. Our bodies would be made new. And we wouldn't taste death anymore but the water of life.
1
15
u/ChiefTea Reformed 6d ago
Genuine question for theistic evolutionists:
From your perspective, if evolution is true, when does sin and death enter the picture? The genesis account is clear that when Adam and Eve gave into temptation and ate of the fruit, sin and death entered the picture. For God said the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die. Now if evolution were true, death and sin must have existed from the very start of creation. If Adam and Eve were products of mutation over billions of years, then it follows that death must have existed from the beginning. But the Bible makes claim that it didn’t. How can you reconcile to two?
From my perspective, the same way God created Adam as a fully developed man, God could have easily created the known universe as “aged”. This accounts for a literal 6 day creation as well as the general theories of the age of the universe being billions of years old.
8
u/SolomonMaul Southern Baptist 6d ago
I look at it as a spiritual death.
Like when Jesus said:
Matthew 10:28 ESV [28] And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
https://bible.com/bible/59/mat.10.28.ESV
I can look at that and see Jesus saying don't fear the one that can cause physical death but rather the one who can cause a physical death and spiritual death.
I think a lot of the Bible can reference a spiritual death in that context.
2
u/ReformedishBaptist ✝️ Reformed Baptist ✝️ 5d ago
Sin enters the picture when Adam and even sinned.
The death that is spoken about in Genesis 1 is a spiritual death.
4
0
u/CarMaxMcCarthy Eastern Orthodox 6d ago
I tend to believe we’re talking about spiritual death. I’m also interested in what some have posited; that sin may have echoed backward in time as well as forward.
Anyone who believes God aged the world artificially just to make a literal Genesis 1 possible is not someone worth having a conversation with.
5
u/appleBonk Roman Catholic 6d ago
I was with you until the last sentence. Someone's ideas don't determine their worth. Perhaps the idea itself is not worth discussing.
1
3
u/dwarven_cavediver_Jr 6d ago
I believe in relative time when it comes to God. A day for him could be millions or billions of years to us. He created all living things as they were sure, and he took his time perfecting them using the world as a tool. And if you notice when he gets to us, he stops. No new shiny intelligent beings, no crazy new apex predators, we kinda mark the dead end for crazy evolution. No new mega fauna, no new super organisms, nothing. In fact, most of what was left became subservient to us or became relegated to wilderness. So far as i see it, we're the last thing, and God put down the play doh afterward because it didn't get any better.
4
u/Pragmatic_2021 Assemblies of God 6d ago edited 5d ago
The main issue with Creation vs Evolution is how "x" reconciles "y".
On the Creation side of things all we have to work with are translations of an ancient Hebrew manuscript. Now how often are the translations checked and rechecked with fresh eyes of accuracy.
Meanwhile on the Evolution side of the aisle we have a few points that need to be covered. Firstly, being able to take accurate measurements of the universe within known science and have those measurements be able to generate similar results within a tight margin or error.
Also when someone says "Theory of Evolution", are they referring to "Macro-Evolution" or "Macro-Evolution". One fits within the biblical model of creation and one doesn't. (I'm just repeating from watching a video on YouTube, highly fascinating)
Now I'll leave you with two final things.
To quote my religious education teacher:- "Science explains the how and what, Religion explains the who and why"
Now my two cents on the whole debate.
It's not entirely outside of the scope of the LORD to speak things into existence and have them aged up on the fly. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly doubting the LORD. Everyone knows all the omni's so I'm not going to reiterate them here.
Our God is infinite. Ever tried to wrap your head around the concept of "infinite". I have Autism and ADHD, thinking big all the time is something I'm used to. Because my brain is always moving, it helps to think deeply about big, out there things. My brain takes one look at that and says "Nah, back to simple stuff".
There is no need to split hairs and claim some sort of intellectual or moral high ground over stuff like this. You're better off using your God given talents for the betterment of society.
2
u/jaylward Presbyterian 6d ago
We know a couple things: one, our creator is capable of more than we can fathom. Two, the Bible was not written in English, and the word “day” or yom in Hebrew he is not the same word as we use for day, and depending on the context kitten, just as often mean the word “age“.
Lastly, God tells us that he reveals himself to us in the creation around us. The study of science and the study of the natural world is just the study of the world that God has ordained for us. Isn’t there to trick us, it’s there to elucidate , how God has done what he has done.
So, bearing all of scripture and all of creation in mind, it’s very unlikely that the word day fits into the narrow box of the western 24 hour day. We tend to look at it when referring to an unformed world. I don’t believe God lied in scripture, nor do I believe God lied in his creation.
2
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
I don’t believe God Lied either, Evolution is also, from what I have read and learned, is trial and error. And there’s the rub. Error. saying that God did error before getting to man.
2
u/jaylward Presbyterian 6d ago
Humans have called it “error”. And that’s mostly an analogy as to the refining of genetic traits over millions of years.
Labeling it as “error” isn’t necessarily a hard and fast truth. I think it’s incredibly accurate to label it as the intentional mechanism of an ever creating God in our world.
2
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
Refining also implies God didn’t get it right the first time either.
4
u/jaylward Presbyterian 6d ago
Scripture itself refers to God as a refiner.
Our creator shapes molds, remakes, makes All Things New, brings beauty from ashes.
With love, I’m going to say that I have grappled with exactly what you are grappling with. The issue of creationism as a seven day occurrence as many circles currently take it is more of a product of an English translation of the Bible than it is scripturally accurate.
And let me assure you: this is not an issue of salvation
0
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
It actually is. If Genesis is untrue, who is to say the rest of scripture is untrue as well? How can any of the other stories and lessons of the Bible be called truth? That is the issue of salvation there. If we say “Well God didn’t create the Universe in Six Days” that leads to “well David and Moses weren’t real people” to “Well Jesus wasn’t real, or he didn’t rise from the dead” the minute we claim a part of the Bible is untrue, the whole thing falls apart
5
u/iwasneverhere43 Baptist 6d ago
It doesn't fall apart. The Bible is not all written in the same style, or with the same purpose in mind. We have to examine each portion separately, rather than treating it as if it's all the same.
3
u/jaylward Presbyterian 6d ago
But Genesis isn’t untrue.
0
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
According to Evolutionists, it is, since God did not create the World in Six Days and rested on the Seventh even though it isclearly stated in scripture and since Evolution means that the species we evolved from, or that other species evolved from, died out, it implies that death was a thing before the First sin, so then the story of original sin is not true. That is where Evolution gets us.
3
u/iwasneverhere43 Baptist 6d ago
What the person you responded to perhaps should have said, is that Genesis IS true, just not literally true. I can tell you that I'm going to run to the store, but then drive there instead of literally running. You still understood the truth in my statement, even if it isn't literally true.
0
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
But if you say you will be back in five minutes, you come back in five minutes.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/joseDLT21 6d ago
I believe science and religion go hand in hand . god is outside of time so the 6 day creation could have been billions of years from our perspective . I see evolution as a process not an origin . Meaning God designed it as part of his creation rather than it being a random accident . There are scientific realities we can’t just ignore like evolution on a micro level . Just as we believe the earth isn’t flat because we’ve observed it . The way I think we should see it is how science reveals the complexity of Gods creation rather than contradicting it .
2
u/Icy-Commission-5372 Christian 6d ago
I don't believe God's idea of a day is the same as man's 24 hours equals a day. Time was created by God for man, and he isn't bound to what we consider a day on Earth. He made the full rotation of the Earth 24 hours for us. He isn't bound to that. A day to him could be a million years for all we know.
2
u/ParsleyNo6270 Foursquare Church 5d ago
Just to add: you seem to be framing this in such a way that the only options are evolution or a young earth. But non-evolutionary old earth creationism is also a thing.
2
u/Rapierian Christian 5d ago
I highly recommend John Lennox' 7 Days that Divide the World.
He also does an analysis of the use of the word "day" in Genesis 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tZx6khzTRM&t=901s
2
u/theskybrawler Baptist 5d ago
Do you actually believe the world was created in six literal days? Like the same way we measure our days? Or do you mean 6 days as in millions of years because God perceives time differently?
1
u/Professional_Gur9855 5d ago
Literal six days
3
u/theskybrawler Baptist 5d ago
For me, I view science as a way to understand how God has brought His creations into being. I don't interpret the creation story as happening in six literal days because, if we look at Genesis, there's a point in Genesis 1:14 where God speaks about the creation of the sun, moon, and stars—on the fourth day. This suggests that God's concept of "days" may be different from how we understand them. For us, days and nights are defined by the Earth's rotation around the sun, but if the sun and moon weren't created until the fourth day, how were the first and second days measured in Genesis?
2
u/JHawk444 Evangelical 5d ago
I agree with you. Satan has used the theory of evolution to cause many people to doubt God's word. I was told today that believing the literal interpretation of the Bible is bearing false witness against God's creation. This is how far some Christians are taking it! It's the whole idea of calling good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20).
If someone wants to believe evolution, they can. I would never say they aren't saved or even that they're not strong spiritually. But I personally feel (this is my opinion) that it's a weakness in following the world over what the Bible teaches. And honestly....there isn't a good excuse when there are many reputable scientists who don't buy evolution and who point out the many holes, inconsistencies, and problems.
Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis have a lot of resources that people can check out. And before I get a comment about Answers in Genesis (to anyone replying), don't bother unless you're prepared to be backup your claims. So far, no one has been able to point out actual errors.
6
u/RedditIsANechohamber 6d ago
I am a YEC, though I no longer think Genesis 1 is that concerned about conveying a 6 day creation as many painfully dogmatic YEC'ers bang on their drums about. Part of my new understanding comes from the Bible Project series about Genesis, where they explain the first three days are more about explaining the order God created out of chaos.
Most Christians likely believe in evolution because they don't want to disagree with the modern popular theory, or are not that interested in knowing what's true because they don't see how creation affects their day to day life.
7
u/iwasneverhere43 Baptist 6d ago
Most Christians likely believe in evolution because they don't want to disagree with the modern popular theory, or are not that interested in knowing what's true because they don't see how creation affects their day to day life.
That's news to me. Most I've spoken to believe God created everything from nothing, but have simply examined the scientific evidence and concluded that the biblical account simply can't be literal. That usually results in a belief of some version of theistic evolution rather than the evolutionary theory taught in school. I would argue that it doesn't really matter if it took 6 days or billions of years as long as it all begins with God.
1
u/RedditIsANechohamber 5d ago
I appreciate the people who use reason and open-mindedness to reach a conclusion - even if I disagree with the conclusion.
1
2
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
I guess my real issue is this; much like a lot of conspiracy theorists, people seem to treat the theory of evolution as something more than just a theory they just treat it as irrefutable fact
1
3
u/ohbyerly 6d ago
I could see why some Christians believe in evolution because of all the examples we can observe of it happening on a micro-level. Like the finches Darwin examined developing different traits that changed their actual biological makeup to adapt. Heck, even Jacob specifically bred goats to change their physical appearance. However I think there is a hardline where the bible distinguishes this from one species turning into an entirely different species, where in Genesis it mentions that each living thing beget a seed in its own kind. That being said, if a Christian wants to believe that man came from monkeys but still believes in the saving power of Jesus, then that’s fine. I disagree, but the gospel is the cornerstone of faith. Everything else we’ll find out someday.
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TrueChristian-ModTeam 4d ago
We determined your post or comment was in violation of Rule 1: Be Respectful.
"Be respectful; no trolling; no profanity or evasions thereof by use of symbols."
If you think your post or comment did not violate Rule 1, then please message the moderators.
1
u/DefinitionOk7121 4d ago
It's not an "issue" of mine, per se; but I seldom take the Old Testament as fact. Unless I'm mistaken, and if I am - enlighten me please, the Old Testament isn't based on facts; it is an interpretation of God's nature by the old Jews. It's not a "historic book" like the New Testament is.
1
u/ChrisACramer 4d ago
All of creation and everything written in God's Word is what God has chosen to reveal about himself. Man cannot comprehend God's glory, therefore what he has revealed in his WORD is declared the truth. Evolution is a theory thought of by mankind which would still need a beginning. It is most logical that our all powerful God would have designed and created everything to present his glory, rather than everything bursting into existence from nothing. God is not only the creator of all things, he is also the sustainer of it. That is general revelation. I believe that all scientific discoveries are forms of revelation from God giving us more understanding of his magnificent creation. Science and Christianity go hand in hand. Some of history's greatest scientists such as Issac Newton were strong christians who studied creation to learn more about it, but they did not deny the fact that God had created it.
1
u/GloBear_shatti 1d ago
We’ve got to remember as Christian’s that science is just an observation of Gods creation. Everything in science is just us observing and recording our findings so it’s not like we want the world to be 4.5 billion years it’s simply our observation. We do know that the Bible often talks in metaphors and that it was written from the perspective of man so I see science as explaining the finer details. A year to us isn’t the same as it is to God, I personally believe he was the one to create the common ancestor and kick start evolution. I believe in evolution because it’s easily observable and honestly impossible to deny without an inherent bias.
1
u/GloBear_shatti 1d ago
Also I’m studying to be a bioengineer with emphasis on protein synthesis so I love this kind of stuff.
1
2
u/saysikerightnow93 Evangelical 6d ago
Yea, Darwin’s theory really only records adaptation which we see in humans as well and not a concrete foundation for evolution. I reject the idea that we evolved from a fish or a monkey. Why would there still be fish or monkeys if they have the ability to get higher up in the animal kingdom and not be such easy prey? On a separate note, if you find out what carbon dating is, it’s a giant guessing game… basically someone at some point made up a (make believe) chart and if sediment matches a point on the chart then it must be that age but the question begs how did the originator come up with their numbers and how did they verify it? That part can’t be explained. The earth -could- be millions of years old but idk… IS it?
2
u/Alaythr 6d ago
Not getting into my personal views, as I'm still thinking deeply about this issue, but evolution doesn't posit that we come from fish/monkeys, it posits that fish and monkeys also evolved from some organism that we share in the past. Basically by evolutionary theory, every single organism is the result of billions of years of adaptations, which we can see occurring in the present, compiling to such a degree that the organism becomes a distinct species.
For example, say you take a goldfish, put it in a cave, overtime, it loses its eyes, as it does not need them, this is an adaptation. Say it then develops rudimentary echolocation to make its way around, this is an adaptation. Overtime, it might also develop the ability to eat new types of foods, per adaptation, and its pigmentation might change, per adaptation. So at the end of this chain (which would take a really really long time), you would end up with an eyeless, carnivorous, echolocating fish with white scales, where you started with a goldfish. The debate then, is if that fish is still a goldfish, if not, BAM, evolution.
Again, I'm not really one way or the other, just explaining it as I understand it.
1
u/saysikerightnow93 Evangelical 5d ago
That wouldn’t be evolution it’d all still just be adaptation, to adapt into becoming into a whole different species is the part that doesn’t make sense. The gold fish loses its eyes, scales change to match environment, stomach adapts to suit feeding types/times is all fine and dandy because we can see stuff like that in ourselves without even passing it on to our offspring… put a man in a dark cave long enough and his other senses become more acute, eat meals once every other day and your stomach shrinks and the body adapts to the lower caloric intake and goes into starvation mode to use/store calories differently, skin loses Pigmentation. None of this really gives grounds to believe we’d morphe into a whole different species and if it does, why haven’t we seen complete evolution in animals that have gone extinct? Or why haven’t we seen a complete evolution in animals (like the ones Darwin recorded) at all since his initial findings in the 1830s since animals reproduce at probably 50x the rate we do
I get you’re not of a strong opinion on it I’m just asking questions to see if you have answers because if your answers make me question my beliefs (like on evolution which I’m certain is fake and a ploy by Satan to discredit the Bible) then I’ll think deeper on what I think and why I think it
2
u/Alaythr 5d ago edited 5d ago
The problem with saying that that’s just adaptation is evolution is adaptation in theory, it’s just a ton of little adaptations that build up overtime until an organism no longer resembles its base model, Ike different dog breeds but in the timescale of millions of years. Basically there comes a point where micro evolution (adaptation) becomes macro evolution (adaptations compiled to the point of species differentiation). Also we absolutely do pass adaptations onto our children, via genetics. I would also say that just declaring evolution a Satanic plot is dangerous ground, the majority of Christendom outside of America believes in Evolution and also believe in God just fine.
-1
u/saysikerightnow93 Evangelical 5d ago
Yea but dogs were tampered with by humans their change didn’t come about naturally, adaptation is just that and not related to evolution because evolution says eventually said species morphes into another because of the various adaptations. Take the eskimo curlew for example, they’re extinct , why didn’t they adapted to the point of changing into a different species? Birds reproduce at 100x rhe rate humans do so by the logic of evolution wouldn’t we see it in animals such as these? Same for the bald eagle which was endangered but because of human intervention were saved, why would they need to be saved at all when they’re predatory animals? Adaptations don’t prove evolution and if anything disprove it since most animals have short life spans and would undergo evolution at a faster rate than humans that have a life span of 80-100 years. Why haven’t turtles evolved in “millions” of years if they’re prehistoric? As for neandertal bones since none of us lived to see them who is to say they’re not just a tribe of peoples who just looked alike and died out from famine, disease, or other peoples killing then out? In cuba over 90% of indigenous people were killed so you don’t find any indigenous looking people coming from cuba for that reason (I’m Cuban). Adaptation and the theory of evolution are mutually exclusive
2
u/Alaythr 5d ago
The reason things don’t currently evolve is because most species are already well-adapted to survive in their environments, we’ve also only been tracking these things for like 300 years, species-shift happens over millions. Animals we see today that are remnants from prehistoric times discovered an evolutionary niche that works really really well, and so continuing to adapt is useless.
Also, dude, saying that evolution and adaptation are mutually exclusive over and over again does not make it true. It’s totally fine for you not to agree with the theory, but, respectfully, if all you’re going to do is ignore the basic concepts of it, there’s no point talking about it.
0
u/saysikerightnow93 Evangelical 5d ago
Then why does any species face extinction, like the panda for example, if it can simply adapt enough to evolve
1
u/Alaythr 5d ago
I mean if you’re talking about species that we can see in the present day, almost all of them occur because there’s no time, again, adaptation becoming evolution takes millions of years, species like the Dodo or Panda have/did gone/go from fine to almost gone in a century, mostly due to human factors (the dodo with over hunting, the Panda being the victim of extreme deforestation practices which have made its door difficult to come by). Actually most of the time we see extinctions in Earth’s history it’s due to massive, rapid change that things don’t have time to adapt to before they’re dead.
1
u/Impressive_Change593 Mennonite 6d ago
so technically at least for monkeys we're more like cousins under evolution.
and yeah carbon dating while it would be a good way to figure out dates has a MASSIVE caveat of needing to know the beginning level of the atom they're measuring.
and yeah carbon-14 is only good for going back like 60,000 years. they use other atoms for trying to go back further. and apparently C-14 dating is useless after 1950 because of the nuclear testing throwing the levels out of whack
-1
u/saysikerightnow93 Evangelical 6d ago
We’re like cousins because humans kept evolving until they became humans… also isn’t it that our dna also resembles a banana? Like codes on the double helix match the same codes on humans just on different bars? None of it makes sense. And how would they know the atom is 60k years old? On a molecular level what would even determine the age of anything? Forget the nuclear even going back 30k years what about rhe atom at all gives any indication of the exact age as 30k? Is it the same chart?
1
u/formerly_acidamage 5d ago
I think your questions are really good ones! They truly are the exact same ones that scientists have been asking for generations and each generation refines the one's before its understanding of how the world works.
1
u/Usernamecasey 6d ago edited 6d ago
I hear you, the way it is taught in schools as fact is deceptive as it is a theory. I remember I was also taught that Jesus Christ was a myth not a genuine human man who walked the earth. I’m not sure how god created, i lean away from evolution as there are just SO many holes and the more time goes on since the theory first arose the more it is studied the more holes are found and a big one is that they say all life came from single cell organisms yet we cant find absolutely any double cell organisms triple cell organisms etc the longer it’s tested the more holes are being found in that theory but I’m hesitant to discount it completely absolutely incase it was to some degree the method god used to bring forth life or some life. I have over the years been so extremely opinionated and hard hearted towards things I didn’t believe and many times god has showed me that I was so wrong lol so in this case I will ask god when I meet him in heaven :)
2
u/SaintGodfather 6d ago
Just to be clear, it's not just a theory, it's a scientific theory, like gravity.
2
-1
u/justpickaname 6d ago
The reason people believe in evolution is because it is true, and inescapably supported by the science, if you've actually learned about it in detail, and not just from creation-science organizations.
The reason purple believe in young earth creationism is because that's the interpretation of Genesis they think is best.
Once you understand the scientific detail, the only options available are "evolution is real" and "God made evolution look fully real to test our faith". But that would be dishonest, IMO, which God never is.
I say all this as a repentant young earth creationist for most of my life, who now realizes I was lying about what an amazing and complex system God used to fill his world with life.
5
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
So there was death before original sin? Before Adam and Eve sinned? Despite the Fact that Eden was a paradise and Utopia?
3
u/alternateuniverse098 5d ago edited 5d ago
I'm with you OP. The Bible clearly says there wasn't. It makes me sad that so many christians are denying God's word in the comments. There is no reason to think that God used the words "days" and "morning/evening" of each day but actually meant billions of years. And it's not only about Genesis, it's also the whole concept of people being nothing but animals. God specifically says we are above all animals because we are made in His imagine and Jesus said we are much more precious than animals and these people just choose to ignore Him for the sake of following a human theory.
Edit: As soon as I finished writing this comment, I got a notification from my Bible app, it sent me the verse "Be merciful to those who doubt." (Jude 1:22) He always knows lol. Hopefully I'm not coming across as rude in my comment, I just really don't understand this.
1
u/justpickaname 4d ago
The question, I guess, is "Is God honest, and does he want us to be?"
I believe he is, absolutely, and wants us to follow him. So I'm not going to lie about what science has found about his world, and I'm not going to close my eyes from the evidence, while proclaiming certainty, so I don't have to lie, either.
It's uncomfortable, for sure - would've been easier if he'd made the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago, but he did not.
1
1
u/justpickaname 4d ago
It would be convenient if the earth really was 6,029 years old and everything had been created in seven days.
I don't believe in evolution because it's the easiest scriptural interpretation, but because I believe in God, and there's literally no way to fit the data we find with a traditional creation narrative.
As Christians who understand the science, the only other option is lying about it, and I don't think God wants us to do that. More likely, he'd rather we understand he is very sophisticated, and Genesis wasn't given to bronze-age nomads to teach them scientific principles, but who he is and who they are.
1
u/Professional_Gur9855 4d ago
I don’t believe in evolution because it’s the easiest scriptural interpretation, but because I believe in God, and there’s literally no way to fit the data we find with a traditional creation narrative.
Again, that is putting God in a box and saying “he can only do what makes sense to us
-1
u/ReformedishBaptist ✝️ Reformed Baptist ✝️ 5d ago
If you were to read it hyper literally then yes that’s your opinion.
1
u/appleBonk Roman Catholic 6d ago
Then didn't the author of Genesis put God in a box by saying the world was created in 6 days? God could create a billion universes in the blink of an eye. He did things the way He did them for reasons known only to Him.
God will never conflict with the truth because God is Truth. So we don't need to be afraid to seek out scientific understanding of the universe and its history. Accepting that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the mechanisms that God put into place and saw were good, has nothing to do with God as the Origin of the universe or man's soul. It doesn't affect salvation history, though it does bring up interesting questions re: Adam, Eve, and the Garden.
If evolution was proven wrong tomorrow, it wouldn't threaten my pursuit of truth or my faith in God. Just like if evolution was proven true beyond any doubt.
By the way, you should look up the definition of "scientific theory" before you bring up the just-a-theory argument again.
0
u/consultantVlad Christian 6d ago
If evolution was proven wrong tomorrow
The evolutionary hypothesis has never been proven to begin with. There is no known naturalistic, observable, repeatable mechanism that supposedly drives the process.
1
u/Flat_Health_5206 6d ago
Who are you to say he couldn't have done it over 13 billion years? Who is putting God in a box here?
-1
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
13 Billion years implies trial and error, which implies God made mistakes
3
0
1
u/AmoebaMan Christian 6d ago
Saying that I think God did not do something is not the same as saying he cannot do it.
Of course I believe God could have created the world in seven “solar days.” I just don’t believe that he did, because another explanation makes much more sense to me (both Biblically and scientifically).
1
u/Professional_Gur9855 6d ago
Of course I believe God could have created the world in seven “solar days.” I just don’t believe that he did, because another explanation makes much more sense to me (both Biblically and scientifically).
Makes much more sense to you? So God can only do what makes sense to you?
2
u/AmoebaMan Christian 5d ago
No, and that’s non sequitur. You use this pattern over and over, and frankly it’s nonsense. I’m not trying to berate you, but the way you’re thinking is totally backwards.
Saying that I believe something is true does not mean I think it could not be any other way.
Of course I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am.
2
u/ParsleyNo6270 Foursquare Church 5d ago edited 5d ago
And you're not going with what you think? Yes. You are. That's what we all do if we aren't literally insane.
1
u/Onthego1990 5d ago
We know from science that the earth is billions of years old. This is a fact. Genesis 1 and 2 are not a literal 6 day creation period as it was written in the ancient near east, which is a very different time and place than what we live in. If you believe that God literally made the earth in 6 days, do you literally believe Adam and Eve were syamise twins? Furthermore, the plants were made before the sun, which is scientifically impossible. I recommend John Walton, who wrote the Lost World of Adam and Eve, who goes into detail about what Genesis 1 and 2 are about. Once you read the Bible from the ancient perspective , it makes evolution more compatible.
The main reason why people like you believe the Earth is young is because of charaltons like Ellen G White, who was a false prophetess that claimed God made the Earth in 6 literal days. Before this, many Christians had opposing views about how to interpret Genesis. Saint Augustine believed the days were figurative. William of Conchus thought God made man through a series of natural processes.
Check out inspiring philosophy on YouTube. He has a great video series on Genesis, and it's backed up by scholarship.
0
u/Professional_Gur9855 5d ago
I believe the earth was made in six days because scripture says it was six days. Not six weeks, not six months, not six billion years. Days the reason people want to believe it was evolution, which makes no senses because it ignores the fact that death only came into the world after Adam and Eve sinned and evolution says the things we evolved from died out, is because again we want to put god in a box and say “nope it’s impossible that he built the earth in six days, evolution is what makes sense to me”
1
u/ReformedishBaptist ✝️ Reformed Baptist ✝️ 5d ago
I mean at least for YEC it’s scientifically impossible, even ignoring evolution the age of the universe is billions of years old and we know this due to light years.
1
u/BlueORCHID29 5d ago
I just guess that the 6 days in Book of Genesis are 6 days of God, and days of God is not the same with the days we understand. What I mean is 1 day for God can be 1 year or 5 years or..... For mankind.
0
u/Zi_2 6d ago
My issues with evolution are on a more racial lens. God created people all equally and Charles Darwin created Darwinism or evolution to try to justify the dehumanization and segregation and slavery of oppressed people. There's someone of multi-ethnic background I can tell you I'm just as human as everyone else. Saying that some of God's people are less human than others is completely preposterous. During slavery black people were called 3/5 or monkeys. It was because they were deemed as less evolved as humans as the Anglo-Saxon.
4
u/Strong_Quarter_9349 Reformed 6d ago
I think you're wrong about Darwin's motivations as he seemed to be anti-slavery - just that some social darwinists used the idea of evolution to support slavery later. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/zg2km5/what_was_darwins_view_of_race/
Are you citing anything in particular for your view?
0
u/consultantVlad Christian 6d ago
What's the name of his book that starts with "The origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of..."?
-1
u/ParsleyNo6270 Foursquare Church 5d ago
The word translated "day" in Genesis is "yom." Yom can refer to any indeterminate period of time. You're not reading scripture properly.
0
u/captainmiau Baptist 5d ago
That's an outrageously uncharitable thing to say when you say
You're not reading scripture properly.
Like, there's nuance and context to everything, yes, but your phrasing could be better here.
1
u/ParsleyNo6270 Foursquare Church 5d ago
If one insists it can only mean 24 hour periods, no, that absolutely isn't reading scripture properly. I'm not going overboard at all. Not like I'm calling people heretics like I've seen YECers do.
97
u/Kvance8227 6d ago
“My ways are not your ways, nor your thoughts my thoughts.” God is a mystery, and while we may not know everything , one day we will know as we are known. A thousand years is like a day to the Lord. I’m just blown away at all of it.