Evening and Morning—Days Not Ages

[RBerman]

In my eyes the necessity of mapping the "days" of the first Genesis story into a modern worldview is a fool's aspiration. First of all, and put on your grown-up thinking cap for this, "evening" and "morning" are not global markers of time. Unless, in your eyes, Elohim is localized in space-time and is "speaking" over a fixed location on Eretz (the ancient Hebrew had no concept of a planet, btw) -- which (put your thinking cap on again) is quite blasphemous. Maybe it's time for Fundies like you to repent?

One expects a text to have some relation to the frame of reference of its readers. The "fixed location" in question would be the part of Eretz on which God placed the adam and eve. It doesn't make Elohim fixed just because he speaks of events from the perspective of a particular place.

[apostoli]

God is not limited; God is the creator of "earth time." Is there another kind of time?

Pick a planetal orbit!

Given God exists in eternity, I'd assume his activity is eternal. However, I take the point that God's activity as far as we are concerned is within our time. But I also concede that "our time" is only relevent to mankind's self conciousness, not that of God's eternity...My objection to your opinion is that you seem to limit God to acting in earth time, whereas, scipture imu does not constrain God to human limitations...

[RBerman]

Pick a planetal orbit! Given God exists in eternity, I'd assume his activity is eternal. However, I take the point that God's activity as far as we are concerned is within our time. But I also concede that "our time" is only relevent to mankind's self conciousness, not that of God's eternity...My objection to your opinion is that you seem to limit God to acting in earth time, whereas, scipture imu does not constrain God to human limitations...

I agree that God is not constrained by human limitations and don't believe that my view requires such a belief.

[apostoli]

I agree that God is not constrained by human limitations and don't believe that my view requires such a belief.

The difficulty i have with your view of 6 x 24hr creation days is by definition it constrains God to the human experience. As a matter of logic and science, I think it more upbuilding to remove human limitations from the conceptualisation of God - either he/she/it is omnipotent or not! If omnipotent then I can't perceive putting human time limits upon him/her/it! Getting back to basics: I assume we agree that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Whether he did it in a non-second or otherwise is not revealed, albeit Moses, imo, does provide a myth to make human comprehension of construction of things comprehendable in human experience...

[RBerman]

The difficulty i have with your view of 6 x 24hr creation days is by definition it constrains God to the human experience. As a matter of logic and science, I think it more upbuilding to remove human limitations from the conceptualisation of God - either he/she/it is omnipotent or not! If omnipotent then I can't perceive putting human time limits upon him/her/it! Getting back to basics: I assume we agree that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Whether he did it in a non-second or otherwise is not revealed, albeit Moses, imo, does provide a myth to make human comprehension of construction of things comprehendable in human experience...

It's not limiting God to say that God did some things on one day and some things on another day. It's not a matter of God having human limitations; God could do things however he wanted. I don't claim that God had to create the universe in six days, only that God tells us that he did create the universe in six days.

[apostoli]

It's not limiting God to say that God did some things on one day and some things on another day. It's not a matter of God having human limitations; God could do things however he wanted. I don't claim that God had to create the universe in six days, only that God tells us that he did create the universe in six days.

But scripture doesn't say those days were of a 24hr duration. In fact Genesis 1:14 implies "day" as a division of time didn't exist until the establishment of the sun.

[Harestone]

Are you not limiting God by insisting that Genesis must be written in the form of a technical manual and not with any poetic ways of expressing truth. The bible is replete with metaphor

[RBerman]

But scripture doesn't say those days were of a 24hr duration. In fact Genesis 1:14 implies "day" as a division of time didn't exist until the establishment of the sun.

"No sun" does not mean "no division of time." Days still pass in the Alaska winter or summer.

Are you not limiting God by insisting that Genesis must be written in the form of a technical manual and not with any poetic ways of expressing truth. The bible is replete with metaphor

If the text looked poetic, I'd say it was poetic. I don't see it as limiting to take an apparent historical account and treat it historically. The metaphorical parts of Scripture are generally easy to discern.

[Harestone]

Try reading John 1

[apostoli]

"No sun" does not mean "no division of time." Days still pass in the Alaska winter or summer.

Read Genesis 1:14. Either you accept scripture or you don't (?) you claim you do, though you seem to do so at your convenience = scripture is valid except where scripture contradicts your opinion (?)

If the text looked poetic, I'd say it was poetic. I don't see it as limiting to take an apparent historical account and treat it historically. The metaphorical parts of Scripture are generally easy to discern.

Genesis 1 provides at least three definitions of "day". So logically it is used as a metaphor for "light" which is its closest correspondent rather than night+day (a 24hr period)...

My only contention with you is whether in Genesis 1 "day" is ambiguous...i argue it is...