Wednesday: Sabbath and the Theory of Evolution
As much success as Satan has had deceiving the world in regard to the immortality of the soul, he’s been just as successful, if not more so, in usurping the biblical Sabbath for Sunday (see weeks 6 and 8) and has done so for most of Christian history.
Image © Krieg Barrie Goodsalt.com
In recent years, the devil has come up with another deception that lessens the hold of the seventh-day Sabbath in the minds of people: the theory of evolution.
Read Genesis 1:1-2:3. What does this passage teach us about how the Lord created our world and how long it took to do so?
Even the broadest reading of these verses reveals two points about the biblical account of Creation. First, everything was planned and calculated; nothing was random, arbitrary, or by chance. Scripture leaves no room whatsoever for chance in the process of Creation.
Second, the texts reveal unambiguously that each creature was made after its own kind; that is, each one was made separately and distinctly from the others. The Bible teaches nothing about a common natural ancestry (such as from a primeval simple cell) for all life on earth.
Even from a nonliteralist interpretation of Genesis, these two points are obvious: nothing was random in the act of Creation, and there was no common natural ancestry for all species.
Now along comes Darwinian evolution, which in its various forms teaches two things: randomness and a common natural ancestry for all species.
Why then do so many people interpret Genesis through the lens of a theory that, at its most basic level, contradicts Genesis at its most basic level? Indeed, not only has the error of evolution swept millions of secular people, but many professed Christians believe that they can harmonize it with their Christian faith, despite the blatant contradictions just mentioned.
However, the implications of evolution in the context of final events make the danger of the deception even more apparent. Why take seriously a day, the seventh-day Sabbath, as a memorial — not for a six-day creation, but for a creation that took about 3 billion years (the latest date that life supposedly first started on earth)? Evolution denudes the seventh day of any real importance because it turns the six days of Creation into nothing but a myth similar to the one that says Romulus and Remus were nursed by wolves. Also, who, believing that creation required billions of years instead of six days, would actually risk persecution, or death, by standing for the Sabbath as opposed to Sunday?
(51)
E = mc2 Explained
Energy and matter cannot be destroyed they can be interchanged.
God is the Creator of time, space and matter from nothingness
Satan is in the business of interbreeding
The sun, moon and stars stops in their track at the request of a man in the Bible.
Satan is in the business of explaining God's purpose.
As long as I have lived, I have not seen or read a man raised from death into everlasting life except in the Bible.
Death is the result of sin. Science has not over come death nor create life.
Christ is saying I am alpha and Omega. I am the first and the last when we are connected with him we have life eternal.
In a recent book titled "You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church and Rethinking Faith", one of the primary reasons for young people leaving is the “war between science and faith”. The research is outlined in the biologos article "Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church" states, “(23%) [of those surveyed] said they have 'been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.'"
Now I’m not going to say the church needs to change its position on the creation event, what I am saying is that by calling evolution a deception from Satan is turning people away from the faith and preventing people from converting. Let me explain why,
Ultimately the creation story in genesis is not about science, it is a lot deeper than that. We have a story that establishes Yahweh as the sole creative being from which all things come from. If we try to interpret genesis from a modern scientific world view, things become unclear. I don’t have to get into the interpretations of the word day used in Genesis(yom in Hebrew has a wide variety of meanings, one of which is a 24 hour period, but not always). Or the words used to describe Gods act of creation in genesis 1:1 does not necessarily mean an absolute beginning of all things (the word “the” does not appear in the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts, “In the beginning” was a choice the translators made for the text).
Does this mean we throw out the rest of Christian theology? Of course not!
On the contrary, we should find the theological meaning in the text, not a scientific one. I'll give you three things in the text that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with theology.
1. God establishes humanity in his family, Adam is a son of God.
2. God establishes his place among humanity in a literal heaven on Earth(the garden of Eden)
3. God establishes his role over both the heavens, the land, and the sea. This destroys all the pagan views about multiple gods ruling specific things.
The reason I shy away from reading the text from a science point of view is that there doesn’t seem to be an end to what can be called a “doctrine of Satan”. Does the theory of electromagnetism (light) detract from God's ability to create light in gen 1:3? I would say no. The same goes for evolution, it does not necessarily detract from Gods creative act in the universe.
Science is just a method from which we can better understand the physical universe, the philosophy of science is interpreting scientific understanding. We as Christians put our hope in Christ who was crucified, died, buried, AND resurrected. Regardless of the interpretation in genesis, our hope is in him.
Sorry this got so long, but I think it needs to be said, in Christian love.
Good morning my brother. Do you think that it is wise to modify an interpretation of a biblical principle because others (even in the church) do not agree with what is said?
Also, if we follow the logic that our faith is ONLY based on Christ crucified, died, buried and resurrected, then why does there need to be a Seventh-day Adventist and why preach the three angels' messages? This logic undermines the entire principle of the present truth for this time. Are you saying that only doctrines about Christ's death, burial and resurrection are important? Then what of the rest of the Scriptures?
I also say this in love.
[Moderator Note: Please use your real name in future comments. ]
Good afternoon Allanson, I’m glad you brought up those issues, because they are extremely relevant to this discussion.
Essentially with the first point, the SDA church as made it the focal point of their fundamental beliefs. The church has believed in the literal 6-day creation event from the very beginning, in that regard there doesn’t appear to be much wiggle room if only a few people are concluding that there are other powerful interpretations. The only issue is that there have been a variety of interpretations to genesis that have existed since the early church. We do see the 24-hour viewpoint in early church commentaries, but we also see a lot of the opposite! Secondly, I think there is strong power in the original text itself in indicating that the creation account is primarily a theological one with elements of ancient cosmology. For example, Job 38 is a great example of explaining the same creation story with commentary;
1. the stars are angelic beings.
2. there are storehouses for hail and snow.
3. the earth is laid on a foundation with a corner stone.
Now this is God telling Job these things, is God contradicting modern science? I would again say no because the original audience isn’t concerned with science but understanding the world from a theological point of view. I wouldn’t want the SDA church to change its stance, they should preserve their interpretation. But when the lesson indicates that the 6 day creation is the only view that isn’t contradictory is blatantly false, and ignores the text. And it just reinforces the data saying that young people will continue to leave the church with that present mindset.
The second point is where I need to clarify, I didn’t use the world "only" in my comment for good reason! Christ comes first, 1 Corinthians 15:14 is just one spot where this is clearly seen, without it all doctrine is useless. By Christ coming as God in the flesh, it is the ultimate stamp of approval, his words have power. The other important truth is that the interpretation of Genesis chapter 1 and 2 falls way below the other doctrines of the Church. The writings of Paul do not depend on it, nor do the Gospels. Ultimately the three angles message does not depend on how you view genesis either. You still get the entire bible, and its authority, without describing genesis 1,2 as modern science.
I will say this, you can still believe in evolution and affirm that Adam and Eve are real people and a literal garden of Eden. You can deny evolution but accept the universe as being 14 billion years old(see old earth creationists).
Have a blessed day in Christ!
"John Q," the arguments regarding supposed "ancient cosmology" ignore literary devices, such as metaphors and other figures of speech.
Even now we speak of the sun rising and setting, but we don't literally mean that the sun gets up and goes down. So it is absurd to take every ancient figure of speech literally.
Job is a poetic book, and it uses many metaphors to describe God's creation. It is just as reasonable to say that you literally believe that the sun gets up every morning and goes down in the evening. (But maybe you do? Or mayb you don't refer to "sunset" but use different terminology?) So, no, the "evidence" you supply for a "theological"/mythological reading of Genesis is not persuasive.
Genesis is written in very sparse language as history. Jesus, Paul, Peter and John referred to Genesis as literal history. (For example, see Matt 19:4-5, Matt 23:35, Matt 24:37-39, some also noted in Mark, Luke and John. There are other less direct references.)
You mentioned in your previous comment that "Ultimately the creation story in genesis is not about science, it is a lot deeper than that." But if Genesis is not factual history, then anything "deeper" is questionable as well, as I suggested in my previous comment.
It's not a matter of God contradicting modern science. He isn't obligated to reference just-so stories that masquerade as science. Rather, it is a matter of naturalistic science not "allowing a divine foot in the door." As evolutionary biologist Richard C. Lewontin so clearly put it:
I am a bit puzzled regarding your statement that "the lesson indicates that the 6 day creation is the only view that isn’t contradictory is blatantly false, and ignores the text."
Genesis 1 and 2 establishes God as Creator, humanity as His creation, a fall from perfection (rather than evolving *to* perfection) and the need for a Savior. And if Genesis is not historical, as other Bible writers treat it, how can the rest of the Bible be reliable?
The lesson author is right in stating that
By the way, the age of the universe is not addressed in the Bible. But then, I don't think scientists can know how old it is either. Only the creation of *this* planet is addressed in Genesis.
The lesson author was specific in not referencing just "evolution" (gradual change over time, which happens), but "Darwinian evolution, which in its various forms teaches two things: randomness and a common natural ancestry for all species."
This teaching leaves no room for "Adam is a son of God."
It leaves no room for a literal heaven and earth or a literal Garden of Eden.
And it really leaves no room for a personal Creator God.
Yes, I realize that Christians have tried to marry the Genesis account and Darwinian evolution, but it can't be done reasonably. As far as I've seen, evolutionary scientists have less respect for this attempted union than for Christians who simply say that God created this earth by divine fiat.
I'm sure you must realize that accepting the standard Darwinian or neo-Darwinian theory of origins not only does away with a personal Creator, but also does away with sin and the need for a Redeemer. If there was no literal creation and Garden of Eden, there was no sin and expulsion from the Garden. And the same science rejects the account of the world-wide Flood. That does away with the foundation on which most of the Scriptures rest. And, according to that scenario, Jesus was either ignorant or a liar in referring to the early biblical accounts.
There is science (i.e. knowledge) and science falsely so called. All true science/knowledge is compatible with the biblical record.
I believe we have a problem of credibility because our educators and pastors are not educated in true science that demonstrates how the both evolutionary scientists and creation scientists use the very same evidence. They just hang it on different frameworks because of differing world views.
We have to tell the world the truth about God creating power! The Holy Spirit will open the eyes who sincerely are seeking the truth.
Esther Moran
AMEN Sr.Moran..may God help us to see what is profitable to our lives before we get to Zion.
Hosanna in Highest!!
If a Christian does not have the faith to believe the first chapter of the bible, then what standard do they use to pick and choose the basis of their faith from the rest of it?
In addition to the Bible and the writings of EGW, there are few books that have helped shape my Christian perspective. I was introduced to one of these rather recently just in the last couple of years, "Undeniable"' by Douglas Axe. It is hard to believe that a biologist, PhD that has been studying the building blocks of life his whole adult career, enzymes, could write a book that is both scientifically factual and philosophically interesting. This book blows the evolution theory off its foundation. I highly recommend it to those that wish to have a scientific basis for their Christian belief. Just to complete the circle, the other two books are " Mere Christianity " by CS Lewis that many of us are aware of and a lessor known book, "How Shall We Then Live", by Francis Shaffer.
Thanks for your referencing the book, Undeniable, by Douglas Axe.
This is a real scientist, a former engineer turned molecular biologist. He did the lab research to confirm the impossibility of unguided nature forming functional proteins. He was surprised by his results, but his research was published in a peer-reviewed journal.
In his book he argues that the design intuition most of us share embodies sound science. In other words, we don't need to be trained scientists to recognize that complex interdependent systems do not spontaneously arise from chaos.
Axe is what we would call an "Intelligent Design" scientist. Such scientists have done good work demonstrating that behind all that we see, there must be a Designer.
I have personally read a few books by ID writers and found them informative, but I need to point out that our Seventh-day Adventist beliefs are based on a young life on this earth (thousands of years ago, rather than billions), reading Genesis as real history, rather than mythology. ID scientists, on the other hand, may accept a chronology of billions of years which the evolutionary theory of origins demands.
Once we accept the concept of an all-powerful Creator, nothing really stands in the way of accepting that this earth was created when God "spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." Ps 32:9.
(Billions of years are necessary only if you choose to believe in an origin by chance union of atoms which somehow became alive. The dating methods that result in such deep age are, without exception, based on some unproven and unprovable assumptions. Yes, numbers can lie just as well as words.)
Anyone interested can find references to scientific young earth creation materials on our Creation and Science Resources page. The page needs updating. If you have suggestions or would like to help, please let us know.)
And if you haven't read C.S. Lewis's book, Mere Christianity, there's no better time than now. It's not a long book, but one of the best arguments for Christianity. And it's available in Kindle format, so you can download and read it right now.
Genesis seems to have eight "phases," to creation. The first one seems to have no time element in it: God creates the Heaven and the Earth with the earth being void and without form and just darkness all around. On the second phase comes the 24 hour periods of the earth for days with the first Day one having God create light. Then the third phase is also a 24 hour period for the second day with God creating the atmosphere. Then the Fourth phase is the third day where God creates vegetation. Then the Fifth phase is the fourth day and God creates the stars and moon, ( it seems to imply that the sun is created here but maybe it is only mentioned as being the greater light that had to have been created on the first day for LIGHT.) Then comes the sixth phase of the fifth day and God creates birds and fish. Then comes the Seventh phase of the sixth day and God creates reptiles, cattle, and man. In the final and eighth phase, God rests on the seventh day and makes it holy also for man.
but a myth similar to the one that says Romulus and Remus were nursed by wolves. can someone explain this?
Romulus and Remus are recorded in Roman mythology as the alleged founders of the city Rome. The myth holds that they were children of a mortal princess and the Roman god of war - Mars. The myth then says that Romulus and Remus were then abandoned at birth and thrown into the River Tiber in a cradle. They were then supposedly rescued from the river by a female wolf who took them to her cave and suckled them. Later they were supposedly found by a shepherd who then raised them to adulthood. They then supposedly decided to build a city where the wolf had nursed them - but got into a fight about where the site for the city should be and Romulus killed Remus and subsequently became king of Rome (derived from his name Romulus) and so on.
A myth apparently to paint a picture of the alleged 'divine' origin of the city of Rome. The reality of the origin of Rome was very different to what this myth was trying to convey - but that was not uncommon in self-promoting historical 'accounts'.
Evolution is one among many false gods fashioned by those who wish to forget the true God, while being unable to forget. When the Lord appears the 2nd time, no one will be surprised by His existence, and all will know exactly who He is. Rather, His return will confirm the convictions they attempted to stifle with absurd theories and false gods. This is what the Bible teaches doesn't it? The Holy Spirit is real and faithful to "convince the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment", for Jesus has never lied who told this. So sinners can only act as if they are convinced the Bible is a fable. I believe that the greater their protest, the deeper the conviction that the Bible is true.
Thus I believe there's little hope for winning any debate with even the most sound arguments or true science, when the Bible teaches that "none of the wicked will understand". The Gospel alone will turn the wicked from their sin, and thus restore their impaired "vision" by the wisdom from above. This "eye salve" remedy is purchased by repentance(Rev 3:18,19), which is why Jesus commanded His disciples that: "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem"(Luke 24:47).
No other cure to be found for the blindness of sin, which is why the first, last, and only message is the everlasting Gospel. If lifted up as the Christ, Jesus will draw all to Himself, their Creator and Redeemer, and the one "Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;"(Ps 103:3).
Robert, are you suggesting that everyone who believes in evolution as a theory of origin is trying to forget God?
Isn't it possible that many have been deceived and know of no other explanation than what they were taught in school? Is it possible that Paul's admonition to be always read to give an answer for the hope that is i us also applies to us in regard in helping people understand that there is a Creator God who created all things good?
Should we not educate ourselves to give a creation-based explanation of natural phenomena that is as good or better than that offered by naturalistic science?
I always thought that the first angel's message that calls people to Creator worship also calls us to lift up the Creator in ways that people can understand. (I don't think we should write people off because they believe in evolutionary origins.)
Inge, the Bible tells me that sinners are looking for ways to forget God, as Paul points out clearly(Rom 1:18-23). Jesus said the Holy Spirit would convince[convict] the world "of righteousness...of sin...of judgment(accountability to God)", meaning every soul has been given a measure of faith so Satan is not able to deceive anyone through absolute ignorance. God's works of nature declare Him don't they?
It is the fool that says there is no God. Fools are individuals who have turned from what they understood to be right in order to follow a path to folly.
Paul writes of those who will perish as having "believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." This means they had to turn from what they were convinced(by the Holy Spirit) was truth, so they could follow the pleasures of unrighteousness.
Would it be fair to judge as guilty someone who never had a clue of what was true? There will be no one excused for being totally ignorant of what is truth.
Is this not the conclusion scripture leads us to?
Read my comment again, no one is being "written off". The remedy is not arguments or debates, but the Gospel. Every soul has been convicted of sin, according to Jesus.
Evolution is one of Satans great deceptions. It is easy for many of us to avoid. Just as easy as the Sabbath counterfit is for many of us to say no to. Many creationist have given convencing evidence against evolution. When the water boils off and nothing is left but the salt, it is belief in the Bible acount that really matters. My belief is solid. Philippians 4:1. If evolution were correct about it's claims that it took 3 million years for man to evolve in a basic element enviroment favorable for life. 1. Evolutionist can't explain who created the enviroment favorable for life? 2. God's power to create is 3 million times underestimated. We come back to the basic fact that, Satan has succeded in delusions to many minds.
My God has the power to speak creation into existence. Taking only six days to enjoy the work of creation. Then rested on the seventh day hallowing(bless, sanctify, made special) it. "And God said." ... Genesis 1:20...
One thing that I make sure I explain when I talk about this issue is that I believe that God created all things with built in variety and adaptability and that is not evolution.
It is believed that all our many variety of dogs are all descendant from a wolf - that is built in variety & adaptability not evolution.
Did you know that many current scientist don't believe in Darwin's theories? However they have come up with their own theories to fit the results.
Then there are true scientist who believe Creation fits the facts.
thanks mam[Shirley] from there i get that;
1.nothing was random in the story of creation all was planned and well established by the Godhead.
2. nothing was created by god based from a common natural ancestry species.
hence,anything against these core ideals that review that God is principle author and finisher of our faith in both this that are mystery to our understanding is an act of false biblical teaching.
Hosanna in the Highest.
So one thing I find interesting is the wide spread deception that evolutionary theory and biblical authority can exist simultaneously. It cannot, either God is good and created the earth or evolutionary theory including a possible theistic evolutionary theory is the reality. It cannot be both, theistic evolution as the means by which life came to be on this planet and a good God cannot co-exist.
I spent most of my life as a rather militant atheist, I've made the argument for evolutionary theory versus creationism many times, I have also debated those that put fourth the idea of theistic evolution. Which is why I think I have a fairly unique perspective on this. I agree with the arguments made by those above against theistic evolution, and would like to add to them.
You see I've come to realize that most people who have lived their lives in the church have, at best, a very cursory understanding of the theory of evolution. Thats frustrating to me because in order to effectively debate an issue you have to know what you're talking about. So I often find myself debating this issue and thinking God must have a good sense of humor that after so long advocating for naturalistic evolution I often am "given" the chance to speak against it.
The problem with trying to marry evolutionary theory with a biblical world view is that it directly counters some of the most important things scripture says about God. Scripture says "The wages of sin is death." It defines death as a separation from God. Evolutionary theory says death is a natural part of life in fact it is needed for the evolutionary process. Thus God becomes the creator of death. This means that there is no need of a savior who has overcome death. Death isn't bad its just a thing that happens.
Scripture says that sex belongs only in a marriage. Evolutionary theory says, have at it. The most successful species do it all the time with as many partners as possible. Opposite sex parings being preferred but hey sometimes same sex pairings are good too. Same sex pairings happen in nature quite a lot so God must also be the creator of all sexuality. God becomes the creator of rape, as there are several species that propagate via rape alone.
He also becomes the author of cannibalism as many species are cannibals. He even becomes the God who created cancer. Since cancer is mostly nothing more then the means by which organisms mutate run amok.
Those who advocate theistic evolution would have us believe that God set evolution in motion and/or guided it for millions of years letting us practice survival of the fittest and eating our way through our ancestors to finally come to the point where He could tell us survival of the fittest and eating our way through our ancestor is wrong?
You see evolutionary theory or at least naturalistic evolutionary theory is an amoral concept. Its a natural event, we do not judge natural events to be moral or immoral they just are. But the moment you prescribe intent to evolutionary theory. It becomes a very disgustingly immoral thing. The god of evolution is the god of survival of the fittest, where the strong take what they want, and kill the weak to survive. The God of scripture is the fittest stooped to serve the weakest. There can be no comparison between the two. The god of evolution is the god of this world. I will never bend the knee to the god of cancer or predation.
Jeremy;
I very much agree with what you've said.There can be no real harmony between creation and evolutionary theory. The fact of evolutionary change is real and takes no more than a glance around to verify the extraordinary diversity of people in varying skin and hair colors, shapes, sizes, and facial features. The real problem we have is with natural selection as a means of guiding the process. As you have stated so clearly, natural selection is directly at odds with the concepts of a loving Creator God and sin as the cause of suffering and misery in the world.
We have much evidence on our side and some that we cannot well explain. Radiometric dating is the chief evidence in favor of an evolutionary origin of life on this planet and I've not seen or heard a good creationist explanation for the long ages that these schemes imply. Nevertheless, we know that the evolutionists also have their problems. Abiogenesis is a real conundrum for them and after spending tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars researching, there is still not a viable theory. The fact is that the problem has only become more insoluble as more is known about it. The origin of matter is wholly inexplicable if one is an atheist. The rates of erosion, appearance of marine fossils at the heights of the mountains, the Cambrian explosion, the vast sedimentary layers such as the Coconino sandstones, the concentrations of multiple different minerals in the oceans, the recession of the moon, etc.,etc. speak to a creation that was disastrously destroyed by water, and a relatively short existence for life on our earth as we now know it. It's difficult to get funding and even more difficult to get published creationist research, but that does not mean there is no evidence for creation as some of our evolutionist opponents would suggest.
We know that the creation and the Sabbath as it's memorial are a special point of conflict between God and Satan. EGW makes this very clear in statements such as the following:
"Before the fall of Satan, the Father consulted his Son in regard to the formation of man. They purposed to make this world, and create beasts and living things upon it, and to make man in the image of God, to reign as a ruling monarch over every living thing which God should create. When Satan learned the purpose of God, he was envious at Christ, and jealous because the Father had not consulted him in regard to the creation of man. Satan was of the highest order of angels; but Christ was above all. He was the commander of all Heaven. He imparted to the angelic family the high commands of his Father. The envy and jealousy of Satan increased. Until his rebellion all Heaven was in harmony, and perfect subjection to the government of God. Satan commenced to insinuate his dissatisfied feelings to other angels, and a number agreed to aid him in his rebellion. Satan was dissatisfied with his position. Although very exalted, he aspires to be equal with God; and unless the Lord gratifies his ambition, determines to rebel, and refuse submission. He desires, yet dare not at once venture to make known his envious, hateful feelings. But he contents himself with gaining all he can to sympathize with him, as though deeply wronged. He relates to them his thoughts of warring against Jehovah." {3SG 36.1}
God has not and will not leave us w/o evidence for our faith. The Sabbath is still a memorial of His work and I'm happy to be going to church this morning to celebrate God's day. I'll write more if there is time and interest, but there is much more that might be said. Happy Sabbath to all. steve
A very intersting discussion on creation and evolution. I happened to grow up in a communist country of Europe, at first convinced in evolution because science was said to have proved it. Later I discovered, that in reality it is a scientific hypothesis (the attempt to explain the origin of life with the premise that there is no God.) Much to my dismay, after conversion, I also got to know in christian circles the idea that God has set in motion the process of evolution (theistic evolution).
However, this is distorting the character of God suggesting him to be the originator of sin, suffering and death, inasmuch as the survival of the fittest in evolution is an egoistic, loveless attitude and a principle of brutality and not Christlike. The New Testament confesses Christ as Co-Creator. (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2) In theistic evolution Christ, the Co-Creator, is made to be a sinner, moreover the originator of sin disqualified to be the redeemer of sin. Thus theisic evolution, based on the premise that there is a God, is setting aside the cross of calvary as God`s own instrument of salvation.
As to Genesis 1:1: "reschit" is prefixed with the "beta" and hence has to be translated "in the beginning" (compare John 1:1), as God has no beginning. As to Genesis 2:2: The hebrew text reads that God finished his work of creation on the seventh day. LXX is altering the text saying that God finished his work on the sixth day. Taking the hebrew text for granted, the sabbath is part and parcel of creation (although the sabbath as a salvatory institution is an immaterial creation). God came down to man in order to give an example for man of resting with the creator and redeemer on a literal 24 hours day. Exactly this the creator has explained by himself within the Sabath-Commandment. (Exodus 20:11) Inasmuch as the Creator has explained the duration of the days of creation to be literal, and inasmuch as we rest on a literal 24 hours day, there is no other explanation called for. What God himself has explained, does not need any other explanation setting aside God`sown explanation. The Bible is the word of God revealing himself and His action in creation, in history and salvation.
With regards to all who have stated their opinion on this issue.
Winfried Stolpmann