Well, it’s possible. Genesis says that God created the world in seven days:

And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation. (Genesis 2:2-3)

Elsewhere, it says that the a day with God is as a thousand years:

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Pet 3:8)

Though actually, when you think about what Peter is saying here, it’s rather more that God is outside the constraints of time. So it’s possible that God created the world in 7000 years, but it’s also possible that it was some other time length. Even possibly 7 days.

However the real interest in the idea that the literal 7 days are a longer time period is because the world looks a lot older than that. There’s a variety of ways to resolve this apparent dilemma, but the idea that the creation was spread out over time isn’t one of them – the Genesis record is very specific about what things were created on what days, and it just doesn’t align.

For further information, see related posts.

Tagged with →  
Share →

3 Responses to Is it possible that that God created the world in 7000 years in our time, but 7 days in his time?

  1. ez says:

    Scripture does stipulate that creation was completed in 7 literal days (evening and morning). This lesson was also brought forward to the Jewish week in which the 7th day of Sabbath was to remain holy. Also we must not forget too that Adam lived through part of the 6th day and the whole of the seventh day and well into his exile. Adam died at 930 years, not 7930 years.

    The (2 Pet 3:8) refers to the faithful being impatient for Christs coming so thus Peter puts into perspective God’s comprehension of time. In other words God the Author of Time and Space is not subjected to such. However we most definitely are.

    I think quite a few zealous scientists do like to see the world as much older than it is because it fits their pre-moulded theories. However great upheavals such as floods and many other disasters that have changed things radically for the earth would have quite a drastic affect on the undulating appearance of an enduring globe. Perhaps giving it an aged look.
    However then spring appears with its stunning flowers and sweet little birds and it seems like Creation has just begun all over again. Beautiful.

  2. Ken Gilmore says:

    Scripture also states that the firmament in Gen 1:6-8 is a solid dome in which the stars are fixed. If the order of creation in Gen 1 is likewise read as literal, then it flatly contradicts with the order given in Gen 2. A literal reading of many bible verses teaches geocentrism. Even if we ignore the overwhelming evidence for an ancient earth, internal factors alone make literalism untenable.

    Bible literalists such as yourself Ez are not interpreting the Bible, but are simply reading it naively, ignoring the highly structured nature of the text which argues strongly against reading it as prose narrative, and the strong evidence that Gen 1 is not science or history but ancient cosmology . Fail to recognise that, and you end up with the erroneous YEC view which places you on a collision course with an avalanche of data that shows that the earth is far older tnan 6000 years. Endlessly citing the Bible won’t make that data go away.

    It is worth pointing out that this is not a “few zealous scientists” tryingf to support their “pre-moulded theories.” That betrays a lack of undertanding of the history of geology. John Thomas accepted an ancient earth in 1848, before Darwin’s theory – practically all educated Christians accepted the great antiquity of the earth based purely on the evidence by the first half of the 19th century, well before Darwin.

    By ignoring the witness of the natural world and forcing the Bible into a YEC mould, you run the risk of playing the role of the Church in its battle with Galileo. Evidence always trumps dogma.


    1. Seely PH “The Firmament and the Water Above – Part I: The meaning of raqia’ in Gen 1:6-8” The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40 http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf
    2. Enns P “The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid but That’s Not the Point” BioLogos Blog Jan 14th 2010 http://biologos.org/blog/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-thats-not-the-point
    3. Kline MG “Because It Had Not Rained” The Westminster Theological Journal 20 (1958):146-157. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html
    5. Kline MG “Space and Time in the Genesis
    Cosmogony” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 48:2-15 (1996) http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html
    6. Walton JH “The Lost World of Genesis One” (2009, IVP) http://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Lost_World_of_Genesis_One.html?id=6qZLAz3TckgC

  3. Ken Gilmore says:

    Reference 4 and the in-text references have gone missing. Here’s reference 4 which shows a list of verses reflecting a geocentric worldview in the Bible.


    Modern geocentrists interpret these literally, and in this they are more consistent than YECs who cherry pick which parts of the Bible they want to interpret literally. (The fact that prior to Copernicus and Galileo the church believed in geocentrism suggests strongly that there is no unambiguous evidence in the Bible that teaches heliocentrism).

Leave a Reply

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