Preface To The Second Printing
1. Must God Plead With God?
   
2. How The Spirit Leads
   
3. Physical Reinforcements of Faith
   
4. Jesus' Physical and Spiritual Death
   
5. Is There Merit in Pain?
   
6. The Six Days of Creation
   
7. Adding Guilt to Anxiety
   
8. Wine and The Disciple
   
9. Revolution or Evolution
   
10. I Am That Disciple
    
11. When People Disagree
    
12. Is Unity Based Upon Seven Doctrines?
    
13. Our Seven Sacraments
    
14. Instrumental Music
    
15. The Mood of Worship
    
16. Justified Then Sanctified
    
17. Is Christian Our Name?
    
18. The Lord's Table
    
19. Righteousness That Exceeds
    
20. Neither Destroyed Nor Nailed To The Cross
    
21. The Right of Self-Protection
    
22. A Tree of Error
    
23. God is Limited
    
24. You Are Here
    
25. God is In Charge
    
26. Hook's Points
    
27. Lamentations of A Mediocre Preacher
    

THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION

Last week Lea and I visited the Space Center in Alamogordo, New Mexico which boasts of a planetarium the likes of which there are only nine others in the world. We viewed with awe the presentation depicting how scientists believe the universe began and how the features of the earth were shaped. The realism of the projections make some viewers airsick. It was an unforgettable highlight of our vacation.

There was a time, however, when such a presentation would have made me sick-not airsick, but soul sick. It would have been shocking and unsettling to me and I would have rejected it in its entirety. The program, called "Genesis," spoke of Creation and ended with Frank Borman's dramatic reading of Genesis 1:1­2 as he viewed the distant earth rising over the horizon of the moon, but it did not limit the time of creation to six twenty­four hour days about six thousand years ago.

By instruction, posters, and art work our children are impressed from their earliest Bible class experiences with the contention that God made the universe in six literal days about 4000 B.C. I am convinced that our well­meaning teachers do our children a great disservice by such teaching. It is good that they instill belief that God created the universe in the children, but it is regrettable that, in the same process, they put a scientific stumbling block in the path of their faith. The Catholic Church made the scientific belief that the sun orbits the earth a tenet of soul­saving faith. Their hassle with Galileo has embarrassed them for centuries, and they learned not to make scientific interpretations into matters of faith. Unfortunately, we have not learned that lesson yet.

Our literal interpretation of the creation account collides with scientific explanations. We have made it an either/or proposition; if we accept one interpretation, we must reject the other. So, often faith is shaken in those who accept scientific conclusions. Instead of holding our views of both science and the Bible as interpretations to be studied for harmony, we have accepted our Biblical interpretations as ultimate truth which must displace any scientific interpretation which varies from it.

More needs to be said about our claimed literal interpretation of Genesis. We are not so literal except on the points that we are hung up on. Is a snake subtle, having a reasoning intellect like a man? If it could reason, could it talk without a voice box? Could it hear Eve, having no ears? Could Adam and Eve eat knowledge? Did they not have knowledge of good and evil before eating the forbidden fruit? Was Adam endowed with unlearned speech, language, information, and experience? Was he given tools and knowledge to dress the garden? Were Adam and Eve given a culture at the time of their creation? Were they given vessels, cutlery, a nail file, and scissors to cut their hair? If they were given this culture and knowledge, how can we account for the loss of such practical knowledge as the use of tools later in history by aboriginals? Can man hear God walking? Does a snake eat dust? Did the tree of life die? What became of the Garden of Eden? Adam's need for food indicates that his body would consume and expend energy. Would he have died before the fall without food?

When we face these and other similar questions, our literal approach to Genesis begins to evaporate, leaving us high and dry.

I do not claim to have all the simplistic answers, but that is not alarming, because my salvation in no way depends upon understanding of scientific data. The Genesis account is intended to instill faith and awe in us toward an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Creator and God rather than giving us soul­saving scientific facts.

"Each has an interpretation" and is usually eager to impose it. My understanding is different from others which I have read on the creation account. If you will indulge me, I will state it briefly for what challenge it may offer you. Surely, you do not have to accept it.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Every atom of every element brought into existence from nothing is included in that first sentence of the Bible. That was the creation-period! All the creative acts described in the six day periods were but the arranging of these material elements and endowing with life from the Original Life. It is similar to the housewife who creates/makes a cake. She makes a new arrangement of existing materials. When this elemental creation took place and how long the process took is not revealed. It was in the beginning of creation, not in the beginning of existence, for the existing Spirit had no beginning. Whether God took a moment or billions of years is neither revealed nor relevant.

Now that the universe is created, the reader's attention is directed to changes taking place on the earth. It is still molten hot so that it is waste, void, and shapeless with all of its moisture in steam and vapor shrouding the surface in darkness, with turbulent winds caused by the heat.

In the cooling process the clouds thinned so that light could filter through. "Let there be light" on the earth. Light was not created then, for the universe had millions of suns, but it penetrated to the earth's surface. Continued cooling and further thinning of the atmosphere allowed for distinction between day and night on earth. The mass already had undergone periods of darkness and light due to its rotation. More cooling allowed the moisture to form clouds with sky between them and the earth. The condensed moisture gathered on the cooled surface of the earth and, because of the upheavals of the earth's crust, separated from the land to form seas. By natural process it would require more than a day for the water to drain off the continents. By all this process God has now made the earth ready for life and habitation. God could have done this in a few hours, but He could have let natural processes work for millions of years to bring it all about. He is still its Creator.

On the third day God brought forth vegetation producing seed and fruit after its kind. And it was so! These were truly fast producing plants if they brought forth seed and fruit after their kind in twenty­four hours. Literal interpretations overlook this point, but reproduction was demonstrated on what is called the third day.

Whether God put the earth in orbit around the sun on the fourth day, or actually formed the sun and moon then, is not of importance. It seems more likely that He set them in the heaven for signs then in the same sense that He set the rainbow for a sign in Genesis 9:13. He called a special attention to the rainbow rather than altering the way that light is refracted. So He gave special meaning to the sun and moon.

On the fifth day the fish and fowl were created and charged to multiply after their kind and to swarm, which they did. The length of time and the process of forming them is not the emphasis. Again, the reproductive process bringing swarms of marine life would require more than a literal day.

The same can be said about the reproduction of cattle and beasts on the fifth day.

Whatever the length of the sixth day was, it gave time for God to pass all the animals and fowls in review before Adam that he might name them. This was before Eve was made for him (Gen. 2:18­22). Could Adam possibly have named each of the thousands of species of animals and fowl in twenty­four hours?

The creation account in Genesis actually follows the same general pattern set forth in scientific theory. Science tries to define the natural process, but the Bible does not describe the process. Literal interpretation claims instantaneous creation allowing for no process of development. Truly, God could have created and formed the universe and all that is in it in ten seconds. Or he could have taken ten billion years. If God let natural laws, which he ordained, work in the process of developing and forming the universe, does that detract from his power?

Since God was establishing a natural order, it seems only reasonable that he would have let it operate from the beginning. For example, the light from M 33, the nearest star group outside our Galaxy, could have been made to reach the earth instantly, or natural law could have allowed 850,000 years for it to reach us. What purpose could have been served by suspending the natural law concerning the speed of light in this instance?

One of our problems has been in trying to define a method that God used when the Bible does not give us that information. The next problem has been in making that interpretation a matter of faith. Our inconsistency is evident in disclaiming any accommodative language or literary style in the Genesis account while we attempt a literal interpretation only of the areas on which we have become hung up.

You may contend that my explanations are weak and destructive to faith. I believe that this approach makes faith easier by avoiding unnecessary scientific obstructions to faith. It has worked for Lea and me and our children, and I am convinced that the same can be true with you and your children.