Creation in six days?

Reconciliation Challenge PQRC 6 — Creation in Six Days?

According to one common understanding, Scripture teaches that creation took six literal days in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 and elsewhere (e.g. Exodus 20:11 and 31:17). There is a body of scientific evidence requiring it to have taken very much longer. Can these be reconciled?

Suggested Appraised Formulated Discussed Conclusions here here here here and here

PQRC 6: Reconciliation challenge

P, Q or RC?	Reconciliation Challenge
Description:	According to one common understanding, Scripture teaches that creation took six literal days in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 and elsewhere (e.g. Exodus 20:11 and 31:17). There is a body of scientific evidence requiring it to have taken very much longer. Can these be reconciled?
Comment by proposer:	This view has become common among Christadelphians since the middle of the 20th Century.

• understanding(s) of Scripture:
  • According to a literal reading of Genesis 1:16 from a Young Earth perspective, God made the stars on the fourth day, approximately six thousand years ago, after inanimate living things had been made the day before.
  • other discussion by Paul and me moved down to the relevant area — User:Bruce

• discoveries of Science:
  • Astrophysicists believe that observable phenomena are best explained by three generations of stars, each going through life cycles since the first stars were created — and the life cycle of a star the size of the Sun takes about ten billion years.
  • Evolutionary science accepted by most scientists requires a time scale of approximately four billion years.

• summary of the Reconciliation Challenge:

Editors' endorsement of this summary of the problem

We agree that this is an accurate statement of the problem.
Paul	Bruce	~	~	~

Solutions already proposed

by Christadelphians — not literal days

• Those who do not read the Bible's chronologies and six day creation literally.
  • See Beliefs re the Age of the Earth for the views of John Thomas, C. C. Walker, and some modern Christadelphians who accept the scientific evidence for an ancient universe and fossils of ancient life on the earth. This can be reconciled with a miraculous re-creation in the comparatively recent past after a period of chaos.
  • See the same page for the change in C C Walker's views, later rejecting the "Gap Theory".
  • Other Christadelphians accept scientific evidence for the antiquity of the earth, and the continuity of human life on it for "more than 7000 years". They reject "Appearance of Age."
  • Ralph Lovelock and Alfred Norris proposed a week-long sequence of daily visions analogous to the visions of Revelation in an article published in 1940 — reproduced here: A prologue to Revelation.
  • See Historical Christadelphian Approaches - 3 for discussion of whether a literal reading is possible.
  • See A review of historical Christadelphian approaches for more discussion of the "days".
  • Christadelphians Origins Discussion list at We haven’t always insisted that Gen 1 is literal 6*24 hours some traditional objections to a literal six day creation:
    • Henry Sulley (1926): God's days, not like ours
    • C. C. Walker (1933): we cannot restrict the days of creation to literal days, or the day of God's rest either
    • Ralph Lovelock and Alfred Norris (1940): A prologue to Revelation — an apocalyptic prologue to the whole story of the Bible → Revelation
    • Peter Watkins (1960) six days of fiat
    • John Carter (1960): we cannot know, must not impose interpretations on Genesis
    • Alfred Norris (1965): days of revelation
    • L G Sargent (1966): the time involved in creation is an open question
    • H A Whittaker (1986): six daily visions revealed to Moses, Adam or some primeval prophet
    • Alan Fowler: six days of revelation
    • Alan Hayward: six days of fiat
  • Bro Ken Gilmore gives detailed counter-arguments to Ron Abel's Wrested Scriptures (see below).
  • Bro Jonathan Burke suggests "a series of creative acts, each of them on a single 24 hour day" but perhaps separated by "intervening durations or action" — see Concerning Scripture and Science.
  • Not necessarily literal: Forming and Filling (The six days possibly a literary structure.)

Questioning Mainstream Science
	"true science"

by Christadelphians — literal days

• Those who believe that the Bible teaches a six day creation approximately six thousand years ago.
  • Ron Abel - see below
  • Some attempt a reconciliation with scientific evidence by questioning the science.
  • Others assume that "true science" must confirm to the message of the Bible as they understand it.
  • Some see "Appearance of Age" as explaining scientific evidence for an ancient creation over billions of years — but since it was God doing the deceiving even "true science" cannot detect it.

Christadelphians arguing against any resolution

• Bro Ron Abel argued for six literal days of creation in Wrested Scriptures, and gave advice for arguing against scientists "on their own ground": in other words, the science must be wrong and cannot be reconciled with the Bible, so the Christian debater must simply expose its inadequacy before going on to "constructive Biblical teaching". See at QMS:Disproving the Science.
• One ecclesia has modified their Statement of Faith by adding specific denial of evolution and denial of the belief "that the idea of a special creation accomplished in a six day period is unscientific and unscriptural". (See here if this is unclear. – Bruce)

Free Discussion

Bruce — See discussion linked from Discussion of the Creation record and Non-Literal Readings of Genesis 1:1 to 2:3. Alternatives to a literal seven-day week (six days plus Sabbath) include: seven millennia; seven cosmic and/or geological epochs; seven visions; seven days of "divine fiat"; and a visionary or poetical description, structured ("framed") as a week.

Bruce — See Exodus 20:11 for various ways that the verse has been read.

including discussion of alternatives by Paul that I moved from the summary above.

Also see Non-literal days in the Bible and Questions if Genesis is not Literal and take the tour of Creation Records. Literal reading is never perfectly consistent — see Claiming to read literally doesn't mean doing it — but at least it is short-lived — see the notes to Ecclesiastes 1:5.

Editors' endorsement that enough discussion has been had for the present purpose.

We agree that this matter has been adequately discussed and can proceed to decision-making.
~	~	~	~	~

Our conclusion(s)

PQRC 6