Evening and Morning—Days Not Ages

[RBerman]

In scripture, the text says that there was an evening of the sixth day and then there was a morning = the seventh day. There is no "evening" revealed for the seventh day. you might be contented with rewriting scripture to suit your opinion, I am not! At least get the formula right, after all it is repeated six times - first an evening then a morning! The first day didn't have a morning as it was "in the beginning"...but it did have an evening...

No rewriting involved. We simply disagree about the significance of the omission of "evening and morning" at the end of the seventh day.

[rogero]

No rewriting involved. We simply disagree about the significance of the omission of "evening and morning" at the end of the seventh day.

What would it take for a Fundy like you to admit he's mistaken?

[apostoli]

I was just rereading through our conversation, and I'm not aware of why I ignored/dismissed the obvious error of your argument = there were only six creative days not seven. Me thinks you are overly influenced by "tradition speak" rather than what is actually written - which belies your assertian that you are a literalist!

There are only six creative days, and one day of rest. Seven days total are covered in the narrative. The day of rest isn't separated from the day after it by the "morning and evening" formula just as there's no "morning and evening" formula at the beginning of the first day.

In scripture, the text says that there was an evening of the sixth day and then there was a morning = the seventh day. There is no "evening" revealed for the seventh day. you might be contented with rewriting scripture to suit your opinion, I am not! At least get the formula right, after all it is repeated six times - first an evening then a morning! The first day didn't have a morning as it was "in the beginning"...but it did have an evening...

No rewriting involved.

If you read your previous post you resorted to rewriting scripture in at least two places (if not three), adding a day after the day of rest (no mention of such in the scriptures) and reversing the "evening and morning" formula.

We simply disagree about the significance of the omission of "evening and morning" at the end of the seventh day.

My argument with you is that you claim to take scripture literally, but the evidence is you ignore what is written and interpolate it (rewrite it) to suit your opinion!

As far as the 7th day and the adbsence of the "evening and morning" clause is concerned, you have yet to address it from scripture.

Interestingly, many a Rabbi point out that the word "Shavat" rendered in the Hebrew of Genesis 2:2 is more accurately translated as "abstained" or "desisted" rather than "rested". Imu, the common understanding is that "God ceased to perform all His creative work" after the evening of the sixth day.

TEs would undoubtedly be enthused by your opinion that God continues to create/develop the things that are made...

[RBerman]

What would it take for a Fundy like you to admit he's mistaken?

An act of God--- specifically, evidence within the Bible.

[RBerman]

If you read your previous post you resorted to rewriting scripture in at least two places (if not three), adding a day after the day of rest (no mention of such in the scriptures) and reversing the "evening and morning" formula.

I did reverse the "evening and morning" formula in one reference, without drawing any conclusions from that reversal. The order is not part of the point I was making. There is no day given after the day of rest, which was precisely my point: There was no need to put "evening and morning" after the seventh day since there was no eighth day.

TEs would undoubtedly be enthused by your opinion that God continues to create/develop the things that are made...

The TEs around here are not very enthusiastic about my beliefs.

[rogero]

An act of God--- specifically, evidence within the Bible.

Your problem, like most Fundies, is that you have an egocentric generationalist Weltanschauung when it comes to your interpretation of scripture. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that need better knowledge of the Bible? Do you admit that your interpretation of the Genesis stories has the seal of infallibility? Can you explain to me why Fundys have different views of what's "literal" in the Genesis stories. Seems to me (not a genius like you) that the first Genesis story (Ge 1:1 -2.4a) is quite ambiguous, which leads to multiple "literal" interpretations. Anywho, smart man, which of these 21st Century interpretations would have made sense to the 1000 B.C. Hebrew?

[Harestone]

When it comes to Genesis 3, did God wear a fleece in the cool of the day to keep warm?

Also how did He rest on the seventh day?

[apostoli]

I did reverse the "evening and morning" formula in one reference

Actually, you did it twice in a single paragraph!

without drawing any conclusions from that reversal. The order is not part of the point I was making.

What was the point that you were attempting to make? I view your earlier comments as a Freudian slip = where your thoughts are at, rather than what is written!

There is no day given after the day of rest, which was precisely my point

your exact phrase was "The day of rest isn't separated from the day after it.... your phrasing emphasises an 8th day which is not revealed in scripture.

There was no need to put "evening and morning" after the seventh day since there was no eighth day.

So do you now retract your previous posts and objections to my original proposal and agree that the seventh day is still current?

[apostoli]

When it comes to Genesis 3, did God wear a fleece in the cool of the day to keep warm?

Maybe he was as naked as Adam & Eve...

Also how did He rest on the seventh day?

Many a Rabbi point out that the word "Shavat" rendered in the Hebrew of Genesis 2:2 is more accurately translated as "abstained" or "desisted" rather than "rested". Imu, the common understanding of the Hebrew at Genesis 2:1-3 is that "God ceased to perform all His creative work" after the evening of the sixth day.

[RBerman]

Actually, you did it twice in a single paragraph! What was the point that you were attempting to make? I view your earlier comments as a Freudian slip = where your thoughts are at, rather than what is written!

I can't prevent you from viewing it one way or another. I can tell you I meant nothing significant by it, and you can do with that what you will.

your exact phrase was "The day of rest isn't separated from the day after it.... your phrasing emphasises an 8th day which is not revealed in scripture.

So do you now retract your previous posts and objections to my original proposal and agree that the seventh day is still current?

No. Days follow in succession. The seventh day was followed by the eight and then the ninth, etc. up to today. The passage of days is certainly discussed in Scripture.

[apostoli]

Days follow in succession. The seventh day was followed by the eight and then the ninth, etc. up to today.

Is it your contention that God is limited to working in earth time?

The passage of days is certainly discussed in Scripture

That is true respecting the history of men, but there are several texts that exclude God from such passages of time.

[RBerman]

Your problem, like most Fundies, is that you have an egocentric generationalist Weltanschauung when it comes to your interpretation of scripture. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that need better knowledge of the Bible? Do you admit that your interpretation of the Genesis stories has the seal of infallibility? Can you explain to me why Fundys have different views of what's "literal" in the Genesis stories. Seems to me (not a genius like you) that the first Genesis story (Ge 1:1 -2.4a) is quite ambiguous, which leads to multiple "literal" interpretations. Anywho, smart man, which of these 21st Century interpretations would have made sense to the 1000 B.C. Hebrew?

An egocentric generationalist Weltanschauung, eh? That sounds pretty grievous. I certainly do need better knowledge of the Bible. That's true of everyone. Certainly the way we word things in the 21st Century would be difficult for a Jew living 3000 years ago. Certainly there are a multiplicity of interpretations of the Bible, as with everything else. I don't claim infallibility for myself in Bible interpretation or anything else. Hopefully that's not a prerequisite for stating things as I see them, in your eyes.

[RBerman]

Is it your contention that God is limited to working in earth time?

That is true respecting the history of men, but there are several texts that exclude God from such passages of time.

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

[rogero]

An egocentric generationalist Weltanschauung, eh? That sounds pretty grievous. I certainly do need better knowledge of the Bible. That's true of everyone. Certainly the way we word things in the 21st Century would be difficult for a Jew living 3000 years ago. Certainly there are a multiplicity of interpretations of the Bible, as with everything else. I don't claim infallibility for myself in Bible interpretation or anything else. Hopefully that's not a prerequisite for stating things as I see them, in your eyes.

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?

[Harestone]

Rogero

That gives him a good Framework:)