The following questions may be of interest to some:

Could you explain why it is important not to believe that it took eons of time for God to create the earth? How do I answer someone who says, "Why does it matter what one believes about creation? It is not a matter of salvation."

It Matters Because:

(1) Twice, Moses argued that since the Lord created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh day, so Israel was to work six days and rest on the seventh day (Exod. 20:8-11; 31:12-17). If the days of Genesis one were not six days, in the same sense that the days of Exodus 20 and 31 are six days, the basis of the argument for the Sabbath rest is eroded. Does that matter? If the days of Genesis one were "eons of time," does it matter that the props are knocked out from under the argument of Exodus?

(2) Jesus said that Adam and Eve were created "in the beginning" (Gen. 2:21-24; Matt. 19:4, 8). "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (Mk. 10:6). However, if the days of Genesis one were multi-millions of years, and since God created them on the sixth day, they could not have been created "in the beginning of the creation," but, rather, toward "the end of the creation." Does that matter? Does it matter that the Lord was wrong about it? Does it matter that male and female were not created until "eons of time" after the beginning of the creation, if it be so that the days were hundreds of millions of years in duration?

(3) Jesus spoke of "the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world " (Lk. 11:50, 51). Then, he named Abel as the first--"from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias." If, though, the creations days were "eons of time," and if Abel was not born until after those "eons," how could it be said that the blood of prophets had been "shed from the foundation of the world?" Hence, the Lord was wrong about their blood being shed "from the foundation of the world." Does that matter?

Does it matter whether or not the flood was universal or local? Scripture declares it to be universal (Gen. 6:17; 7:17, 19, 21; 2 Pet. 3:5-7, 10-13). Jesus endorsed a universal flood in the days of Noah (Matt. 24:37-39). Many of the same modernists who deny the days of Genesis one also deny the universal flood of Noah. Shall we say, "What does it matter what one believes about the flood? It is not a matter of salvation?" If we may set aside and dismiss the days of Genesis one, upon the same basis we may disavow the flood.

Jesus spoke of Naaman's healing of leprosy (2 Kgs. 5; Lk. 4:27). If a brother were to question the reality of Naaman's cleansing, or if he were to declare that the seven dips Naaman allegedly took were actually seven days of prayer, would it matter since it has "nothing to do with our salvation"?

Jesus spoke of the "three days and three nights" Jonah was in the belly of the great fish (Matt. 12:40). Suppose a brother begins teaching that the story of Jonah is another "fish story." Should we give the brother a pass and shrug it off, saying, "What does it matter what one believes about the flood and a literal Jonah? It is not a matter of salvation."

Too, if the days of Genesis one are not real days, or it does not matter if they are or not, does it matter if Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish? Could he have been there (if he was ever truly there at all), for three hours, rather than three days, or must those three days be literal? If a brother teaches that Jonah was there for three hours and not three literal days, shall we refuse to correct him and charge that those who disagree are full of hate and only want to divide brethren, and make a name for themselves? (How about "three years"?)

Jesus endorsed the serpent of brass lifted up by Moses and compared it to his own lifting up on the cross (Jn. 3:14-16; Cf. 12:32, 33). Now, if Jesus could be wrong about the first couple being created "in the beginning," and if he could endorse a mythical fish story, could he also give credence to a snake healing that never occurred? "What does it matter what one believes about the serpent of brass and the healing of many in Numbers 21? It is not a matter of salvation."

Jesus expressed belief in the events regarding the destruction of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom (Matt. 11:20-24). He endorsed the prophetic description of their doom. Indeed, he based the reality of judgment against the cities of his day on the judgment those towns had received. Suppose a devout and talented brother should deny those cities were doomed by divine fiat. Should we accept him, despite his error? "What does it matter what one believes about those cities? It is not a matter of salvation?"

May one deny the days of Genesis one, Noah and Naaman, question the certainty of the brass serpent, jumble Jonah, and impugn the reality of Sodom's judgment and justify it because those facts do not pertain "to salvation"?

Jesus, the one who in the beginning was with God and who was God, made all things. "And without him was not anything made that was made" (Jn. 1:1-3). "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" (Heb.11:3). "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth....For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast" (Psa. 33:6, 9). "Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens...for he commanded and they were created" (Psa. 148:4, 5). He who is the Word spoke his word, as Genesis declares, and the heavens and the earth were formed, framed, and fashioned. The creation did not evolve and develop over time as the result of a cosmic cataclysm ("Big Bang!"). Rather, as the texts above clearly establish, the universe came into existence, fully matured, at the immediate impetus of the spoken word of God! As it was said two thousand years ago, so it may be said of some today, "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old" (2 Pet. 3:5).

If Genesis, chapters one through three, are not literal, then what becomes of Romans 5:12-21? Is Paul's great analogy not based in truth? Remember, Paul's writings were "the commandments of the Lord" himself (Cf. Lk. 10:16; Jn. 14:26; 1 Cor. 11:23; 14:37; Gal. 1:11, 12, 15, 16; Eph. 3:3-5). If Paul is arguing from an imaginary foundation, he received it of the Lord! If the Lord was in error, if the events of Genesis 1-3 are not founded in historical events, things which actually occurred, what does this say about the nature and character of Christ? If Jesus was wrong, if he so misled his disciples, does this not affect our faith in him? Does it not, therefore, affect our salvation, since our faith is in him who claimed to be "the way, the truth, and the life"?

Consider this and how it impacts both the revelation and salvation of Christ: Paul reasoned that if the apostles testified of God, that he raised up Christ, but that, in reality, Christ was not literally raised from the dead, then they were to be "found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not" (1 Cor. 15:15).

Since Paul argued that if his testimony concerning a certain incident proved not to have happened and that he was, therefore, a "false" witness, what does this make of our Lord and Savior? He testified that he spoke the worlds into existence (Psa. 33:6, 9; 2 Pet. 3:5). However, if they actually emerged and materialized over long periods of time, Jesus is "found" to be a "false" witness "of God" for he testified to the contrary.

By further comparison, observe the consequences of false testimony. Paul said that if his testimony were false, then five necessary conclusions must follow, (1) "Then is our preaching vain...(2) your faith is vain, (3) ye are yet in your sins....(4) they which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished....(and) (5) we are of all men most miserable" (1 Cor. 15:12-19).

Now, is the same not true of Christ? If he has falsely testified of the creation, if it did not occur as he described and declared that it did, does this not affect fundamental foundation facts of the faith? Does this not indict him as a false witness of God? That being so, does his error not leave us "yet in our sins" and "of all men most miserable"?

Finally, in this same vein and train of thought, observe that Paul, speaking the words of Jesus himself, said that he feared for the Corinthians "lest by any means , as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Cor. 11:3). "Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Tim. 2:13, 14). Note the "as...so" comparison. Was Eve actually deceived and corrupted in true-life episodes? If no particular woman was actually deceived, as detailed in Genesis 2 and 3, may we be?

If Genesis is not real, the credibility of Christ and the validity of his word regarding creation, revelation, and regeneration are vain and void. Hence, our preaching, faith, and confidence in life and immortality are all a lie. We are yet in our sins, "without Christ...having no hope, and without God in the world" (Eph. 2:12).

In order to help us see where such things may lead, let me cite the words of an esteemed brother in the Lord which typify and unwittingly help to justify the position reviewed above; namely, that it does not matter what we believe about the creation days of Genesis. At the Florida College lectures in February, 2000, brother Ferrell Jenkins addressed the days of Genesis one controversy and made these comments:

"Now, I think we run into a problem when we say 'must,' one of these views must be correct. And I've got a good brother friend who said one place that these must be long ages, and I can't say that. But on the other hand, I can't say they must be 24 hour ages. There were some arguments made for that like Exodus 20 and some arguments I didn't have time to deal with that I did have them in my notes here. And you can argue, you know, you can make a good case either way for that, all of those things like that.... And there is nobody in our brotherhood who can say, 'This is it, and you've all got to agree with my view.'

Now brethren, that's the history that we come from. And I'm sad to say that those who are younger and who may only be 10 years old or 15 or 20 years old, because it's been always a certain way in your life doesn't mean its always been that way. And its time people who were older spoke up and said, 'Look, what goes around comes around.' Not to be wishy-washy, not to compromise on any biblical truth, but to say there are just some things so difficult that I may not be able to draw the same conclusion you've drawn on those and then to give that opportunity for people" (Ferrell Jenkins, "Making Sense Of The Days Of Creation," Florida College, February 8, 2000).

Below are some parallels to brother Jenkins' comments. I do not attribute them to him, but they are comparable to his preceding statement. Suppose one were to speak of the Genesis flood as brother Jenkins spoke of the days of Genesis one:

Now, I think we run into a problem when we say "must," one of these views must be correct. And I've got a good friend who said that the Genesis flood was a local, not a world-wide event, and I can't say that. But, on the other hand, I can't say it must be a total flood. There are some arguments made for a world-wide flood like Genesis 6-8, and some arguments I don't have time to deal with. And you can make a good case either way for that, for all of those things like that....And there is no body in our brotherhood who can say, "This is it, and you've all got to agree with my view."

Now, brethren, that's the history that we come from....Not to be wishy-washy, not to compromise any biblical truth, but to say there are just some things so difficult that I may not be able to draw the same conclusion you've drawn on those and then to give that opportunity for other people, too.

Further, comparing brother Jenkins' statement, suppose one were to say:

Now, I think we run into a problem when we say "must," one of these views on marriage, divorce, and remarriage must be correct. I've got a good friend who said that one may divorce for any reason before he becomes a Christian and keep his second wife after he obeys the gospel, and I can't say that. But, on the other hand, I can't say divorce must be for fornication. There were some arguments made for that like Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and some arguments I don't have time to deal with. And you can make a good case either way for that, and there is no body in our brotherhood who can say, "This is it, and you've all got to agree with my view."

Now, brethren, that the history we come from....Not to be wishy-washy, not to compromise on any biblical truth, but to say there are just some things so difficult that I may not be able to draw the same conclusion you've drawn on those and then to give that opportunity for other people, too.

Now, I think we run into a problem when we say "must," one of these views on polygamous marriages must be correct. I've got a good friend who said that one may marry multiple partners, and I can't say that. But, on the other hand, I can't say they must not marry multiple partners. There were some arguments made for one marriage partner like 1 Corinthians 7:2 and some arguments I don't have time to deal with. And you can make a good case either way....And there is nobody in our brotherhood who can say, "This is it, and you've all got to agree with my view."

Now, brethren, that's the history that we come from....Not to be wishy-washy, not to compromise on any biblical truth, but to say there are just some things so difficult that I may not be able to draw the same conclusion you've drawn on those and then to give that opportunity for other people, too.

Or, suppose a preacher were to say: Now, I think we run into a problem when we say "must," one of these views on baptism, music in worship, the organization and work of the church, must be correct. And I've got a good friend who said one time that these things are not essential, and I can't say that. But, on the other hand, I can't say they must be essential. There are some arguments made for baptism, singing, like Acts 2:38 and Ephesians 5:19, and some arguments I don't have time to deal with. And you can make a good case either way for baptism, music in worship, all of those things like that....And there is nobody in our brotherhood who can say, "This is it, and you've all got to agree with my view."

Now, brethren, that's the history that we come from....Not to be wishy-washy, not to compromise any biblical truth, but to say there are just some things so difficult that I may not be able to draw the same conclusion you've drawn on those and then to give that opportunity for other people, too.

As we have seen, it matters what one believes. If not, where does it stop? What are the long term effects? If we may deny the creation account, why not the flood and other, similar issues? "Is it nothing to all ye that pass by?"