Was the days of creation 24-hour days like as we know them today?  Well, why not?  What is gained by making them longer than 24-hours?  Why does it matter, it does not seem like an issue either way, is it important for some reason?  Can the order of the days of creation prove anything?

Some people believe in “Progressive Creationism” which typically gives each day of creation a long span of millions or billions of years or that the days vary in length depending on task, but still usually end with billions of years over the span of the six days of creation.

Reading through the Genesis account of creation, a person without any bias would only conclude the days to be a normal 24-hour day as it does not say otherwise.   Additionally the account pictured in Genesis clearly portrays a normal week of time. 

Why would there need to a long periods of time in the creation narrative?  The only issue that could be brought up is how long did it take before God created Eve along with how long it took Adam to name all those animals, could that have been in just one 24-hour day?   Yes, this all could have easily happened in a 24-hour period, more details on this a little later.

Are there any other reasons for a long span of time in the days of creation? There is only one that I know of and that is to take external information and try to force the Bible to fit that external information.   Can God create everything in each day as denoted in Genesis in literal 24-hour days?  If so, then why should we take outside knowledge and force it into the Word of God?  Man is fallible, but God is not!  There is even a more important answer around this to be answered a little later in this post.

This post will try to show some common reasoning for a 24-hour day model, what problems a long day model would create and why a 24-hour day matters. 

Why does it matter which way we believe?

The problem with padding the Creation with long periods of time that are not really observed in the text is simply mankind believing what they learn from secular means and forcing the Bible to comply with their knowledge or person experience.  This is the heart of the issue, it is not how long it really took, it is more importantly, some will take the word of fallible mankind over the Word of God.  This should NEVER happen, God’s Word stands true when all of man’s theories have long since changed!

The creation week is one of many foundations in our faith.  If we discount the creation we will discount other parts of Scripture.  Quite often people who are Progressive Creationists will also embrace a local flood denying not only the evidence all around the planet showing a global flood, but also the Word of God.  These are more holes the enemy places into people’s knowledge so that they have nothing to stand on and at the end of the day, can end up like the Jesus Committee who have study themselves stupid, denying that Christ was raised from the dead and thus casting away their faith.  It is holes such as these that undermine your faith and gives place to the enemy to attack you.

The depth these theories have penetrated into Christian studies is amazing. Just pick up a Scofield Reference Bible or some other major versions of the Bible and see how many ideas of Progressive Creation or Gap theories are expounded along with local flood theories and others.  Many top ministers have been taught Progressive Creationism and continue to promote it themselves.  There was a nationally known pastor with probably forty years or better of experience who said to his congregation, “Never tell anyone who can read, that the world is only is only 6,000 years old”.  This same minister had a video he made in the Middle East, where he was at Jericho, talking about the age of the city as being over 11,000 years old.  He believes this, while the Bible clearly denies this age, but he has already given his mind over to the Bible as being inaccurate when it comes to times and accepts outside secular dating above the Word of God.

On a personal note, I had heard many mentions from ministers and lay people prior to and throughout my Christian walk talking about the inaccuracies of times in the Bible and all the missing genealogies, saying the Bible dating cannot be trusted.  I still did not believe this in regard to the date of the creation and most likely not for the Flood, but there was room for doubt by the seeds they had planted in my mind.  This also happened in the doctrine of healing, but that is another area I have had to research and find the truth. 

Not long ago I started digging into genealogies and dates of events when my wife and I noticed that Methuselah, the one who had the longest lifespan, died in the year of the flood.  Over those months of research, I found many interesting facts such as:

• Adam and Eve were not in the garden for more than 70-90 years maximum
• the time period from creation to the flood
• Shem, Noah’s son, would have had possibly second hand information from Adam as Methuselah and Adam would have been alive at the same time for hundreds of years
• Isaac could have received information about Adam and all the pre-flood world by Shem as he was still alive at the time of Isaac.
• Jacob was 84 years old when he married and that he was in his 70’s when he fooled his father into blessing him, although he saw his father again after Jacob had returned with all wives and children as Isaac was still alive then.

And other facts I found interesting.  The point is I discovered much to the counter the assumptions of many people about biblical dates and found the Bible is a reliable source for dating.  If the issues people claim against its dating were all accepted as true, it still would only account for a few hundred years one way or another, there is no room for thousands, millions or billions of years, they do not and cannot exist from the birth of Adam onward. 

There are only a handful of places in the all of Scripture that are as important as to be able to undermine your faith and creation is one of them.  For centuries, many leaders in the faith have compromised their beliefs in order to blend mankind’s science and the Bible.  If they blend completely then we are at one of two places, one of compromise, thus hindering our faith or the Lord has returned and everyone knows the truth.

There are events in the Bible that modern science will deny and are not possible to fit because they are “supernatural” which is outside the realm of mortal mankind.  For example, here are a few they will not believe:

• the waters parted to allow people to walk  across, which is recorded as happening four times in the Bible.
• the sun stood still in the sky for a day, absolutely impossible to modern science in a multitude of ways.
• people were raised from the dead which occurs in many places in the Bible
• Food fell down from heaven for forty years
• God has visited mankind on many occasions
• fire came down from the sky and consumed people at the will of a man

The list of interesting facts goes on and on.  If you try to blend the two, you will either end up offending those who embrace science as their God or you will offend God, there is no middle ground.  God should always be first, this was the first commandment.

Everyone (that includes you the reader) will come to a point where you will be have to make a choice of God’s Word or the secular, you will have to decide where you will place your trust.

Is it the "Six Days of Creation" or is it the "Six Ages of Creation"?

Note: Extensive work is available on running down the word “Day” in Hebrew and the possibilities and I do not wish to repeat them here.  You will find links at the end of this post that you can follow for more details. 

Can the word "day" mean anything other than a 24-hour day?  Of course it can, depending on context.  You might use the phrase "back in the day", while commonly used as denoting an era of time, it can still refer to a specific day depending on context.  For example, "back in the day when I married your mother", this can refer to a time period around that time frame of the marriage or could mean the specific day they were married.  Further context would have to be used to determine the usage such as "back in the day when I married your mother and we exchanged rings" which would be enough to realize the phrase was referring to specific 24-hour day.

Now, what if we said "On the first day of vacation we flew to Alaska"?  By the context of the attachment of the "first", it tells us that we are talking about a specific 24-hour day that an event occurred.  In Genesis, this is exactly what we find, each day is attached to a number.  Why does not a normal 24-hour day apply?  Does it sound correct and in context to say "the first age" and the "six ages of creation"?  For some they might sadly say yes.

For most people, attaching a number to the day would be enough to understand the reference is to a normal 24-hour day and not a variable range of time.  But there is even greater context given to guarantee we do not go down that road.  Genesis goes on to say "the evening and morning where the first day".  We are clearly pointed to the literal meaning of a 24-hour day by the context used and not an "age" of time.  While we might use "the dawn of the new age", the addition of the "evening and morning" reference tied to the numbed day should give us enough insight to say that at least the Bible clearly suggests each day is a typical day.

Can we know that God’s day is the same?

The bigger question here is “why would it not be the same”?  On the fourth day it says He made the sun, moon and stars.  Some suggest that He had already made them some time in the past and was only referring to them or He then allowed them to be seen.  Clearly the text does not even allude to that point of view.  This is yet another verse those who want to force long periods of time into Genesis have to bend in order to fit their views of the perceived of billions of years some in science claim.

Gen 1:14-19 ~ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

We notice in the passage that it says the lights were to be used for measurement of time “for seasons, and for days, and years”.  It only makes sense that He would make the cycle of the earth day the same as the one He is already using in Genesis.  Why would God use the term “day” and then build the earth to run at a different cycle for the same word “day”?  God is not the author of confusion, and using the same word to define different periods of time in the same passage and context would be nothing more than confusion.

Do the order or length of Creation Days present a problem?

If the days recorded are 24-hour days, then there should be no problem with the order or length of days.  However, if they are thousands or billions of years as some would suggest, you have big problems.  First problem, you have grass, herbs and fruit trees being created on the third day, but the sun is made on day four.  This would mean the trees and vegetation would have to remain alive for thousands or billions of years without the sun and we know that is impossible.

It is not merely the problem with the sun, the trees and vegetation would have to reproduce and survive without any pollination for not only the time period of the third day until the forth day without the sun, but two more days of thousands, millions or billions of years as the insects were created on day six. Now that is really stretching things!

Gaps of long periods of times over those day periods just does not seem to make any sense.  There are too many interdependencies to have days of long duration and still manage to keep everything alive and moving forward throughout the different periods of time.  

What about Adam naming those animals and about Eve?

What about Adam and Eve?  How long did they live on the sixth day?  Could Adam name all those animals in only one 24-hour day?  Wasn’t Eve created a little later, after Adam had been in the garden for a while?

If the sixth day was a long span of time they would have to be created at the end of the day, which we know because Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Able after the fall which had to come far before the birth of Seth which the Bible states happened when Adam was 130 years.  So, the fall of mankind had to happen at a maximum of 70-90 years after the creation of Adam and the fall was not recorded in the six day of creation.  We surely couldn’t put the fall before the seventh day. 

Okay, so what about Eve?  What about naming all those animals?  It surely took more than a day for him to get lonely, right?  Wrong view, you are looking for Adam to get lonely, when it was God who was on the move to make Adam a mate:

Gen 2:18-23 ~ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.  And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

When did this happen?  This was when God placed man in the garden and warned him about the tree of knowledge.  Adam then went straight way on to naming the animals as God formed them from the ground and brought them before him.  When finished, there was not a mate found so God created one.  God put Adam to sleep and then created him a mate, Eve.  This is a specific event, not separated by any other event.  Simply, God figured Adam needed a help mate and showed him a vast array of up to 2,500 creatures causing him to become lonely as he watched these pairs being made and he was alone.  Probably God’s way to make him appreciated his new mate without considering her as just another creation, but part of himself.  Who knows, but it does suggest there was no pause or time period to divide the event such as sleep, eating, etc.

Then we have the seventh day, which could not have been long if it ended before the fall of man, which obviously, God was back from the rest at the fall of man.

Where does the number “2,500” animals come from?  When you consider what creatures Adam was to name and what would have been created before speciation, some give the total number to be named to be under 2,500 “kinds”, which could easily been done in a single day. 

Trying to inject large spans of time in creation causes a person to bend or flat out deny so many passages, it just does not make sense.  We should not bend God’s words to our beliefs, but rather bend our beliefs to his Word.

What about the seventh day, does it ever end?

Some have noticed that the seventh day of creation does not have the same format used in the other six days of creation and continues:

Gen 2:1-3  Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

While it has the day number attached, it does not have the “Evening” “Morning” wording of the other six days of creation. This has led some to believe that the seventh day of rest still continues to this day and shows that each day is long periods of time.  Do we think God is has been resting for all the time since creation?  Wrong, God has been actively participating throughout this world since the the fall of mankind.  He has been in the burning bush, the pillar of fire, even as He came in the body of Christ to redeem mankind, He is anything other than at rest.

There is another issue, in Exodus we have God using creation as a work model for the Sabbath:

Exo 20:8-11 ~ Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

He made everything in six days and the word here is yet again the same, six days of creation.  Are we meant to interpret that to say “For in six ages” and “rested on the seventh age”?  For those that think we are still in the seventh day, then I guess our week week should be that we work for six days and then rest for the rest of our life since He would never have been shown to stop resting, the other picture we could form is one of an everlasting day of rest.

What about a “day” as 1,000 years?

This is one passage that seems to come up often when time ranges or ages are mentioned and the topic of creation is no exception.  Let us go through and see where this comes from and what are the possible meanings.

Commonly the references to the phrase comes from these Scriptures:

Psalms 90:4  For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Most people know the phrase mostly from the reference in 2 Peter.  They read it and think that the term “Day” to God can mean any period of time from a 24-hour day, a thousand years or ages.  The passing in Psalms 90 is taken in different ways b some theologians and I do not wish to spend a lot of time on this passage.  There is a common view among people that both of these passages reference to God being outside the realm of time, that it cannot relate to Him and is only used as a measurement in our world.

That said, there may be a more important message in 2 Peter than is obvious and it clear if used with external text.  Let us first look at 2 Peter in context though.  The first half of the chapter appears to be referring to a future event:

2Pe 3:3-7  ~ Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 2Pe 3:4  And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:  Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:  But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

2Pe 3:8  ~ But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2Pe 3:9-13 ~  The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.  But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.  Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,  Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?   Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

It is referring to the return of the Lord.  How does this phrase relate to the return of the Lord?  It says “be not ignorant of this one thing”.  Sounds like something important.  It says “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise”.  It sounds like a time frame that is specific, not simply meaningless.

This is where the external book of Barnabas, the traveling companion of Paul in the New Testament, comes in, not as a “inspired” book, but as simply a reference of what was a common belief back in the time of this writing:

"And God made in six days the works of his hands; and he finished them on the seventh day, and he rested the seventh day, and sanctified it. Consider, my children, what that signifies, he finished them in six days. The meaning of it is this; that in six thousand years the Lord God will bring all things to an end. For with him one day is a thousand years; as himself testifieth, saying, Behold this day shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, shall all things be accomplished."

When Peter wrote of the coming of the Lord and mentioned the “day as a thousand years” in the verse, it was probably quite clear to those who believed in this theory, that he was directly confirming this view and when these things would occur.  I imagine it much like we might say “Turkey Day” to reference Thanksgiving (here in the USA), most people would know what we are saying.  So likewise, Peter was probably making things very clear.  It is obvious that our world will not continue much longer and that the Lord will return in our lifetimes unless we go early.  So, this theory will still prove out anyway.  More on this topic in an old post (once there, scroll down to “The Soon Return”:

http://www.thesaintsinlight.com/post/2008/05/Other-older-posts.aspx 

What is the purpose of the Creation Week?

Here is something most of you have not thought about and until recently, nor had I.  What is the purpose of the Creation Week?  That is, I would imagine most of us believe God could easily have created everything in a fraction of a second without breaking up into a week.  On the Forth Day alone, He created the Sun, Moon and Stars!  Does anyone really think that God “rested” on the seventh day because He was wore out?  Our God is much more powerful than that.  So, why did He break it up into sections and go through this week?  Why just a week, why not two or break it down to a month or a year?

Perhaps God’s purpose was to give us a model, and example for us to follow.  Remember that God commanded in Ten Commandments to keep the Sabbath, six days of work and then the seventh day as a day of rest.  Here is the passage:

Exo 20:8-11 ~ Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

It is just like our God to show us the way.  In breaking up the creation to six literal days and the seventh day of rest, He is showing us that our work week should be six days and then a special day of rest.

Not only this, but it is also a pattern to the purpose of mankind’s existence. As mentioned in the section “What about a ‘day’ as 1,000 years?”, we are shown a pattern of 7,000 years where the first six days represent the days of creation * 1,000 years each.  Then there is the seventh day of rest, the Sabbath which would account for the 1,000 year Millennial Reign of the Christ where Jesus lives and reigns here on earth for 1,000 years and the earth is restored to a garden of Eden state of being.

Conclusion

No matter how we take the length of days of Creation, the primary point to this post is simply that we should never take outside information and force the Scriptures to comply with that information.  This is where error occurs.  Our view of everything we know should be governed by the Bible as God’s Word.  If the Bible does not suggest a matter, we have no right to try retranslating the Bible passages to fit our perspective.

I once heard a passage somewhere (some quote from back a few centuries) that stated they did not know a lot about science, but that our interpretation of the Scriptures be adjusted as knowledge increased, or something like that.  While this might play out for the passage in Daniel where some Scriptures was sealed up until the time of the end, it does not apply to creation.  God wrote it clearly and until He speaks differently, we have no right to change it.

References and links

For more information on the various topics, you can find interesting reading at the following links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i3/day.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_hovind_analysis.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/early-church-on-creation

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/subtlety.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop_Ussher

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/whats-wrong-with-progressive-creation

http://www.creationevidence.org/

http://www.drdino.com/

http://www.creationists.org/

http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html

Just a few days ago, my wife and I were watching a documentary about Noah and I was checking on the timeline around the flood.  I noticed something I had not seen before, Methuselah died in the year of the flood, possibly "in" the flood.  I wondered if perhaps I was missing something else so I built out a table giving the life span and dates of the generations from Adam to Abram. 

After I built the chart below, I found a a few other interesting facts:

• Adam died just 126 years before the birth of Noah
• There are only nine generations from Adam unto Noah
• Noah's father Lamech who lived 777 years died just five years before the flood
• Abraham was born only approximately 252 years after the flood
• Noah died approximately when Abraham was 58 years old
• Noah and Shem lived through he tower of Babel where God scattered the people over the earth.
• All of Abraham's grand fathers from Noah unto Terah, Abraham's father, was alive when Abraham was born
• Noah's son Shem, Salah and Eber outlived Abraham, would be something to have your great, great, great, great, great, great, great grand Father outlive you!

Some people think that right after the flood, people started living short lives of just a hundred years or so, but that did not really happen until after Abraham's time.  Some prior to him lived several hundred years.

While the dates below might not be perfectly accurate as each generation can vary up to a year depending on the time of the year they are born and we do not know for sure the exact date that the sons of Noah nor Abram was born since it only says that in a given year he begat his sons but some take that to mean that in that given year they started to have their sons.  Even with those exceptions  you are only taking a 100 years or so difference in the dates from the time of creation until now.  Not a lot to worry about ;)

It really puts a different view on things when you see how Adam lived almost unto the flood and Noah was around when Abraham was being called of God.  Imagine being Abraham and possibly talking with Noah all about the flood...

* Flood Dates in bold print

Today, while looking for the music to "How great thou art", I ran into another Bible/Science site.  Quickly browsing the site I run into an article asking why people continue to believe that the Flood was global when the Bible clearly shows it was only a local flood.

Simple common sense, knowing that the signs of a great flood are all around the globe and a straight reading of the Bible shows a global flood not local, but different groups of people keep trying to inflect these ideas upon the Word of God.  Imagine God commanding Noah to build an ark so large and stock it with living creatures to float around a large pool of water for a year.  In such a case, why would God have not simply told Noah to leave to a new place until the flood was complete, where he could have taken the other creatures also?  Why would the people of that area, just sat there and died without going outside that mountain range?  In all the years before the flood, why did not someone explore outside that mountain range and settle there thus voiding the purpose of the flood?  And lastly, if there was a local flood, why is it that there was now a rainbow that apparently never existed before which was the promise that God would never destroy "the earth" again by flood?  If you bring up eSword bible software and do a compare, you will be hard pressed to find versions that do not sound like a global flood.

This is much like those that believe in the "gap theory", where there was a "gap" of billions of years between "In the beginning, God  created the heavens and the earth" and "the earth was without form and void..".  This plainly is not scriptural, they have tried to force billions of years into the Bible because man's science says there was billions of years of our earth (for the large part supposedly justified by the light reaching the earth from distant stars), so instead of believing the Bible, they believe a lie.

Could there have been a gap?  Yes, with God anything is possible.  Does the Bible even remotely suggest a gap?  Not at all!  The Gap people say that God would not create the world without form and void, so it must have existed and then was "made" void as a destruction after which, He "restored" the earth.  Grab a Bible and follow the Scriptures that people use to describe a past world where Satan ruled and you will find there is not even a real suggestion of a prior world, but for those that want to see it, they do for some reason.

Some believe this because a few translations misinterpret the word "replenish" the earth and have the passage read "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiple and replenish the earth".  It does not mean to refill the earth, as at the time of the writing of the King James Bible the word "officially" was defined as to "fill" without any possible meaning of "refill" until later centuries when it was redefined to mean "refill" instead of "fill".  More on that can be found at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/replenish.asp

In their attempt to comply with man's science and his view of the age of everything, they overlook passages which invalidate that claim, since the view of man's science says the stars, moon and sun are billions of years old.  What the gap theory believers overlook is the fact that Bible says God created the Sun, Moon and Stars on the fourth day of creation, "after" He created the earth.  So, however you look at it the universe as we know it was created 6,000 years ago, biblically.

Some other forms of Gap theology suggest that billions of years happened between the seventh day of creation and when Adam and Eve fell.  First, can you imagine any human lasting billions of years without eating of that tree?  God told them to multiply, but when they fell, there appears to still only be two of them without children, did they not obey God for billions of years and then decided to obey after the fall and actually have children?  How many people would be on the face of the earth if there was no death over a period of billions of years?  Of course, you also have to say the Bible lied when it says "and all the days that Adam lived where nine hundred and thirty years"!

Both the local flood and gap theories portray people who try to fit "outside" information into the Bible, to bend the Bible to conform to man's wisdom.  We should all take the Bible for what it says and if we have doubts, simply get a group of people together and ask God the truth.  You know He is alive and has given us the Holy Spirit to reveal all truth to us.  Maybe we should quit trying to depend on our own earthly reasoning and let God tell us the truth.  Well, I guess that would mean we have to seek God's face to find the truth and many are simply not up to it....