Dial In with Jonny Ardavanis - Paul Twiss - Did God create the world in six days?

Episode Date: June 2, 2022

Jonny Ardavanis is the Dean of Campus Life at The Master’s University and hosts the podcast Dial In with Jonny Ardavanis. He is passionate about the Gospel and God’s Word and desires to see people understand and obey it. Dial In with Jonny Ardavanis: Big Questions, Biblical Answers, is a series that seeks to provide biblical answers to some of the most prominent and fundamental questions regarding God, the Gospel, and the BibleIn this episode Professor of Theology Paul Twiss answers the question: "Did God create the world in six days?”Watch VideosVisit the Website Follow on InstagramFollow on TwitterSubscribe to stay up to date with each episode!

Hey guys, my name is Johnny Artavanis and this is Dial In. In this episode, I sit down with professor and pastor Paul Twiss and ask him to provide evidence for a six-day literal creation. Let's dial in. Paul, I wanted to ask you a question regarding the nature of the creation narrative. People today are growing up in an environment where much doubt is cast upon the interpretation that they might have of Scripture if they hold to a six-day literal creation because they've heard things like, well, there's a complicated Hebrew narrative structure here or it's poetry, so you can't really

read six-day little creation of face value because it's too complicated in the poetic sense. How do we respond to that in a biblical fashion? And what are even the necessary things we need to understand from a language perspective to be able to rebuttal that? Yeah, there's lots we could say. It's a very good question. Genesis is just an incredible book. and the beginning of Genesis is profound. Moses writes, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And in many ways, he's responding to the other creation narratives that were in existence at the time that would put people on a par with gods and would suggest that in some way that these gods weren't all powerful.

And Moses responds and says, let me tell you the true creation narrative. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. If I can zoom out a little bit, the book of Genesis, if you read it from beginning to end, what you'll see many times is this statement in the text, these are the generations of. You see that 11 times throughout the book of Genesis, and it's the main way the book of Genesis is structured. The very first time you read it is actually in Genesis chapter 2, verse 4. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth. And that's the beginning, I often say, that's the beginning of the narrative proper. The drama begins, Genesis chapter 2 leading into the fall in 3 and then Cain and Abel in 4. So then what do we do with 1, 1

through 2, 3? That's prologue. That's setting up for the rest of the narrative. It's Moses' introduction to God and to his creative work. Certainly there is a literariness to that text. There is a crafting of that text so as to present not just historical data, though it does do that, but it presents to us theology in a remarkable way by virtue of its form. Now, having acknowledged that, there is nothing that I've said that necessitates a departure away from the literal meaning of the words in that prologue. There's nothing by virtue of the form or the structure of Genesis or the fact that this is leading up to the first, these are the generations of, none of that puts a burden on us as interpreters to depart away from

a literal meaning of those words, especially the word for day. When people do that, I think often they create more problems than they realize. So the first problem is, what is your reasoning for taking this word as non-literal? You have to have a reason to depart away from this. And I would say, unless the text itself is compelling you towards a symbolic interpretation of that word, a metaphoric interpretation of that word. Unless there are things in the text that are saying you have to take this in a non-literal manner, then you really have no justification for doing so. But people seem to be ready to do that. And honestly, Johnny, I think it boils down to the fact that we, with our limited finite understanding, can't quite conceive of such creative work in six literal days. A second problem, if you've made that first interpretive error of departing from a literal interpretation of the word day,

is now you have to tell me what it does mean. If you're going to assert that it does not mean 24 literal hours, well, now you have to tell me what it does mean. If you're going to assert that it does not mean 24 literal hours, well, now you have to tell me what it does mean. And in deciding what it does mean, I would want to see some justification for that. You're saying this word here is a symbol towards this here. This is its actual meaning. How did you arrive at this as being the symbolic reference that it's pointing to and not something else? So that's an issue. And then, of course, once you've landed on whatever you are going to say it means, you have to reconcile that with what the text is saying. And going back to my first point, as Moses responds and sets forth

the grandeur and the glory of the one true God, part of his glory, part of His power is set forth in His ability to create from nothing in six literal days. So just to summarize, I would say there really is no good reason to depart in Genesis 1 from a literal reading of the text, which commends us towards understanding six literal days of creation from an almighty God. Now, you said there is nothing in the text that would compel us to view it symbolically or metaphorically. What is in the text to compel us to view it literally, meaning its association with there

was morning and evening and this was the fourth day. What are the definite things in the text that would go, no, this definitely means 24 hours? So if you read through Genesis 1, 1 to 2, 3, there's a lot of detail in there and it really does lay out for us God's plan for creation. This is the world that He has created. If you think about all of the things that we read, it all matches up with what we see around us. And interestingly, we don't feel compelled to take anything else symbolically. So we read in Genesis 1 about the fact that God created the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the beasts of the field. He created mankind.

All of these details we're ready to take at face value in a literal sense. We read about the sun and the moon and the stars, and we readily accept those to be the very things that we see before our eyes. This, in all other respects, is a literal account of creation. So why, with the timing issue issue should it be any different? The whole chapter reads as a literal account of this God who creates the world that we see before us. That's so helpful. And you said something about Moses and just the structure of Genesis in general is that whatever is more promoting of the glory of God also would make the most sense as we understand it.

If God is ultimately after his own glory, what gives and promotes his own glory the most would be a literal interpretation of that text. So Paul, that's so helpful from a technical perspective, but also just from a follower of Christ perspective. So thank you for your time. Yeah.