I think that you'll find that folks of all denominations will decide what is figurative and what is literal based on what fits best into their overall doctrine. I doubt that you'll find "the answer" anywhere. Of course, since this is just my opinion, other, smarter folks may disagree. :blink:
Allan:
It would be interesting to see if Wierwille's explanation of "a day and a night" always referring to a literal 24 hour period holds up to scrutiny.
I think that you'll find that folks of all denominations will decide what is figurative and what is literal based on what fits best into their overall doctrine. I doubt that you'll find "the answer" anywhere. Of course, since this is just my opinion, other, smarter folks may disagree. :blink:
Allan:
It would be interesting to see if Wierwille's explanation of "a day and a night" always referring to a literal 24 hour period holds up to scrutiny.
That's why I directed the questions toward "fundamentalist" friends, rather than in general (I enjoyed your response, anyway, Todd). I know what my doctrine teaches about it. But I am not a fundamentalist. I just see a disconnect between how the first is interpreted (not necessarily the interpretation) and how the second one is interpreted. Since I'm not a fundamentalist, I can live with that. But for those who literally take the Bible as their sole source for faith and practice, I am trying to understand how they can resolve it.
While I am certainly not a "fundamentalist" in the strict sense of the term, I do like to explore these kinds of things from time to time.
Below are some fairly good links that touch on this. The first three are fundamentalist - literal 6 days. The last one treats it figuratively (where day mean age or aeon).
The best I can tell, one of the main arguments for the six days being literal 24 hour periods, is the use of the term "and the evening and the morninng". One writer argues that if a day was meant to mean an aeon of time, then why would the term "evening and morning" be used?
As for me, this is one of those things that seems insignificant in the whole scope of things, since one way or the other, it does not really affect my faith.
Personally, I think the writer of Genesis was probably more concerned with showing God as the Creator and life-giver, than trying to establish the exact time frame in which the universe was created.
What is interestimg is that there is no night mentioned in the "evening amd the mornig were the next day".
And I'm not quite sure if I know what a fundamentalist is.
Thinking these things through and trying to put it together literally would be quite impossible imo. I think it's talking about something much closer then realized and not some events that happened long ago.
But one's understanding of it is just where God want's it to be untill we are ready for more of what Genesis is talking about.
Mark, in regards to whether or not the period of time in Genesis is a literal 24 hour period or not – is associated with the young earth/old earth debate among some scholars. I've referred to Hugh Ross on another thread – who believes the Genesis 1 "day" may refer to a much longer time period than 24 hours:
I do not know if I could be called a fundamentalist believer I just got cast out of a Gnostic group because I was too Gnostic but I called Gnostic just another church so maybe I am a fundamentalist and maybe not.
All I know is I love God and his son Jesus the Christ the seed in me.
But as for Gen 1:1-2 being six literal days (144 hours) I would say No because time had not begin until Gen 1:3-5 were God made a way to mark time.
But has for the first day and night being a 24 hour period I do not believe that but there no way to prove how long it was but we do know it was the period of time it took the earth to rotate in a complete circle.
I say it was most likely 10 hours of day and 10 hours of night and 28 days in a month and 10 months in a year and 280 days in a year until the time of Moses about
Then the rotation slow down over time and we moved from 20 hours in a day to about 24 hours in a day and the number days in a month moved closer to 30 days, the months in a year to 12 in a year and 365 days in a year or so
but this me
But can I prove it No because I did not live back then but there are clues in books but no straight answer in books
It is a matter for the individual--I know many Christians who adhere to a strict time frame making the earth created 6,000 years ago. Me, I go with science on this, the earth being much older. I think in the OT especially time was recorded in a manner that people could relate to. God took much much longer to do many things. I think the "days" of Genesis and the creation are meant to convey that there was a purposeful continuity when Jesus Christ at God's direction created the earth. Not a haphazard shotgun approach but a systematic organization first water then land, night and day, first plants then animals etc.
dmiller, it's just an example of biblical literalists taking one literally and the other figuratively. mark is looking for an explanation of why.
Exactly, Oakspear. That's the scenario I was trying to set up in the beginning of the thread.
When I stated,
Note: this is NOT an attempt to start a creation argument. This is not trying to start a TWI/non-TWI argument. This is NOT an attempt to mock anybody's beliefs. This is NOT a veiled request to be evangelized by anybody. This IS simply curiosity on my part.
my effort was to set up a survey of the opinions of people.
I then put in this caveat:
(You will recall I started the LDS Catechesis thread a while back...it wasn't that I was thinking about converting to LDS, I was just curious to hear, from the horse's mouth, about some of their unique doctrines and practices, so that I wouldn't be repeating rumor and garbage when talking about them. This thread is in much the same spirit)
to illustrate that I was not seeking an answer for my own purposes, but rather to simply illustrate that I was trying to see why others think the way they did.
I appreciate everybody's response so far..,..they've been educational!
(Roy, I completely forgot about that issue with the first couple of days...how could time be measured without a sun to show it's position...brilliant!)
Oh, one other thing: I do have my own beliefs regarding the timing of the creation story, but, as I said, I'm soliciting other peoples' opinions.
"There are many, many people who interpret the time sequence outlined in the creation account of Genesis 1-2 to be six literal days (144 hours).Many of the same exegetes will apply very loose figurative rules to the interpretation of times given in various prophecies, such as Daniel's 70 weeks (Dan 9:24ff). What I'm curious about here is what are the exegetical rules that require time to be accounted for in one passage quite literally and in another passage very figuratively?...If anybody who considers themselves to be a exegete or a "Bible only source for faith and practice" type of person would do me the courtesy of explaining the above question, I'd appreciate it."
Mark, thanks for a very interesting and thought provoking post! I don't consider myself an exegete but do place myself in the category of a Christian with the Bible as my only source for faith and practice. I apologize for my brief post earlier [this is considered my wind up pitch for a major dissertation – LOL ] – there were two reasons for that. I didn't thoroughly [or throughly :blink: ] consider your question and I was out of town at the time and did not have access to my library [oh boy – you know that means there's a heap of text coming!]. In my opinion, your post touches upon two challenging issues the Bible student faces: awareness of our own point of view and distinguishing between literal and non literal references.
From Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, 2nd Edition, 2002, Bruce Corley, Steve Lemke, Grant Lovejoy, page 216: "Be conscious of Your Presuppositions. Because the Bible is inspired in such a way that it is just what God wanted to convey, it is important to examine carefully the meaning in the original setting before attempting to relate it to our present time and situation. This requires that we carefully endeavor to understand our own perspectives and understandings that we bring to the biblical text, and seek to filter them out so that the Word of God is truly heard." That's why I'm interested in developing good critical thinking skills - to examine my own thinking, look at other people's perspectives, etc.
That being said – I will mention my own viewpoint on the Bible and science which I think has relevance here. I have always been fascinated with science and technology and so - besides being raised in a Christian family, some of what has contributed to my faith has been [imho] the amazing beauty, orderliness, and intelligence displayed in the physical world. As you can probably tell by now I love reading books. Books usually have a specific purpose – a book on Windows XP, a history of the world, a medical dictionary, a romance novel, etc. I don't consider The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene a source for knowledge of God. However, I enjoyed reading The Elegant Universe – gaining some understanding of the physical world from the viewpoint of a professor of physics and mathematics.
Nor do I think the Bible is a science reference book. It may refer to the physical world in unscientific terms. For instance, Harry Rimmer in The Harmony of Science and Scripture suggests the invisible gravitational forces of the universe are alluded to in the latter part of Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north over empty space, And hangs the earth on nothing." [NASV] The Bible is a book about God – with His message of redemption for mankind.
Concerning exegetical rules for interpreting passages literal or not – there's this from Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible, 2nd Edition, Dan McCartney and Charles Clayton, pages 127, 128: "Language is considered literal when the referent in view is an instance of the ordinary meaning of the words and sentences used. That is, the usual or common meaning, or sense, directly points to the intended referent. A nonliteral reference occurs when the referent is connected to the sense of a word or sentence solely by context, not by the usual sense of the word or sentence by itself. "Literalness" does not indicate the truth or falsity, nor the precision, of the statement. A literal statement can be false, or even fantastic ["There is a ghost in my closet"], and a nonliteral statement can be true ["There is a skeleton in my closet"]. Further, literal does not mean "expressed with scientific or mathematical precision." If the almanac reports that "The sun rises tomorrow at 6:08 a.m.," the statement is not scientifically precise [the sun does not "rise" from the astronomical point of view], but is nevertheless literal within the understood context."
In regards to whether or not Genesis 1 "day" is a literal 24 hour day I am of the opinion it refers to a much longer period of time after considering context, grammar and relevant occurrences. Arguing for a much longer time period of the Genesis 1 "day" is Hugh Ross in Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy, offers the following on pages 45 to 53:
"1. The length of God's days. The same author of Genesis [Moses] wrote in Psalm 90:4, "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or a watch [four hours] in the night." Moses seems to state that just as God's ways are not our ways [isaiah 55:9], God's days are not our days.
3. The Function of Chronology. A study of other chronologies in the Bible reveals a common characteristic: They record sequences that are both significant and discernible to the reader.The timing and order are important because they show the careful unfolding of God's plans and affirm His control.
4. The unusual syntax of the sentences enumerating specific creation days. Looking at the word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text, one finds this phraseology "and was evening and was morning day X." …The word arrangement is clearly a departure from simple and expression. It creates ambiguity. If "day X" were intended as the noun complement for the one evening and morning together, the linking verb should appear just once, in plural form [as in the KJV renders it]; "And the evening and the morning were the Xth day."…This syntactic ambiguity does not constitute a proof. However, it does suggest that "day" here is to be taken in some unusual manner…
5. The uniqueness of the seventh day. Of the first six creation days Moses wrote: "There was evening, and there was morning – the Xth day." This wording indicates that each of the first six creation days had a beginning and an ending. However, no such wording is attached to the seventh creation day, neither in Genesis 1-2 nor anywhere else in the Bible. Given the parallel structure marking the creation days, this distinct change in form for the seventh day strongly suggests that this day has [or had] not yet ended. Furher information about the seventh day is given in Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4. In these passages we learn that God's day of rest continues…
6. The events of the sixth day. Genesis 1 tells us that the land mammals and both Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day. Genesis 2 provides further amplification, listing events between Adam's creation and Eve's…God planted a garden in Eden… Adam receiving instructions from God, worked and cared for the Garden…he carried out his assignment from God to name all the animals…discovered that none of these creatures was a suitable helper and companion for him…God put Adam into a deep sleep, performed an operation and, after Adam awoke, introduced him to the newly created Eve…Still later on the sixthe day Adam and Eve received instructions from God concerning their responsibilities in mamanging the plants, animals, and resources of the earth, a lengthy communication, one can imagine. Altogether, many weeks', months', or even years' worth of activities took place in this latter portion of the sixth day…
7. The wording of Genesis 2:4. This verse, a summary statement for the creation account, in the Hebrew reads, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day of their making." Here the word day refers to all six creation days…Obviously, then, this is a period longer than twenty-four hours. Hebrew lexicons verify that the word for generation [toledah] refers to the time between a person's birth and parenthood or to an arbitrarily longer time span. In Genesis 2:4 the plural form, generations, is used, indicating that multiple generations have passed.
8. Biblical figures of speech for the earth's age. In describibg the eternity of God's exiatence, several Bible writers often compare it to the longevity of the mountains or the "foundations of the earth." The figures of speech used in Psalm 90:2-6, Proverbs 8:22-31, Ecclesiastes 1:3-11, and Micah 6:2 all depict the immeasurable antiquity of God's presence and plans…The fact that the Bible does consider the antiquity of the founding of the earth a suitable metaphor for God's eternality suggests the biblical view of a very ancient earth.
9. Explicit statements of earth's antiquity. Habakkuk 3:6 directly declares that the mountains are "ancient" and the hills are "age-old." In II Peter 3:5, the heavens [the stars and the universe] are said to have existed "long ago."…
…God is truthful and desires to reveal truth, both in the creation and in the written Word. He does not trick or deceive…[see, for example, Psalm 119:160; Isaiah 45:19; John 8:31,32; 10:35; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18; 11:6; I John 5:6]. Our view of creation must take God's character into account. Whatever objects of His creation we subject to scientific analysis will reveal their true age – provided the analysis is theoretically valid, correctly applied, and accurately interpreted. For created things to show a deceptive appearance of age would seem a direct violation of God's own stated character and purpose."
…God is truthful and desires to reveal truth, both in the creation and in the written Word. He does not trick or deceive…[see, for example, Psalm 119:160; Isaiah 45:19; John 8:31,32; 10:35; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18; 11:6; I John 5:6]. Our view of creation must take God's character into account. Whatever objects of His creation we subject to scientific analysis will reveal their true age – provided the analysis is theoretically valid, correctly applied, and accurately interpreted. For created things to show a deceptive appearance of age would seem a direct violation of God's own stated character and purpose."
I don't subscribe to any particular theory on creation days. It doesn't matter to me. If anything I lean towards an old Earth. However I have heard this argument before -- that if the Earth were young, then God is somehow being deceptive and lying to us...
I think this is a very weak (and unnecessary) to support an old Earth view.
There are lots of mysteries that were hidden in the OT. If we subscribe to the theory above then God was deceptive in hiding it in the OT and by not laying it all out clearly.
Things on Earth past about 50,000 years old cannot be accurately carbon dated. Things past that are dated upon theories and guesses related to geological layers. Young-earth theorists argue that the layering occured due to a global flood within the past 10,000 years. The presumed "deception" according to them is not God's doing, but rather that of faulty science.
What about Adam and Eve? A natural reading of Genesis shows that Eve was made as an adult, with the appearance of age. But no matter, at whatever point in life she was made/ created, she would have had the "appearance of age". Even a baby has the apearance of age. So does a seed if you think about it.
Like I said, I dont subcribe to a young earth view, but the argument about God being deceptive if the earth is young - is totally bogus IMO.
I don't subscribe to any particular theory on creation days. It doesn't matter to me. If anything I lean towards an old Earth. However I have heard this argument before -- that if the Earth were young, then God is somehow being deceptive and lying to us...
I think this is a very weak (and unnecessary) to support an old Earth view.
There are lots of mysteries that were hidden in the OT. If we subscribe to the theory above then God was deceptive in hiding it in the OT and by not laying it all out clearly.
Things on Earth past about 50,000 years old cannot be accurately carbon dated. Things past that are dated upon theories and guesses related to geological layers. Young-earth theorists argue that the layering occured due to a global flood within the past 10,000 years. The presumed "deception" according to them is not God's doing, but rather that of faulty science.
What about Adam and Eve? A natural reading of Genesis shows that Eve was made as an adult, with the appearance of age. But no matter, at whatever point in life she was made/ created, she would have had the "appearance of age". Even a baby has the apearance of age. So does a seed if you think about it.
Like I said, I dont subcribe to a young earth view, but the argument about God being deceptive if the earth is young - is totally bogus IMO.
I don't see any reason for Eve to have lied about her age :) - it is obvious from the text she was made/created as an adult. God was not trying to deceive Adam or us...I was trying to make the point by quoting Ross that there is indeed a harmony of science and scripture - the works of God and the words of God. In my opinion since both have the same Creator there would be no contradiction between the two - in terms of scientific evidence indicating an older universe and the Genesis "day" being a much longer time period...
...I personally tend to lean towards the old earth theory - an old earth in an old universe. In the same book Ross mentions on page 101 some methods of measurements for dating the age of the universe: relaxation times of star clusters, erosion on Mercury, Mars, and the moon, star stream interactions in galaxies, expansion of the universe, color-luminosity fitting, nucleochronology, deuterium abundance and mass density, and anthropic principles. All these measurements indicating the mean age of the universe at 17 billion years, plus or minus 3 billion years...
...I think the astronomical evidence supports an older universe. Again quoting from Ross' book page 101, "In testimony sent to the Supreme Court on the certainty of this date relative to the dates promoted by young-universe creationists, Caltech physicist and Nobel Laureate Murray Gell-Mann said it would be easier to believe in a flat earth than to believe the universe is 6,000 years old, or anything other than about 15 billion years old."
I think the basic rule here is that if the passage can be taken literally it should be. If it can't possibly be literal, then it is figurative.
Unfortunately, carrying that out practically usually translates into what Oakspeare said - what can be literal is what fits with people's doctrine.
But that's still the answer. The most comprehensive interpretation that fits with all the details is what we're looking for. But that's just the mind's rational process of interpretation concerning all things the mind is exposed to.
Discussing whether statements are literal or figurative is not the same as discussing whether they are fleshly and/or spiritual. Literal doesn't = fleshly, and figurative doesn't = spiritual. We can talk about fleshly things in figurative terms. And we can talk about spiritual things in literal terms. So, you've sort of changed the subject.
I just wanted to say that I agree pretty much with the things you said and wanted to emphasize something that you hinted at.
When the beginning of 'Genesis' was written, the world had many so called "Gods".
So 'Genesis' emphasises that it was "the one true God" that did all these things. That is the emphasis of 'Genesis'. And God said........., etc
In addition, I would like to add the following for you to ponder on.....
The time when this was written, the people reading it would have no understanding of science in the way that you or I do. So the beginning of 'Genesis' emphasises that it was God that was there in the beginning and that it was He that created and made all that there is (as opposed to the many false gods of the day). There is no detail because the people of the time would simply have no knowledge of the concepts involved.
The people reading the book would recognise that this passage is figurative, because of the way that it is written. They may not have been scientifically advanced, but they had much sharper skills in interpreting the verbal and written styles and systems of the day.
They would not find it strange that evening and morning occur before the firmanent is established, because they would understand that this is a figurative passage made to emphasize that it was "the true God" who did all these things. They would not have trouble understanding that day and night are not established until the fourth day because they know that the passage is a figurative representation. These pointers indicate to the listener that the passage is not a literal account. The use of the "seven days" is indicative of a poetic structure, not a literal one.
They would not have trouble understanding this.
We only have trouble understanding it because we try to apply the rules of modern language styles and systems to something that was written for a different time, generation and culture.
These passages also speak of spiritual matters and put them in a figurative way. Again, it would be known that these are a representation of deeper spiritual matters which are not largely expanded on in the passage itself.
So, when you apply this to the passage in question, it makes things much clearer.
However, if you are in any doubt, then let it be said that these are only my own opinions based largely on conjecture.
Rocco Errico,who studied with George Lamsa, wrote in 1994 a book called The Mysteries of Creation: The Genesis Story, published by the Noohra Foundation in Smyrna,GA gives a different interpretation to your question, Mark. Also, Lamsa's Old Testament Light book talks about this.
Recommended Posts
allan w.
Heya Mark..I always thought the differnce was when 'night' and day was used one could take it as a '24 hour' period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mark:
I think that you'll find that folks of all denominations will decide what is figurative and what is literal based on what fits best into their overall doctrine. I doubt that you'll find "the answer" anywhere. Of course, since this is just my opinion, other, smarter folks may disagree. :blink:
Allan:
It would be interesting to see if Wierwille's explanation of "a day and a night" always referring to a literal 24 hour period holds up to scrutiny.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
though i'm not one of your "fundamentalist friends," Mark
i hope you won't mind me responding
sometimes i wonder if a "day and night" applies to the single revolution of the entirety of creation
accurate measurements for such an entirety are not required to understand what it implies
i mean, if we can assume that creation/the universe indeed unfolded in some sort of sequential rush
it would seem that the primal universe/creation grew vastly and dramatically with each turn
thus changing the relative nature of time itself with each turn, just as dramatically
and maybe it wasn't until the 4th or 5th "day" that the actual 24ish-hour period as we know it had settled in on little ole earth
in other words...perhaps in Genesis, the meaning (and length) of "day" shifts from "day" to "day"
btw...maybe look up "gathered" from Gen 1:9 in the Hebrew
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
That's why I directed the questions toward "fundamentalist" friends, rather than in general (I enjoyed your response, anyway, Todd). I know what my doctrine teaches about it. But I am not a fundamentalist. I just see a disconnect between how the first is interpreted (not necessarily the interpretation) and how the second one is interpreted. Since I'm not a fundamentalist, I can live with that. But for those who literally take the Bible as their sole source for faith and practice, I am trying to understand how they can resolve it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Hi Mark,
While I am certainly not a "fundamentalist" in the strict sense of the term, I do like to explore these kinds of things from time to time.
Below are some fairly good links that touch on this. The first three are fundamentalist - literal 6 days. The last one treats it figuratively (where day mean age or aeon).
The best I can tell, one of the main arguments for the six days being literal 24 hour periods, is the use of the term "and the evening and the morninng". One writer argues that if a day was meant to mean an aeon of time, then why would the term "evening and morning" be used?
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=42
http://www.the-highway.com/creation_Gentry.html
http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR114.htm
http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/OT/sixday.htm
As for me, this is one of those things that seems insignificant in the whole scope of things, since one way or the other, it does not really affect my faith.
Personally, I think the writer of Genesis was probably more concerned with showing God as the Creator and life-giver, than trying to establish the exact time frame in which the universe was created.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?searc...olewordsonly=no
What is interestimg is that there is no night mentioned in the "evening amd the mornig were the next day".
And I'm not quite sure if I know what a fundamentalist is.
Thinking these things through and trying to put it together literally would be quite impossible imo. I think it's talking about something much closer then realized and not some events that happened long ago.
But one's understanding of it is just where God want's it to be untill we are ready for more of what Genesis is talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mark, in regards to whether or not the period of time in Genesis is a literal 24 hour period or not – is associated with the young earth/old earth debate among some scholars. I've referred to Hugh Ross on another thread – who believes the Genesis 1 "day" may refer to a much longer time period than 24 hours:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...ndpost&p=234344
I feel the same as Goey does on the issue - it doesn't have any bearing on my faith.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
aahh here it is-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved markomalley
God loves you my dear friend
I do not know if I could be called a fundamentalist believer I just got cast out of a Gnostic group because I was too Gnostic but I called Gnostic just another church so maybe I am a fundamentalist and maybe not.
All I know is I love God and his son Jesus the Christ the seed in me.
But as for Gen 1:1-2 being six literal days (144 hours) I would say No because time had not begin until Gen 1:3-5 were God made a way to mark time.
But has for the first day and night being a 24 hour period I do not believe that but there no way to prove how long it was but we do know it was the period of time it took the earth to rotate in a complete circle.
I say it was most likely 10 hours of day and 10 hours of night and 28 days in a month and 10 months in a year and 280 days in a year until the time of Moses about
Then the rotation slow down over time and we moved from 20 hours in a day to about 24 hours in a day and the number days in a month moved closer to 30 days, the months in a year to 12 in a year and 365 days in a year or so
but this me
But can I prove it No because I did not live back then but there are clues in books but no straight answer in books
but again this is just me
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I'm of the opinion that Jesus' ministry lasted for one year only.
The 70 weeks of Daniel describe it very well.
Walter C. taught about it at Sound Out 84.
Made sense (to me) then, and still does today.
While I've heard varying opinions about the *one day* theory,
it doesn't *make or break my faith* either.
I don't see a contradiction with that, (the 6 days of creation,
versus the 70 weeks of Daniel ----- )
But that is just my IMHO. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
It is a matter for the individual--I know many Christians who adhere to a strict time frame making the earth created 6,000 years ago. Me, I go with science on this, the earth being much older. I think in the OT especially time was recorded in a manner that people could relate to. God took much much longer to do many things. I think the "days" of Genesis and the creation are meant to convey that there was a purposeful continuity when Jesus Christ at God's direction created the earth. Not a haphazard shotgun approach but a systematic organization first water then land, night and day, first plants then animals etc.
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Exactly, Oakspear. That's the scenario I was trying to set up in the beginning of the thread.
When I stated,
my effort was to set up a survey of the opinions of people.
I then put in this caveat:
to illustrate that I was not seeking an answer for my own purposes, but rather to simply illustrate that I was trying to see why others think the way they did.
I appreciate everybody's response so far..,..they've been educational!
(Roy, I completely forgot about that issue with the first couple of days...how could time be measured without a sun to show it's position...brilliant!)
Oh, one other thing: I do have my own beliefs regarding the timing of the creation story, but, as I said, I'm soliciting other peoples' opinions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved markomalley
God loves you my dear friend
your welcome
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Markomalley:
"There are many, many people who interpret the time sequence outlined in the creation account of Genesis 1-2 to be six literal days (144 hours).Many of the same exegetes will apply very loose figurative rules to the interpretation of times given in various prophecies, such as Daniel's 70 weeks (Dan 9:24ff). What I'm curious about here is what are the exegetical rules that require time to be accounted for in one passage quite literally and in another passage very figuratively?...If anybody who considers themselves to be a exegete or a "Bible only source for faith and practice" type of person would do me the courtesy of explaining the above question, I'd appreciate it."
Mark, thanks for a very interesting and thought provoking post! I don't consider myself an exegete but do place myself in the category of a Christian with the Bible as my only source for faith and practice. I apologize for my brief post earlier [this is considered my wind up pitch for a major dissertation – LOL
] – there were two reasons for that. I didn't thoroughly [or throughly :blink: ] consider your question and I was out of town at the time and did not have access to my library [oh boy – you know that means there's a heap of text coming!]. In my opinion, your post touches upon two challenging issues the Bible student faces: awareness of our own point of view and distinguishing between literal and non literal references.
From Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, 2nd Edition, 2002, Bruce Corley, Steve Lemke, Grant Lovejoy, page 216: "Be conscious of Your Presuppositions. Because the Bible is inspired in such a way that it is just what God wanted to convey, it is important to examine carefully the meaning in the original setting before attempting to relate it to our present time and situation. This requires that we carefully endeavor to understand our own perspectives and understandings that we bring to the biblical text, and seek to filter them out so that the Word of God is truly heard." That's why I'm interested in developing good critical thinking skills - to examine my own thinking, look at other people's perspectives, etc.
That being said – I will mention my own viewpoint on the Bible and science which I think has relevance here. I have always been fascinated with science and technology and so - besides being raised in a Christian family, some of what has contributed to my faith has been [imho] the amazing beauty, orderliness, and intelligence displayed in the physical world. As you can probably tell by now I love reading books. Books usually have a specific purpose – a book on Windows XP, a history of the world, a medical dictionary, a romance novel, etc. I don't consider The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene a source for knowledge of God. However, I enjoyed reading The Elegant Universe – gaining some understanding of the physical world from the viewpoint of a professor of physics and mathematics.
Nor do I think the Bible is a science reference book. It may refer to the physical world in unscientific terms. For instance, Harry Rimmer in The Harmony of Science and Scripture suggests the invisible gravitational forces of the universe are alluded to in the latter part of Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north over empty space, And hangs the earth on nothing." [NASV] The Bible is a book about God – with His message of redemption for mankind.
Concerning exegetical rules for interpreting passages literal or not – there's this from Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible, 2nd Edition, Dan McCartney and Charles Clayton, pages 127, 128: "Language is considered literal when the referent in view is an instance of the ordinary meaning of the words and sentences used. That is, the usual or common meaning, or sense, directly points to the intended referent. A nonliteral reference occurs when the referent is connected to the sense of a word or sentence solely by context, not by the usual sense of the word or sentence by itself. "Literalness" does not indicate the truth or falsity, nor the precision, of the statement. A literal statement can be false, or even fantastic ["There is a ghost in my closet"], and a nonliteral statement can be true ["There is a skeleton in my closet"]. Further, literal does not mean "expressed with scientific or mathematical precision." If the almanac reports that "The sun rises tomorrow at 6:08 a.m.," the statement is not scientifically precise [the sun does not "rise" from the astronomical point of view], but is nevertheless literal within the understood context."
In regards to whether or not Genesis 1 "day" is a literal 24 hour day I am of the opinion it refers to a much longer period of time after considering context, grammar and relevant occurrences. Arguing for a much longer time period of the Genesis 1 "day" is Hugh Ross in Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy, offers the following on pages 45 to 53:
"1. The length of God's days. The same author of Genesis [Moses] wrote in Psalm 90:4, "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or a watch [four hours] in the night." Moses seems to state that just as God's ways are not our ways [isaiah 55:9], God's days are not our days.
2. The Hebrew words yom, ereb, and boqer. The Hebrew word yom, translated day, may be used [and is] in biblical Hebrew, as it is in modern English, to indicate any of three time periods: (a) sunrise to sunset, (b) sunset to sunset, © a segment of time without any reference to solar days [anywhere from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch]. This does not mean, that yom can be interpreted as referring to an indefinite time or infinite time…Even in English – which includes many more words than Hebrew for describing time periods – such expressions as "my grandfather's day" or "the day of the dinosaurs" are common. Biblical examples would be Genesis 4:3 [yom = process of time]; Genesis 30:14 [yom = wheat harvest time]; Joshua 24:7 [yom = a long season]; Proverbs 25:13 [yom = harvest time]; Isaiah 4:2 [yom = a future era]; Zechariah 14:8 [yom = summer + winter]; and many references to the day of the Lord [yom = forty-two months or more, depending on one's interpretation of certain end-time prophecies]. In other words, evening and morning refer to the beginning and ending components of "day," however it is used. For example, "in my grandfather's day" refers to my grandfather's lifetime. So the morning and evening of his day would be his youth and old age.
3. The Function of Chronology. A study of other chronologies in the Bible reveals a common characteristic: They record sequences that are both significant and discernible to the reader.The timing and order are important because they show the careful unfolding of God's plans and affirm His control.
4. The unusual syntax of the sentences enumerating specific creation days. Looking at the word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text, one finds this phraseology "and was evening and was morning day X." …The word arrangement is clearly a departure from simple and expression. It creates ambiguity. If "day X" were intended as the noun complement for the one evening and morning together, the linking verb should appear just once, in plural form [as in the KJV renders it]; "And the evening and the morning were the Xth day."…This syntactic ambiguity does not constitute a proof. However, it does suggest that "day" here is to be taken in some unusual manner…
5. The uniqueness of the seventh day. Of the first six creation days Moses wrote: "There was evening, and there was morning – the Xth day." This wording indicates that each of the first six creation days had a beginning and an ending. However, no such wording is attached to the seventh creation day, neither in Genesis 1-2 nor anywhere else in the Bible. Given the parallel structure marking the creation days, this distinct change in form for the seventh day strongly suggests that this day has [or had] not yet ended. Furher information about the seventh day is given in Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4. In these passages we learn that God's day of rest continues…
6. The events of the sixth day. Genesis 1 tells us that the land mammals and both Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day. Genesis 2 provides further amplification, listing events between Adam's creation and Eve's…God planted a garden in Eden… Adam receiving instructions from God, worked and cared for the Garden…he carried out his assignment from God to name all the animals…discovered that none of these creatures was a suitable helper and companion for him…God put Adam into a deep sleep, performed an operation and, after Adam awoke, introduced him to the newly created Eve…Still later on the sixthe day Adam and Eve received instructions from God concerning their responsibilities in mamanging the plants, animals, and resources of the earth, a lengthy communication, one can imagine. Altogether, many weeks', months', or even years' worth of activities took place in this latter portion of the sixth day…
7. The wording of Genesis 2:4. This verse, a summary statement for the creation account, in the Hebrew reads, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day of their making." Here the word day refers to all six creation days…Obviously, then, this is a period longer than twenty-four hours. Hebrew lexicons verify that the word for generation [toledah] refers to the time between a person's birth and parenthood or to an arbitrarily longer time span. In Genesis 2:4 the plural form, generations, is used, indicating that multiple generations have passed.
8. Biblical figures of speech for the earth's age. In describibg the eternity of God's exiatence, several Bible writers often compare it to the longevity of the mountains or the "foundations of the earth." The figures of speech used in Psalm 90:2-6, Proverbs 8:22-31, Ecclesiastes 1:3-11, and Micah 6:2 all depict the immeasurable antiquity of God's presence and plans…The fact that the Bible does consider the antiquity of the founding of the earth a suitable metaphor for God's eternality suggests the biblical view of a very ancient earth.
9. Explicit statements of earth's antiquity. Habakkuk 3:6 directly declares that the mountains are "ancient" and the hills are "age-old." In II Peter 3:5, the heavens [the stars and the universe] are said to have existed "long ago."…
…God is truthful and desires to reveal truth, both in the creation and in the written Word. He does not trick or deceive…[see, for example, Psalm 119:160; Isaiah 45:19; John 8:31,32; 10:35; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18; 11:6; I John 5:6]. Our view of creation must take God's character into account. Whatever objects of His creation we subject to scientific analysis will reveal their true age – provided the analysis is theoretically valid, correctly applied, and accurately interpreted. For created things to show a deceptive appearance of age would seem a direct violation of God's own stated character and purpose."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
From T-Bones Post:
I don't subscribe to any particular theory on creation days. It doesn't matter to me. If anything I lean towards an old Earth. However I have heard this argument before -- that if the Earth were young, then God is somehow being deceptive and lying to us...
I think this is a very weak (and unnecessary) to support an old Earth view.
There are lots of mysteries that were hidden in the OT. If we subscribe to the theory above then God was deceptive in hiding it in the OT and by not laying it all out clearly.
Things on Earth past about 50,000 years old cannot be accurately carbon dated. Things past that are dated upon theories and guesses related to geological layers. Young-earth theorists argue that the layering occured due to a global flood within the past 10,000 years. The presumed "deception" according to them is not God's doing, but rather that of faulty science.
What about Adam and Eve? A natural reading of Genesis shows that Eve was made as an adult, with the appearance of age. But no matter, at whatever point in life she was made/ created, she would have had the "appearance of age". Even a baby has the apearance of age. So does a seed if you think about it.
Like I said, I dont subcribe to a young earth view, but the argument about God being deceptive if the earth is young - is totally bogus IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I don't see any reason for Eve to have lied about her age :) - it is obvious from the text she was made/created as an adult. God was not trying to deceive Adam or us...I was trying to make the point by quoting Ross that there is indeed a harmony of science and scripture - the works of God and the words of God. In my opinion since both have the same Creator there would be no contradiction between the two - in terms of scientific evidence indicating an older universe and the Genesis "day" being a much longer time period...
...I personally tend to lean towards the old earth theory - an old earth in an old universe. In the same book Ross mentions on page 101 some methods of measurements for dating the age of the universe: relaxation times of star clusters, erosion on Mercury, Mars, and the moon, star stream interactions in galaxies, expansion of the universe, color-luminosity fitting, nucleochronology, deuterium abundance and mass density, and anthropic principles. All these measurements indicating the mean age of the universe at 17 billion years, plus or minus 3 billion years...
...I think the astronomical evidence supports an older universe. Again quoting from Ross' book page 101, "In testimony sent to the Supreme Court on the certainty of this date relative to the dates promoted by young-universe creationists, Caltech physicist and Nobel Laureate Murray Gell-Mann said it would be easier to believe in a flat earth than to believe the universe is 6,000 years old, or anything other than about 15 billion years old."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I think the basic rule here is that if the passage can be taken literally it should be. If it can't possibly be literal, then it is figurative.
Unfortunately, carrying that out practically usually translates into what Oakspeare said - what can be literal is what fits with people's doctrine.
But that's still the answer. The most comprehensive interpretation that fits with all the details is what we're looking for. But that's just the mind's rational process of interpretation concerning all things the mind is exposed to.
For what it's worth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Tom
God loves you my dear friend
What if there a literal meaning and a figurative meaning to every verse
that which can be seen fleshly and that which can be seen spiritually
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Roy,
Discussing whether statements are literal or figurative is not the same as discussing whether they are fleshly and/or spiritual. Literal doesn't = fleshly, and figurative doesn't = spiritual. We can talk about fleshly things in figurative terms. And we can talk about spiritual things in literal terms. So, you've sort of changed the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Tom
Then why can it not be flesly literal view and a spiritual literal view
and
Then why can it not be flesly figurative view and a spiritual figurative view
Why not four views for every verse or more
I just trying to adds more color to the question by adding a question to your statementl
why only one right answer
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
The First Eight Time Periods
Beloved All
God loves you all my dear friends
Mark known as markomalley and Tom got me thinking in the tread “Exegetical Question for my fundamentalist friends”
when talking about the first six days in Genesis
Genesis 1:1-2:3
Most people see seven days but I see eight periods of time
So a literal view is there are eight periods of time but what about a figurative view of these eight time periods
we could look for meaning in numbers of the eight periods but the order is wrong
For this we must note
Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:....
So he that was first will be last and he that was last will be first
So we begin with the last number, #8 then we move forward from #1 to #7
The Beginning time period = figurative number eight a new beginning
Day one time period = figurative number one unity with God
Day seven time period = figurative number seven spiritual perfection
but we can see both these has a fleshly view of the first eight time periods
but what about a spiritual literal view
I say the literal story that we received spiritually but I do not have this focus clear 100%
but what about a spiritual figurative view
We began with a verse
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.
In Genesis we have seven days but to God seven days would be seven thousand years
Look 1st thousand years would be about day one or day of light being divided from darkness and being turn on
4th thousand years would be Jesus brining greater light and lesser light
5th thousand years grace of animal soul life
6th thousand years day of man rule
7th thousand years day of rest
8th thousand years day of new beginning or back the way it was in the beginning
but this just me and I only see in part because God told me this but I could only see it in part because I can only be spoon feed by God
But I have not got the whole picture but maybe together we can see a bigger picture
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pete
Goey
I just wanted to say that I agree pretty much with the things you said and wanted to emphasize something that you hinted at.
When the beginning of 'Genesis' was written, the world had many so called "Gods".
So 'Genesis' emphasises that it was "the one true God" that did all these things. That is the emphasis of 'Genesis'. And God said........., etc
In addition, I would like to add the following for you to ponder on.....
The time when this was written, the people reading it would have no understanding of science in the way that you or I do. So the beginning of 'Genesis' emphasises that it was God that was there in the beginning and that it was He that created and made all that there is (as opposed to the many false gods of the day). There is no detail because the people of the time would simply have no knowledge of the concepts involved.
The people reading the book would recognise that this passage is figurative, because of the way that it is written. They may not have been scientifically advanced, but they had much sharper skills in interpreting the verbal and written styles and systems of the day.
They would not find it strange that evening and morning occur before the firmanent is established, because they would understand that this is a figurative passage made to emphasize that it was "the true God" who did all these things. They would not have trouble understanding that day and night are not established until the fourth day because they know that the passage is a figurative representation. These pointers indicate to the listener that the passage is not a literal account. The use of the "seven days" is indicative of a poetic structure, not a literal one.
They would not have trouble understanding this.
We only have trouble understanding it because we try to apply the rules of modern language styles and systems to something that was written for a different time, generation and culture.
These passages also speak of spiritual matters and put them in a figurative way. Again, it would be known that these are a representation of deeper spiritual matters which are not largely expanded on in the passage itself.
So, when you apply this to the passage in question, it makes things much clearer.
However, if you are in any doubt, then let it be said that these are only my own opinions based largely on conjecture.
Truth
Peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Rocco Errico,who studied with George Lamsa, wrote in 1994 a book called The Mysteries of Creation: The Genesis Story, published by the Noohra Foundation in Smyrna,GA gives a different interpretation to your question, Mark. Also, Lamsa's Old Testament Light book talks about this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.