Creation in six days?

From Reconciling understandings of Scripture and Science
(Redirected from In six days)
Jump to navigationJump to search
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

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.

by others

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)

Relevant Scriptures

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

Useful deliverables