Post by athanasius on Sept 18, 2014 13:52:47 GMT -5
Dr. Miller, I have been reading Vern Poythress' "Redeeming Science." As he presents the main beliefs when it comes to beginning/interpretation of the Creation account, he revealed that he holds to more of an "analogical" day theory. One of his points seemed very convincing (though I hold to a Mature Creation theory). He pointed out why is it called the Sabbath, that is why just a day? For us, it is because we start back to work the next day, but God ceased from His work of creation, and never resumed. Why not call it a Sabbath week, or month? Why just a day? His answer is because the creation week is an analogy to teach us the work week? The "day" is not a literal day, because in the sense that God ceased from working, we are still in the Sabbath, the seventh day. It seemed very convincing to imply that the seventh day is not 24 hour, and thus why would one day be not 24-hour while the other six are. I just wanted to know your thoughts. In light of this, how can one who holds to a 24-hour day model be consistent?
Post by Mike Miller on Dec 22, 2014 17:34:23 GMT -5
My answer is simple. For days 1-6, we are told "there was evening and there was morning." I see this as plainly indicating six 24-hour periods. Moreover, While God is still resting from His creative work, we are told He rested on that day and blessed that day. He did not bless all days henceforth and command rest on all those days, so the command is for a 24-hour rest period.