Since Jesus could create living organs (eyes, legs, whole bodied such as that of Lazarus, etc.) and even bring food into existence, in a split moment of time, do these feats demand accepting the short six days of Creation listed in Genesis 1 as FIAT CREATION, and not representing billions of years? Is this what the verses say?

In response to God's (Jesus's) command did objects only have "To be" rather than "To become" during the creation week? It only took Jesus a nanosecond to speak and then produce healings, create fresh flesh (to the lepers) or reconstitute a decomposed body.

  • Be clean - Mt. 8:3
  • Stretch out your hand - Mk. 2:5
  • Receive your sight - Lu. 18:42
  • Lazarus, come forth! - John 11:43
  • Young man, I say to you, 'Get up' - Lu. 7:14
  • He drove out spirits with a word - Mt. 8:16
  • Just say the word and my servant will be healed. - Mt.8:8

Since it is the same Person in the first century as at Creation (John 1:1-4), do the bible verses in the N.T. and the O.T. demand a real week of time as we know it? Is this one of the major reasons Christian Young Earth Creationists accept a short time (not billions of years) for their interpretation of Genesis 1?

Would they reason that it is stretched out to a 7 day week to give the man He was about to create an example of a salubrious work week? [Even though God (Jesus) could have done everything in a split second (or whatever a "second" is called in the frame of Eternity).

Perhaps a note from the astronomer, Hugh Ross, would provide insight: according to modern astronomy, the mass of the universe (elements) were all created in one hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second! This is the conclusion of modern science, not a concoction of theologians.

  • A question like this really requires a denominational focus since the interpretation of the Bible is not consistent across every part of Christianity. If, for instance, you selected the answer from an ardent Lutheran Young Earth Creationist, an Old Earth Anabaptist, might be apt to argue with that answer. Since we really don't want arguments on the site, I closed your question. If you can just ask "From a young earth creationists" perspective that would keep both this question and the answer you selected on topic.
    – Peter Turner
    Feb 16, 2023 at 14:43
  • (Peter) Does this edited question fulfil the requirements you listed? Help!
    – ray grant
    Feb 16, 2023 at 21:07
  • @raygrant, I have partly reverted your edit. If you're going to change the sense of the question like that, please update the body also. However, to answer the question in your edit (ignoring the question body), no, I don't think most YECs would call it the basis. As noted, it's an argument... but Jews reject the NT while still believing in YEC, so...
    – Matthew
    Feb 16, 2023 at 22:09
  • Matthew's right - it's best to make sure the contents matches to title. @Matthew I think you (or anyone, even me if I had time) would be good to go for editing that into the question too.
    – Peter Turner
    Feb 17, 2023 at 1:26
  • (Gracious gentlemen) I edited the body some, I hope to your satisfaction. Your corrections are most appreciated, as well as your patience!
    – ray grant
    Feb 17, 2023 at 21:43

3 Answers 3


do the bible verses in the N.T. and the O.T. demand a real week of time as we know it?

Absolutely not. If anything, they argue against a week. A number of prominent theologians in the early Church believed that a week is too long, and that Creation was accomplished in an instant.

It may well be that Creation took no more than a few instants. What seems likely, however, is that such instants were deliberately spread out. The reason, for this, can of course be seen in Exodus 20:11 (and elsewhere). "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Spreading Creation out over six days was a very deliberate act that God used to set a model for humans.

It should also be noted that, in order for that model to make sense, the days of creation must be actual days, not long periods of time. Of course, given that God can and does accomplish things in incredibly short periods, insisting on inserting thousands, millions, or even billions of years into Creation is to insist that God can't accomplish such miracles, in such manner and in such short intervals, as are recorded in the Gospels.

As to whether these miracles happened in an actual instant (perhaps something resembling a Planck second) or simply a very short period of time, it's worth keeping in mind that God is outside of time, and is all-powerful. It makes sense that something God ordains would simply be, unless He had a specific reason for causing it to happen more slowly.

Is this one of the major reasons Christian Young Earth Creationists accept a short time (not billions of years) for their interpretation of Genesis 1?

I would say it's definitely a reason. Whether it counts as "major" might be a matter of opinion. Personally I feel that the main reasons for believe in a "young" (~6ky) Earth are:

  • The various chronologies and genealogies (Genesis 5, Luke 3) don't appear to leave any room for longer spans of time.
  • There does not appear to be any scriptural reason to believe that Genesis 1-11 is not intended to be taken as straight-forward history. (This is not to say there isn't additional, spiritual meaning, but that the apparent historical meaning should not be rejected.)
  • Jesus' own words place humanity at "the beginning" of Creation. This is directly in conflict with assertions that humans only showed up "recently".
  • 2 Peter 3:3-7 seems to be speaking directly against those who would reject a historical reading of Genesis 1-11.
  • Non-historicity of Adam is argued to have severe theological consequences.
  • Belief in death before sin is argued to have severe theological consequences.
  • Rejection of the historicity of Genesis 1-11 seems to open the doors for rejecting the historicity of any other part of Scripture... up to and including the Crucifixion and Resurrection, at which point one might as well reject all of Christianity.

That God clearly can accomplish things quickly, even "instantaneously", is certainly another reason. Additional reasons include:

  • The available scientific evidence is argued to be more consistent with such an interpretation, while many lines of evidence are not consistent with millions or billions of years.
  • Philosophical Materialism (that is, the belief that neither God not anything else spiritual exists, which is made possible by belief that Creation can be explained without reference to God) seems to have serious moral consequences which are clearly ungodly. (Consequently, from a Christian perspective, there is reason to believe that the battle between Creationism and Materialism is not merely about whose "science" is more correct, but may in fact be dominated by spiritual, or at least philosophical, conflict.)

Would they reason that it is stretched out to a 7 day week to give the man He was about to create an example of a salubrious work week?

Yes. As noted above, that seems to be the most obvious reason why God would "take His time".

  • When i first started to read this answer, i was on the defensive...however, its a great answer. +1 from me.
    – Adam
    Feb 14, 2023 at 1:25

From the fact that God can create in a split-second does not follow that he did in the creation week. If this did follow, there indeed wouldn't be a creation week either, only a creation split-second.

So no, regardless of where you stand wrt. to how much time the creation week took, you cannot say from split-second miracles follows split-second creation. Also, you cannot distinguish from the text whether the miracle took only an instant, or a short amount of time (seconds). I am not saying I personally believe this, but this is also a possible interpretation that completely throws a wrench in the reasoning.

  • (kutschkem) So possibility or plausibility does not mean "reality" or an actual ocurrance.) It is something to think about; good clarification.
    – ray grant
    Feb 13, 2023 at 20:59
  • (Kutschkem) Sometimes the concomitant events and necessities of experience require "ACTUALITY" and not just "POTENTIALITY". See Aristotle's concept of "entelechy."
    – ray grant
    Feb 21, 2023 at 22:54
  • @raygrant I don't really understand, the actuality is simply in other "instantaneous" miracles instead of the creation week?
    – kutschkem
    Feb 22, 2023 at 11:15

When you speak of "a real week of time" are you referring to a literal "week" as meaning 7-24 hour periods of time as measured by the rotation of the created Earth? Not to be facetious but I am just trying to understand why this is even a question. It seems to me the periods of "time" referenced by the earths rotation would have no relevance to it's timetable of coming into existance before the celestial bodies in their particular orbits being referred to existed. Are you trying to figure out if the Creator is bound by his own imaginization or intention to a time period that he intended to create that was not yet in existence? If the Creator originated the particular time frame of reference that physical objects are subject to, are you asserting that the Creator who claims to be unbounded by time, as humans interpret it, being of no beginning and no end, is somehow, after creating the time period in question, now to be limited by being subject to it? Please clarify this aspect of your question.

  • 1
    The question of how there can be "evening and morning" before the sun has been asked and answered many times, including on this site. The short version: you don't need the sun, you just need Earth experiencing intervals of light and dark. That could happen if the light source fades in and out, or if it comes from a particular direction and the Earth is already rotating. (The latter is more widely believed to have been the case, AFAICT.)
    – Matthew
    Feb 15, 2023 at 15:43
  • @matthew before the earth was created there was no 24 hour period except what was in the creators purpose, so why would he use such an arbitrary period of time that he was not bound to? what purpose would there be to describe a period of time it took to create the universe before any "time period
    – ACME
    Feb 16, 2023 at 1:41
  • @matthew I never said anything about evening, only 24 hour "day". When was the begining? I see no deliniation between Gen 1:1 and vs 2. also what about Ch 2 vs 4? Before the universe was created there was no 24 hour period based on physical motion existing to define "day", so why would he use such an arbitrary period of time that did not exist yet or that he was not bound to? What purpose would there be to describe a period of time it took to create the universe including preparing the Earth for life, before any "time period" existed? This is my question, not ur comment. My q seems clear.
    – ACME
    Feb 16, 2023 at 1:51
  • What purpose? See Exodus 20:11. As soon as matter existed, however, time existed. It's true we can't exclude much "time" passing prior to Genesis 1:3, but what would be the point? God didn't need that time for anything, so there is no reason to believe in much time passing between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3. (But comments are not for discussion. If you would like to continue this, please use chat.)
    – Matthew
    Feb 16, 2023 at 15:03
  • @matthew Comments are for clarification of questions. You still have not clarified the points I asked. Please refer to my questions specifically so I may understand your question as well as the reason for the question. Please clarify these points; 1. Are you referring to 7-24 hour periods as a "real week"? 2. Is God's creative ability bound by what he created, and would he be bound by the restraints on creation before he created the event? 3. What purpose is there to try to define in human terms the actual physical time required to prepare the earth for life? Thank You
    – ACME
    Feb 19, 2023 at 21:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .