Creation 6 day literal? Or Not

[Catholicity]

I already discussed evolution but I can refrain henceforth if it's moved.

I didn't put this under protology due to the exclusion of theistic evolutionists. Hence many wonderful Christians would be excluded from the debate.

[Cerebrum123]

Dear (some) Christians,
The reason you struggle with the age of the earth, the age of the Universe and the evolution of life on earth which are all well established scientific FACTS is that you worship the book. That is IDOLATRY. Your ignorance is the wages of SIN. The Bible is a collection of books ABOUT God, not BY God.

You totally misunderstand my position, as usual. Given that I've tried explaining other things before, to no avail, I'm not even going to attempt to correct the vast amount of wrong in your post.

The Bible tells us what inspiration is. It's described as "God breathed", which would mean that it's the same as direct words from God. You so totally misunderstand my position, but I will offer one bit of clarification. The world does not make sense withoutstarted on the Sabbath(hence the referral to a "Sabbath rest") being eternal does not make it logically follow that the seventh day itself was eternal.

In my view, the command for animals to evolve into humans was completed and process started on the 6th day, but it doesn't require that the process is completed on that day, the process is still going on. Landscapes and life continue to change to this day.

If you think of it as writing a computer program and then running it, to the programmer it is finished on that day, now it's time to see the results as it is running. Which may go on for additional days, weeks, months, years.

But that isn't what the text allows for. It specifically says immediately after God commanded something that "and it was so" showing a completion. Then it was followed by the time frame for how long the period was "evening and morning X day". Did the wind and waves wait when Jesus commanded them to stop?

Yes that's a literal reading. A non-literal reading draws the following comparisons to show that the Tree of Life rules light and life, the Tree of Knowledge rules darkness and death, both are signs of good and evil, both determine days and years of life and death. As well as stars, children of God, in this case, Adam and Eve.

Here we see sun, moon, and stars. Where the sun (Tree of Life/life) conquers moon (Tree of Knowledge/death). As well as stars (children of God).

This fails your own interpretation, as you equate death with darkness, and life with light. The tree of knowledge of good and evil could therefore not be a "lesser light". It only brought death and darkness.

Etc. The term for "seasons" in Genesis 1:14 is also used for "feasts" which is...a time of eating to honor God. Which relates back to eating from the Tree of Life vs. Knowledge:

You need to show why that meaning fits better. It doesn't given that again, most functions are still not being fulfilled, even if I do accept your rather bizarre interpretation.

So that is my interpretation. As well as that creatures of Genesis 2 are not regular animals, but cherubim like those in Ezekiel -- likeness of men as Adam was, but also like beasts, fowl, cattle:

There is absolutely no connection to do that. Those being in Ezekiel all had 4 faces, one eagle, one ox, one lion, and one human. Oh, and they aren't cherubim. What they are is not specified.

All are humans, we're also graffed into Israel without requiring blood relations.

Um, not quite. We are all in Adam, therefore we are all distantly related to Abraham. If any are not descended from Adam, then they wouldn't be truly human. Christ is the second Adam, and came to undo what the first one did. You also must understand that God made the law of the kinsman redeemer, and it is actually commonly portrayed throughout the Bible. I don't think it's part of God's nature to break His own rules and laws.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

Seems if God knows there is future salvation for at least some of cursed creation then it seems He could still deem it very good, for sake of those saved.

This makes no sense of the text, since God was giving us something we could understand from our time-bound perspective. For God to declare fallen creation as "very good" in that state would be a falsehood. Things are not "very good", which is why we need to be saved at all.

Turning it around, if 6 days had periods of millions of years between them it wouldn't make sense that God would have man observe Sabbath once every millions of years. Rather, the model of a 7th day Sabbath would be conformed to human ability to observe it on a regular basis.

Then why isn't this reflected in the Genesis text? God could very easily have had things written to reflect the state of affairs you try to claim, but He didn't. The consistent use of the waw consecutive shows temporal and sequential[b] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.[d] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

As you might understand, this was later used typologically of Jesus.

@ All, things are getting pretty cold, and my headaches have been a bit worse lately. I also get more tired when things are cold, so I will probably be responding a bit less to serious discussion. I want to take my mind off the pain, and relax.

[Juvenal]

I didn't put this under protology due to the exclusion of theistic evolutionists. Hence many wonderful Christians would be excluded from the debate.

Umm ...

[rogue06]

I didn't put this under protology due to the exclusion of theistic evolutionists. Hence many wonderful Christians would be excluded from the debate.

Umm ...

And non-theistic jerks as well.

Better?

[Quantum Weirdness]

@ Quantum Weirdness.
First, only OEC and YEC are allowed in Applied Protology 201 without asking permission first. Second, God's rest that started on the Sabbath(hence the referral to a "Sabbath rest") being eternal does not make it logically follow that the seventh day itself was eternal.

Now that I look at the passage again, fair enough. At this point, I don't think the bible supports YEC or OEC in any way.
About the Exodus 20:11 passage, doesn't God experience time (consequently "days") differently? (per Psalm 90)
Why should we apply our concept of time to God's?
Also,
"The commandment to keep the Sabbath in Exodus 20:11 is then cited on page 25 as conclusive evidence that Genesis is to be understood as six 24-hour days, since the Sabbath is kept after six 24-hour days. However this verse can be just as easily understood as teaching a pattern for Sabbath rather than the length of time of the Sabbath. This same pattern is seen in other passages in the Law, such as allowing the land to rest every seven years (Exodus 23:10-11). In fact the very next verse (Exodus 23:12) repeats the command for a weekly Sabbath rest, as if to reinforce the pattern of the earlier verses rather than specifying a length of time. This point seems to be entirely missed in the discussion of Exodus 20:11 on page 25."
http://www.oldearth.org/bookreview/o...ec_trial_2.htmhttp://www.godandscience.org/youngea...earth.html#n01

I think there is also an argument from Mark 10:6.
The problem with this argument is that "beginning" is not necessarily defined by time but by action. (eg the first paragraph of an essay may take a week to write and the rest could take an hour. Does that mean that the first paragraph is not the beginning?)

[JohnnyP]

But that isn't what the text allows for. It specifically says immediately after God commanded something that "and it was so" showing a completion. Then it was followed by the time frame for how long the period was "evening and morning X day".

Evening and morning are not following into another day, but evening is the biblical start of a new day -- as I called them loosely, "holidays" or special days when commands for creation are issued. From the beginning "Genesis 1:5 ...And the evening and the morning were the first day." Prior to evening was eternity, which sets the precedent that prior to these "holidays" can be an undetermined period of time. So it may look like, as a non-exact example:

ETERNITY

And the evening and the morning were the first day
"Let there be light"

.5 BILLION YEARS

And the evening and the morning were the second day
"Let there be earth"

1 BILLION YEARS

And the evening and the morning were the third day
"Let there be plant life"

Etc. So there's nothing here to "lock in" the idea of consecutive days. Or to say that the Creator did not accomplish and finish what He set out to do by initiating the command to see that it was very good.

Did the wind and waves wait when Jesus commanded them to stop?

Suggests that what God commands must always be completed immediately, which is the same complaint some have regarding "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" and then Adam doesn't die right then, he only started to die and "was as good as dead."

Apply that to creation: "for in the day that thou create fruit thou shalt surely see fruit on trees." In the same manner, there only started to be fruit on trees; for actual fruit to appear on earth, just like Adam's death, took a lot longer, in my view.

From the start there are the obvious problems of believing that the sun and stars are created after the earth and fruit trees, if you hold an ultra-literal interpretation.

But this is like saying that the Bible itself forces a strained comparison of sun, moon, and stars as symbolism for spiritual things. It's impossible that functions are not comparable.

This fails your own interpretation, as you equate death with darkness, and life with light. The tree of knowledge of good and evil could therefore not be a "lesser light". It only brought death and darkness.

Not exactly, the Tree of Knowledge "shed light" on good and evil. If you consider what the moon actually does, it reflects the sun's light fully sometimes (good), other times not so much (evil). Recalling, "1 Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law."

Without wanting to get into eschatology too much here, again why use sun, moon, and stars as symbolism? We might see something like a Kingdom clothed with the sun, a King and child of God with a crown of stars, conquering the moon here:

Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Psalms 89:36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Psalms 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

1 Corinthians 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

In the original model, the first Kingdom of Adam as a star and child of God, clothed with the sun eating the Tree of Life, with the moon and Tree of Knowledge under his feet. Until he fell. Jesus as second Adam did not. In the end:

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Then you can question, how do the glory of God and the Lamb replace assigned functions of the sun and moon described on the 4th day? I don't have to reach at all, the relationships speak for themselves throughout the Bible.

There is absolutely no connection to do that. Those being in Ezekiel all had 4 faces, one eagle, one ox, one lion, and one human.

Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle (OX), and to the fowl of the air (EAGLE), and to every beast of the field (LION); but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

I'm not saying they are the same cherubim of Ezekiel, but to say there's no connection to creatures stated isn't accurate.

Oh, and they aren't cherubim. What they are is not specified.

?

Ezekiel 10:5 And the sound of the cherubims' wings was heard even to the outer court, as the voice of the Almighty God when he speaketh.

Um, not quite. We are all in Adam, therefore we are all distantly related to Abraham. If any are not descended from Adam, then they wouldn't be truly human. Christ is the second Adam, and came to undo what the first one did. You also must understand that God made the law of the kinsman redeemer, and it is actually commonly portrayed throughout the Bible. I don't think it's part of God's nature to break His own rules and laws.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

Adam is also called Son of God in Luke, even though he was created from dust. In that sense he descended from God. If other humans evolved from animals, they also descend from God. Doesn't make them any less human because they came from animals instead of dust. We're all kinsmen of the Creator.

This makes no sense of the text, since God was giving us something we could understand from our time-bound perspective. For God to declare fallen creation as "very good" in that state would be a falsehood. Things are not "very good", which is why we need to be saved at all.

Well it's God's plan, it is very good and more than that perfect, despite our perceived bumps along the way. Where in the Bible did most humans who knew of God not understand that He was omniscient, and were constrained by a time-bound perspective? We'd all be hopelessly confused by prophecy if that concern really existed.

Then why isn't this reflected in the Genesis text? God could very easily have had things written to reflect the state of affairs you try to claim, but He didn't. The consistent use of the waw consecutive shows temporal and sequential order.

It is reflected as I stated, before the evening and morning of the 1st day was eternity.

[b] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.[d] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

As you might understand, this was later used typologically of Jesus.

I'll put it this way: the only biblical precedents for virgin birth are if the flesh of Jesus was made from Mary's or another Davidic "rib" and then gestated in Mary. Or, if a descendant of David was resurrected into Mary's womb.

@ All, things are getting pretty cold, and my headaches have been a bit worse lately. I also get more tired when things are cold, so I will probably be responding a bit less to serious discussion. I want to take my mind off the pain, and relax.

Hope you feel better!

[JohnnyP]

I didn't put this under protology due to the exclusion of theistic evolutionists. Hence many wonderful Christians would be excluded from the debate.

[Catholicity]

And non-theistic jerks as well.

Better?

okay okay okay fine....the non existent ones too.

[oxmixmudd]

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Clearly literal days are intended otherwise the comparison directly to the working week would make no sense. Then from Exodus 20:1 we can see that it is indeed God speaking here.

Exodus 20:1 And God spoke all these words:

Yes, these are God's words. But how the days should be understood here is dependent on what kinds of days the Genesis days themselves are. It is not 'clear' the intent was literal. A comparison passage to passage is made, and on our end the time frame is in fact 24 hour days, but there is no 'need' that the days God described be literal in any sense. So you are assuming what you need to prove.

If the passage in Genesis is a technical description in terms of actual 24 hour periods of time, then the correlation here is 1-1 and also literal. But if those Genesis days and the Genesis passage is not a technical passage, then the days there stand as instructive or symbolic, and this passage is building on that example. Surely God could chose how he described His work which flows out of His infinitude and majesty in such a way that it could serve as an example to us of how we should work within our frail human limitations?

Do you in any other area assume that when you attempt to follow God's example, you are actually imitating Him in quantity as well as quality?

To determine the correct correlation one must know what Genesis 1 itself is in terms of a description of the creation. And science and a study of the Jewish culture and history provide the only available objective evidence as to what it might be. And that evidence points strongly at the fact Genesis is not a technical description at all.

Jim

[Manw� S�limo]

It seems to me that the origin debate is asking a question that author of Genesis never would have asked. John Walton is instructive here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbXCrpfHnDs

[shunyadragon]

Yes, these are God's words. But how the days should be understood here is dependent on what kinds of days the Genesis days themselves are. It is not 'clear' the intent was literal. A comparison passage to passage is made, and on our end the time frame is in fact 24 hour days, but there is no 'need' that the days God described be literal in any sense. So you are assuming what you need to prove.

If the passage in Genesis is a technical description in terms of actual 24 hour periods of time, then the correlation here is 1-1 and also literal. But if those Genesis days and the Genesis passage is not a technical passage, then the days there stand as instructive or symbolic, and this passage is building on that example. Surely God could chose how he described His work which flows out of His infinitude and majesty in such a way that it could serve as an example to us of how we should work within our frail human limitations?

Do you in any other area assume that when you attempt to follow God's example, you are actually imitating Him in quantity as well as quality?

To determine the correct correlation one must know what Genesis 1 itself is in terms of a description of the creation. And science and a study of the Jewish culture and history provide the only available objective evidence as to what it might be. And that evidence points strongly at the fact Genesis is not a technical description at all.

Jim

I have no reason to believe that these myths are in anyway God's Word. Especially since they are reworked myths from older sources.

[shunyadragon]

And non-theistic jerks as well.

Better?

Careful with this vague generalization.

[Duragizer]

As an agnostic who wants to be a believer, I like to think that the Genesis account of creation (along with most creation stories in other religions/mythologies) is just a flawed interpretation of a grand, transcendant reality that all humans are aware of but can't truly comprehend.

[Jorge]

As an agnostic who wants to be a believer, I like to think that the Genesis account of creation (along with most creation stories in other religions/mythologies) is just a flawed interpretation of a grand, transcendant reality that all humans are aware of but can't truly comprehend.

Sometimes I forget but right after I've read a post such as the one
above am I reminded of just how utterly lost many people are.

Jorge

[Irate Canadian]

Careful with this vague generalization.

Shunya,you do realize Rogue is just playing around with Lao,right?