toldailytopic: Are the 6 days of creation in the book of Genesis a literal 6 days?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Are you retarded? Do you even know what Catholics believe? Because if you did, you would know i am definitely not catholic.
The Hebrew word translated day is yown it is" a period of time" not one 24 hr day nor only the daylight time period as opposed to night. It is the same word as used in the "the day of the Lord cometh " . God could have certainly used a 24 hr day, but the scripture does solely support that specific position.
English translated words cause the confusion. The "lax renderings" allow for differences of opinion. Day might have different meanings, but yown means yown.
But rejecting the 24 hr day is not approval of anything like evolution. A longer period of time is not a position of gradual change as proposed by evolutionist. God seems to move opposite of gradual change chosen to so long periods of no apparent change then sudden extreme change.
English translated words cause the confusion. The "lax renderings" allow for differences of opinion. Day might have different meanings, but yown means yown.
But rejecting the 24 hr day is not approval of anything like evolution. A longer period of time is not a position of gradual change as proposed by evolutionist. God seems to move opposite of gradual change chosen to so long periods of no apparent change then sudden extreme change.
oatmeal
Well-known member
L,
Genesis 1:26-27
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Genesis 2:2-3
"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.
3 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."
create = bara- to bring something into existence from nothing
make = asah - to make something from an existing material
they are not interchangeable.
See " all his work which God created and made."
oatmeal
And "morning" and "evening"?
Apparently they are, based upon the verses you, yourself, posted here...:think:
"morning and evening" have to be beginning and ending of a period.
It cannot be as we use it because the terms are used before the sun was made. v14
How does your desire to see it as historical make it historical? If it's the thing I describe it isn't and if it's the thing you argue for it is.
And either way it speaks to the truth of God's intent and authority.
Yes you are. You even did so when you didn't have an answer. But here I was answering you the way you answered me on the point.
No, I'm saying you're reading literally what doesn't seem literal to me.
That's precisely what I've been doing. I noted what seems to me to read like a poetic description, a couple of points that don't make sense to me outside of that context.
Let's clear up something that's gotten muddy, because you keep saying historical, but we both believe that God created the earth and that His authorship is the chronological, historical starting point for everything. You mean that it's a literal description of events and if it's poetic it prima facie isn't that. Beyond that you could and do argue for it as being intentionally set out chronological and literal accounting, but then you have a few problems. I've noted one or two of them.
And I asked for the poetic usage in the Bible of other events. You haven't obliged. Absent that and a few answers I've asked for it just doesn't read t that way to me.
You didn't actually do that. If I say it doesn't matter if X is mistaken and you reply that X isn't you aren't actually countering me. Here I literally told you that my point wasn't that they didn't and so it's irrelevant for that stated reason. I wasn't arguing that point.
The meaning is explained, sure. Does anyone feel the need to explain that they aren't the stories of literal people? No. Because the tradition and usage infers it.
And I can say my love is like a red, red rose. But I don't mean for you to literally believe that and the form I use suggests it, even if you can read it otherwise.
You don't have to do anything. I appreciate the answers you gave on points of curiosity and I'm not trying to talk you out of your position. I was curious about why you believed in a literal reading and thought I'd run a couple of problematic points at you.
It actually is, as are the points neither of us can answer on as would be a few more like if I thought it would lead us to a discussion instead of this.
If a thing is poetic it isn't literal. That's why geneologies read like grocery lists and the accounts of the passion aren't presented as allegory. And if it isn't literal why is it being used to describe something literal? It isn't impossible, but it doesn't seem likely.
I don't define literally. Literal has its own established definition. Should we settle on Webster's primary to avoid confusion?
A number of them and questions too. You're picking out of context now...peculiar.
You could say that about anything you don't understand. Heck, if you don't know how math works maybe it doesn't. I don't see your reading and I've given you an example of why, asked you to explain my "ignorance" and instead you didn't have any better understanding of it than I do. Okay, but the poetic context explains what you, who make a habit and I presume a study of the subject, haven't.
That's not a false dichotomy. If you're going to make a charge like that you should spell out the support or you're just throwing a word at me. Neither of us is saying there isn't an explanation. We're talking about what that might be. I have one notion. You're sitting without one on the same point, only declaring there must be support for it since your larger context must be the right one...
lain:Nice try to reinvent the argument, but I never said Genesis isn't historical. I said it wasn't a literal description of that history. And it demonstably, poetically isn't. Now the question becomes how much poetry and how much literal fact are involved in it. I think the point of the poetry is to establish that, as with parable, there's a larger point being made and that it isn't about setting out an exact narrative of the process.
I not only didn't ignore it I asked you for examples. You never provided them. I'd still like to see it.
I didn't say you lacked every answer, though you didn't know how to answer my first. I also clarified the point about the deep. If it's a literal narrative, setting out a literal time line of creation, why does a deep suddenly appear without God noting the creation of water, among those other questions I've asked you.
It's nothing of the sort. Either reading has God as the author. And I'm not going to engage in name calling, or be affected by it.
But if this is a literal setting out of history why mention dividing light but not creating water? Why talk about an earth without form? They're reasonable questions.
I haven't asked you to accept anything. I'm telling you why it seems more reasonable to me to read the six days as something other than a literal narrative of creation and I was curious as to why you'd read it otherwise. You met that curiosity with some engagement, coupled with a puzzling hostility.
So you keep insisting. But I don't see it that way. You need to prove your reading is reasonable. "I can't say but there's an answer that will prove I'm right" isn't very convincing and you've already conceded that it's poetic.
I'm not speaking for evolutionists, so I'll leave that to your discussion with them on the point.
So you don't actually know, you're hoping/guessing? Because if I knew and you asked me I'd say, "Easy, in Mark..." that sort of thing.
No, the answer would be when the context for a literal reading doesn't allow for it but a poetic reading leads one elsewhere. When the questions raised by a literal context can't be answered or don't support a literal reading but a less literal reading does...that sort of thing.
It seems to, but that's rather the point of discussing it and why I asked a couple of questions, to get a sense of how you'd addressed something that led me in another direction.
Rather, I note it is poetic. That's inarguable. And from that and the problems created by a literal reading I draw what seems to me a reasonable inference.
I didn't ask you for a poetic reading. I asked you to sustain a few points without one.
As with your non sequitur charge earlier, it's empty usage without support. I don't use platitudes. That's just your way of trying to insinuate something that isn't there, much like (so far as you've advanced it) your notion of a literal reading, which is now a more broadly if vaguely "historical" one.
And so my questions. Else, what details need explaining if we're being presented a sweeping image of God as the author of law and existence?
I told you what the narrative is addressing. We actually agree on what's being addressed. We're differing and discussing the particular way it's being addressed.
Well, no. That's an attempt to transcribe poetic license into a literal narrative. A parable is a parallel of that sort, but not everything is.
I didn't say the story of creations is like a parable except in the most general sense that it appears to use a literary device.
How doesn't it translate into God is the author? However you view the chronology or the language it clearly sets God in place as the creating and controlling author. But it doesn't appear to be advanced as a science or history, but as a powerful, profoundly visual effort to impress the authority and power of God.
No. But I'm glad you've found a new word to throw at me.
Nope. I noted you just declared it to be without establishing it. No reason to keep saying that so I won't.
You already told me you didn't know on the first. You've given me a "you just wait and see, it's out there" as well.
That's a neat trick. But they aren't. And unlike you, when I make a claim like that I set out the why of it.
No, I just read it and thought about it and came to what seemed and still seems to me the more likely conclusion. The same thing you did only you see it literally, sort of.
I think I've set out why I'm led to believe what I do. I'm not entrenched in it, but I haven't gotten anything from you to move my understanding. I'm still open to it, but someone will need to answer the points and move me instead of declare and offer insult. I don't respond to those in lieu of argument.
Like that. To match your effort: it isn't. I won't match the tone because I don't share it. I think you're so accustomed to battling you can't have a conversation with anyone not toeing your line on this. I'm sorry to see it.
Nothing to get over, just something to recognize.
In order: you have a peculiar way of demonstrating that; I don't reject Genesis, I don't even "reject" the potential for your reading, I just haven't found it supported convincingly yet.
I'm sorry you feel that way about it. I think you're wrong and unsupportably wrong here.
No "as if" to it. When you call my agreement platitude, by way of, it's insulting. When you agree to the spewing on point of Sod/resurrected, it's insulting. Don't care for it? Don't do it. Or did you mean "mindless" in a good way?
God's very name is Unity: how can His action be dispersed into a plurality of days?
God's very name is Being: how can He act now, only for His action to pass away into nothingness, to be replaced with another?
God's very name is Truth: how can Truth Itself change?
God's very name is the Good: how can He choose one thing now, another later?
God's very name is Being: how can He act now, only for His action to pass away into nothingness, to be replaced with another?
God's very name is Truth: how can Truth Itself change?
God's very name is the Good: how can He choose one thing now, another later?
oatmeal
Well-known member
Then you read it again.
"made and created" is what is says.
Not "created and created" nor "made and made"
Please look closer.
"made and created"
two different words with two different meanings
When two different words are used with two different meanings, God knows what he is talking about.
oatmeal
IMJerusha
New member
Perhaps it depends on who one reads....Gleason Archer or Norman Geisler.
To be honest, Tom, I think this is one place where we should become as little children. Matthew 18:3 That is not to say that this issue is of salvific nature but rather to say that often times, a child like faith benefits more than the actual knowledge. When I consider God's plan as a whole and the Law, I tend to lean more toward the literal six days as we know them. It's just the kid coming out in me.
The text.
The bible describes the history of the world and with "Six days" is how it does it. "Six days" are the words written. Why should we believe the words mean anything other than what they plainly say?
Your ignorance doesn't provide support for your opinion. What you need to do is give us the meaning for the details like we can easily find the meaning of details in actual parables and metaphor found in the bible.
When you've decided whether you want to accept or reject the plain reading of Genesis then I can walk you through some of the science that supports the biblical view.
Genesis is historical narrative.
Not interested in jumping through hoops for you to talk about anything rather than make your position rational. Tell us a good reason why we should believe Genesis means something other than what it plainly says.
Telling us Genesis is poetry is no such reason.
Nope. You're here trying to make people believe its OK to reject the plain teaching of Genesis.
Quit trying to sound reasonable. I'm not interested. I'm interested in rationality.
Poetry is used elsewhere in the bible to describe historical events and I can give good reasons to any questions you have.
Your opinion is supported lamely.
Genesis is historical narrative.
In a parable the details have meaning that is explained and explicable. Pick a number from Genesis. Tell us what that detail means.
You invented your reading.
And they have reasonable answers. But there's no point discussing the science if you're completely irrational regarding the theology.
You've just made up a meaning.
You can't give us good reason for your opinion so you try to talk about as many extraneous issues as possible.
Then I guess you're committed to your stupidity.
:rotfl:
The text says "Six days". It is reasonable to declare that it means "Six days". It is unreasonable to declare "Six days" means something else and then dodge every request for reasons for this declaration and alternative meanings.
I'm not the one under the gun. You've the contrary position. You back up your irrational stance or abandon it.
Yeah, calling me a liar isn't going to help you either. :nono:
Nobody but you has the foggiest notion what you just said.
Tell us why poetry cannot be used to describe historical fact.
Genesis is historical narrative.
Try to get it right. :up:
Try reading the list I provided.
Platitudes aren't responsive.
Details. Deal with the questions asked. Don't answer questions you invent.
You're the one under the gun. You reject the plain teaching of God's word.
Your ideas are empty and my enjoyment of banter with others is irrelevant.
Support rationally your opinions or give them up.
False Prophet
New member
And there was evening and there was morning, one day. This means one day as for the rotation of the earth. Now the Bible does not say that the earth is six thousand years old. The pope said that the earth was six thousand years old, and that was four hundred years ago. So the earth must be six thousand four hundred years old!:think: Gen 1[8]And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
There is the evening and morning again! Is the evening and morning of Urantia? No!
Gen 1[31]And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Evening and morning;Six days! Now we go to the next day.
Gen 2[1]And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made.
Behold! Here comes another day!
Gen 2[4]These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day:shocked: that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.
I guess I better leave this argument for more knowledgeable theologians around here, because I don't have the brains you genious's have around here.:readthis:
There is the evening and morning again! Is the evening and morning of Urantia? No!
Gen 1[31]And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Evening and morning;Six days! Now we go to the next day.
Gen 2[1]And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made.
Behold! Here comes another day!
Gen 2[4]These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day:shocked: that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.
I guess I better leave this argument for more knowledgeable theologians around here, because I don't have the brains you genious's have around here.:readthis:
No, you're cherry picking the days from a less than scientific and literal set out.
They don't plainly say anything. Some atheists do what you're doing here when they note the four corners of the world as being a literal understanding. It's just as wrong, to my mind, when you do it.
And yours doesn't support your own points. The difference being only one of us is actually certain he's right.
No, that's you trying to treat a seemingly poetic set out as a parable. Here I see the illustration of God's authority in creation. Nothing more or less than that. What else should it need?
I differ that that's what you're offering. Supra.
Not the question. Is it a literal one? I'm unconvinced for the reasons set out prior.
I've been rational from the outset. And I've managed it without telling you you're ignorant, or filling the air with platitudes, etc.
I didn't say it was poetry. I said it was poetic. And to a purpose. I also set out what that purpose was. That's how I'm reading it.
No, I'm telling you that I don't read it the same way you do and that I don't confuse your unsustained opinion with God's edict of actual fact.
You don't seem to be and I'm being reasonable. If you're not interested then I guess you can...talk to someone else? :idunno: Your call.
You said that before. I don't recall it. You seem convinced. Show me where it's used in the OT to set out a literal event like this.
I don't agree or see the point in your posture, but if it makes you happy.
Not the point of contention.
Asked and answered more than once.
You invented your reading. Now where are we?
You can't even demonstrate me being sporadically irrational. You like using insulting terms like that, don't you? I wonder what you think it gets you. :think:
No, I didn't. Prove it.
No, I don't and I've been as clear as I know how to be on any point you've raised.
I'm not going to be drawn into whatever moves this sort of thing in you. It's disappointing but there it is.
It says more and the context is what often gives us the meaning/usage of a word.
I haven't dodged anything. How have I?
Neither of us is under a gun, we both have positions and you can abandon yours.
I never did. What's wrong with you?
So now you speak for everyone.
lain:I didn't say it couldn't.
I don't use them.
I don't and you should really reconsider your ease with this sort of thing.
Declaration isn't argument.
You can lead a horse to water.
Good luck with whatever it is you think you're doing.
genuineoriginal
New member
You are mistaken on that.
About 400 years ago, Ussher said the creation was in 4004 BCE.
Others made calculations that came up with 3992 BCE, 3952 BCE, 3949 BCE, 3929 BCE, and 3761 BCE.
genuineoriginal
New member
It is kind of hard to get around wht the text says about the light and dark being separated and called day and night, followed by the six evening and morning declarations for each day.
That does not seem to match calling north, south, east, and west the four corners (literally extremities in Hebrew) of the earth.
Perhaps it depends on who one reads....Gleason Archer or Norman Geisler.
To be honest, Tom, I think this is one place where we should become as little children. Matthew 18:3 That is not to say that this issue is of salvific nature but rather to say that often times, a child like faith benefits more than the actual knowledge. When I consider God's plan as a whole and the Law, I tend to lean more toward the literal six days as we know them. It's just the kid coming out in me.
Why? I think God is more awesome to span huge amounts of time. We have been given a short span idea of time that is rather human focused instead of God focused.
OK, someone needs a lesson in how to speak and read. When you read something you need to engage your brain because there are things called inferences, metaphors and other things. There are also parts of speech which are not allegory and parable. The difference between the two is pretty stark, so it's easy to get confused. In one you have to just take the words as they stand. In the other you have to look for meaning from the context and other provided knowledge.
And the real problem is both of these parts of speech pop up all the time in everything we read. Basically, in order to understand things, you need to know how to read.
When the bible talks about the four corners of the Earth we can recognise that as a metaphor because we have an explanation that grants understanding in a non-literal sense. We know, for instance, that the Earth is not a square. And we know from the story that the passage is speaking of the whole planet. So we put that knowledge to use and find meaning.
Now if you want to assert that "Six days" is of the same nature as "Four corners" you have to go through the same process. Tell us what "Six days" means like "Four corners" doesn't mean what it plainly says. Tell us what knowledge you employ to reach this conclusion.
Show some good reason to support your opinion.
OK, now you're just being dumb.
:dizzy:
Only a lawyer could accuse a man of inventing a reading where the reading is a direct quote. The bible says "Six days".
It accurately portrays your stance.
Nope. The bible says "Six days". I could abandon that statement, but it'd turn me into a mindless puddle of cold soup.
TruthSetsFree
New member
i agree w/ Post 2
not important and there is no way to know
the Bible, however, was never meant to be taken absolutely literally in every single passage
you would be insane if you interpreted it literally on everything...
not important and there is no way to know
the Bible, however, was never meant to be taken absolutely literally in every single passage
you would be insane if you interpreted it literally on everything...
right like drinking literal blood and eating literal flesh, a literal lifetime virgin birth and even after- but God cant create the world in such a short amount of time ...