toldailytopic: Are the 6 days of creation in the book of Genesis a literal 6 days?

[noguru]

You seem calmer today, so I'll give this a shot:

Gee thanks. How magnanimous of you.

How do you know this?

From a few different lines of evidence, the two main ones being:

1.) This sort of thing (knowledge of good and evil) happens to all of us at that point in our life where we transform for not having capacity to having capacity.

2.) From either model, a first human with this developed/created capacity is inevitable.

Why don't you take the Adam tale as allusion or amplification or poetry?

I don't take Adam as an allusion and amplification. I take the literary device used to describe, for Adam and us, the creation and incorporate that acknowledgement into a weekly human time frame as an allusion and an amplification. Come on resurrected, perhaps you should mull this over a bit. :rotfl:

I have explained this all to you before. But again, and as usual, your memory seems to be rather lacking on certain subjects. I strongly suspect it is because you don't want to know, or one might say it is a "talk to the hand, cause the face ain't listening" attitude. You know that defensive mechanism that people often use because they fear the possibility that their view is not accurate.

You don't get to therefore without proving your premise.

What exactly would you like me to prove?

Will you be held to the same standard of "proof"?

If it's beyond your capacity to support, might I suggest that you just skim over it?

Been there, done that. My past efforts seem to remain an exercize in futility.

That way it won't cause you so much distress.

I think perhaps you are projecting. My attitude was one of finally realizing that discussing these matters with you has all been for naught. I will repeat myself 3 or 4 times. After that I figure there is no sense in trying to repeatedly explain things to people who are only feigning a sincere desire to understand.

Why Must I Always Explain

 

[kmoney]

It actually really is.

The bible says "Six days". If you want to insist it doesn't mean what it says you have to show good reason. If you cannot you should choose to either accept the plain teaching of the bible or choose to reject it.

Rabbiting on about poetry when that reason has been shown dead in the water is irrational.

If the only thing you think anyone is doing is "rabbiting on about poetry" then I don't think you are really reading or understanding what some have been trying to say.

No. The bible really does say "Six days". No assumption.

I understand it says 6 days. I didn't say otherwise. I was saying that the assumption is about what exactly the author was trying to convey and the scope of what he was saying.

I think you have no idea what you're saying.

That's fine. I think you have an over-simplified and naive view of the situation. That's where we're at. And that's probably where we'll continue to be. :nananana:

And just to be clear, even if I were to accept your ultimatum of either rejecting the clear teaching of Genesis or rejecting evolution, I don't consider it a threat, in case you intended it to be. Someone can reject the "clear teaching" of the earth being created in 6 days, accept evolution, and still be a Christian. Fine.

 

[resurrected]

If the only thing you think anyone is doing is "rabbiting on about poetry" then I don't think you are really reading or understanding what some have been trying to say.


I understand it says 6 days. I didn't say otherwise. I was saying that the assumption is about what exactly the author was trying to convey and the scope of what he was saying.


That's fine. I think you have an over-simplified and naive view of the situation. That's where we're at. And that's probably where we'll continue to be. :nananana:

And just to be clear, even if I were to accept your ultimatum of either rejecting the clear teaching of Genesis or rejecting evolution, I don't consider it a threat, in case you intended it to be. Someone can reject the "clear teaching" of the earth being created in 6 days, accept evolution, and still be a Christian.

kmo - explain this to me.

If you read "six days" as "not six days"

how do you read "he rose again the third day"?

 

[noguru]

kmo - explain this to me.

If you read "six days" as "not six days"

how do you read "he rose again the third day"?

Here we go again. Are you sincerely trying to tell us that this juxtaposition here has not already been explained to you many, many times?

 

[resurrected]

2.) From either model, a first human with this developed/created capacity is inevitable.

Doesn't evolution decribe a continuum of micro changes?

IOW, what in evolutionary theory proposes a discrete dividing point between non-human and human?

Were Neanderthals "human"?

I don't take Adam as an allusion and amplification. I take the literary device used to describe, for Adam and us, the creation and incorporate that acknowledgement into a weekly human time frame as an allusion and an amplification.

So for you, none of it is necessarily true?
(by true I mean factually correct)

Come on resurrected, perhaps you should mull this over a bit. :rotfl:

That really tickled you, didn't it? :chuckle:

I have explained this all to you before.

Not very well, apparently.

That must really frustrate you.

What exactly would you like me to prove?

Your premise :duh:

"There was an Adam whether he was born and grew into an adult or whether he was created as a fully grown adult."

What proof do you have that there was an Adam?

Will you be held to the same standard of "proof"?

Sure. If I make a claim I don't run from being asked to back it up.

 

[xAvarice]

Doesn't evolution decribe a continuum of micro changes?

IOW, what in evolutionary theory proposes a discrete dividing point between non-human and human?

Species, the definition of species is quite interesting actually but couldn't really be accused of ambiguity.

Were Neanderthals "human"?

I think we only really consider homo sapien sapien and homo sapiens (non respectively) "humans".

I see at is calling a snake a reptile, and a certain reptile a snake - I hope that helps.


Although, I think the word "human" has certainly transgressed into a very vague adjective - I remember being frustrated while reading John Carter books and seeing the Martians described as human throughout the book (not described but actually labelled human) even though they were a different race upon a different PLANET.

Atheists eh, what can you do?

 

[kmoney]

kmo - explain this to me.

If you read "six days" as "not six days"

how do you read "he rose again the third day"?

I don't read "six days" as "not six days".

But even if I did, it doesn't mean I couldn't read being buried for 3 days as actually 3 days. Each passage is unique and has its own context. I imagine you don't use the same hermeneutic for every single verse in the bible.

 

[Stripe]

Nope, that's your inability to recognize that if you interpret "six days" with literal, scientific importance, there's no reason to not interpret the other passages Paulos linked as literal "science teaching".

Why?

Because you assert all things must be read in the same fashion? Because you insist that if the bible is once talking in straight-forward prose that every idiom must also be straight-forward prose?

Each passage is unique and has its own context.

:up:

If I say "The sun is rising" and then I say "I will return in five days" are you, Alate, going to be similarly thus confused? Will you believe me a geocentrist or that I mean I will be around a few billion years from now?

Learn to read. :up:

Again, historical records of what Christians believed show the geocentric model was UNIVERSALLY believed. There was no argument, unlike the creation stories.

:yawn: What people believed has no impact on what the bible actually says. And the bible is in no way committed to geocentrism.

The question isn't just "six days"

Yes, it is. Read the OP.

it's how do you deal with extra-biblical evidence

When you have a rational response to the bible, then it might be worthwhile talking science with you. Rational is to accept or reject what the bible clearly says. Rational, if you think "Six days" doesn't mean what it plainly says, is to have very convincing and very obvious reasons why it does not mean what it plainly says. Rational is not to say "It's poetry" ad nauseum.

what many parts of scripture plainly say

Nothing in scripture departs from "Six days".

You're just as willing to turn anything that's a problem for you into "figurative language" based on extrabiblical knowledge as it suits you. That makes you a hypocrite.

Some parts of the bible are figurative. I can give good reason for any passage that I might claim to be solely figurative. But you pretend that because you have a figurative meaning for an overall passage you can dismiss a single detail.

And you're the hypocrite. As has been demonstrated many times.

Like I said, I've no objection that this is history.

Historical narrative.

It is only obvious that he is describing what happened before man was around. Modern geology and evolutionary biology is also attempting to describe what happened before man was around.

Sure. But only a maximum of one from these two histories can be correct.

I'm talking about the human author.

There probably wasn't one.

Are you saying that the human writer understood and appreciated the difference between species and genus?

What are you talking about? The vague and malleable term "species" was invented only recently.

If the only thing you think anyone is doing is "rabbiting on about poetry" then I don't think you are really reading or understanding what some have been trying to say.

Perhaps you can step us through the argument then. Here it is as I see it:
Bible: Six days.
Christian: Six days.
Evolutionist: A billion years.
Christian: Why?
Evolutionist: Because Genesis 1 is poetry.
Christian: So are lots of other historical accounts.
Evolutionist: But it's poetry.

Perhaps you can simply and clearly state what the evolutionists are saying for that last line 'cos I can't see anything else.

I understand it says 6 days. I didn't say otherwise. I was saying that the assumption is about what exactly the author was trying to convey and the scope of what he was saying.

It's not an assumption to think He was talking about "Six days".

It is incorrect to think He was talking about any other length of time. It is simply insane to insist that Genesis refers to anything but what it plainly teaches. I do ask for good reason. Perhaps I shouldn't as there can never be one.

That's fine. I think you have an over-simplified and naive view of the situation. That's where we're at. And that's probably where we'll continue to be.

Well, I'm a lot smarter than you are so perhaps you can just explain the complicated bits you think I am leaving out and I'll show you how they are easily simplified and of no relevance.

And perhaps you might not just walk away from our discussion this time. I much prefer to talk to you than many.

And just to be clear, even if I were to accept your ultimatum of either rejecting the clear teaching of Genesis or rejecting evolution, I don't consider it a threat, in case you intended it to be. Someone can reject the "clear teaching" of the earth being created in 6 days, accept evolution, and still be a Christian. Fine.

Continued use of this is just emotional blackmail. The only means to salvation is the confession of Jesus Christ as lord and saviour.

Please don't continually bring this up as if it is relevant. :up:

 

[noguru]

Doesn't evolution decribe a continuum of micro changes?

This demonstrates that you have a very poor grasp of what biology claims (and science in general because it is a common thread throughout science) and your expectations of science in this respect are somewhat unrealistic. Science tries to investigate things and report them. The dividing lines that we create are our own convention. In reality nature is not as cut and dry as we make it. We create these dividing lines so that we can categorize things. If we do not categorize things, then any determination become meaningless. And the dividing lines are rough approximations in many areas, and especially in biology.

The gradual continuum is given a line seperating what is on one side from what is on the other. We can be certain that the line is there somewhere. However where we place that line is dependant on the level of detailed evidence we have on any given subject. Sometimes that detailed evidence is lacking, but we still know there is a line of demarcation. IOW, things in nature cannot always be placed in neat little categories like we can do with business accounting. And yes, I do agree with YECs on several issues. The one relevant issue here is that the further we go back in time the less detailed evidence we can find. So there is a need for rough approximations.

I know that you would like this all to be cut and dry. But I think it is not really that cut and dry.

IOW, what in evolutionary theory proposes a discrete dividing point between non-human and human?

The YEC model adjusts that line for this division, as well as other dividing liines, based on newly discovered evidence. So in that sense either model has the same weakness. Would you like some examples?

Is the origins model you hold more cut and dry?

Based on whose opinion?

Were Neanderthals "human"?

Perhaps. I cannot answer that because I do not have a neanderthal here to investigate that question. I also think that another requirement of Adam is that he were monotheistic. I think the polytheistic peoples around the original Judaic culture have the basic hardwired components to qualify as human, although their concept of God/Gods is not the same as the Judeo/Christian one.

But this is really going off on another tangential issue that we can save for another thread if you like. And again rough approximations will have to be used because that seems to be before written history.

So for you, none of it is necessarily true?
(by true I mean factually correct)

It's all true. But it Genesis was not written as a detailed scientific account.

That really tickled you, didn't it? :chuckle:

Yes. Because I think "mulling it over" for you is quite different than it is for me. Though I could be wrong. I spend endless hours mulling this material over. I think that is due to a kind of OCD.

Not very well, apparently.

Either that, or you are running up against a wall in understanding what I am saying. Which is quite odd, because I often explain this subject matter to people who have far less education than you claim, and they can repeat back (paraphrasing of course) the content demonstrating they have grasped what I was saying.

That must really frustrate you.

No, not really. I find it more humorous than anything like real frustration. I generally don't get frustrated with living things. I get more frustrated with myself when I cannot manipulate non living things very well; things like building materials or tools. And even with those things my frustration becomes humorous to me only moments after the initial frustration. I don't think frustration is a barrier to overcoming my challenges. Though I do realize that other sentient beings have more control over them self than I do.

"There was an Adam whether he was born and grew into an adult or whether he was created as a fully grown adult."

What proof do you have that there was an Adam?

I just explained that. I think I was very clear. If it that is not sufficient for you then perhaps we should move on.

Do you think Adam had to actually have the name "Adam" for there to have been a first human that fits the requirements I have already outlined?

You do realize that even in scripture God has changed his followers names once they had faith in Him, right?

Sure. If I make a claim I don't run from being asked to back it up.

Well, I guess if you keep your own claims very vague and ambiguous then they cannot be brought into the same light of day as mine.

What is it that you believe and why?

I know you that prior to this you have told me that you are not a YEC. So why do appear to propose that model when questioning others?

 

[noguru]

Species, the definition of species is quite interesting actually but couldn't really be accused of ambiguity.



I think we only really consider homo sapien sapien and homo sapiens (non respectively) "humans".

If you go to AIG, you will see that many YECs now hold that in their model Adam was probably homo erectus.

 

[resurrected]

Here we go again. Are you sincerely trying to tell us that this juxtaposition here has not already been explained to you many, many times?

nog - you need to look at the first three letters of my post


my post to kmo

I was asking kmo what his thoughts were.

they may be different from your thoughts


unless you claim to speak for kmo

 

[xAvarice]

If you go to AIG, you will see that many YECs now hold that in their model Adam was probably homo erectus.

Well if we're going to play it like that!

If all homos are humans, and all YECs are humans, then all YECs are homos.

 

[Stripe]

Well if we're going to play it like that! If all homos are humans, and all YECs are humans, then all YECs are homos.

Uh .. failed logic 101, didn't you?

Failing logic is gay. :flamer:

 

[resurrected]

I don't read "six days" as "not six days".

My bad - I should have replaced the "you" with "one"

But even if I did, it doesn't mean I couldn't read being buried for 3 days as actually 3 days. Each passage is unique and has its own context. I imagine you don't use the same hermeneutic for every single verse in the bible.

I don't.

I was just curious as to how those who attempt to reinterpret "six days" chose to read "three days" without reinterpretation.

One of the stronger appeals of the Catholic Church is that they seem to have all this stuff figured out.

With non-Catholics it seems it's every man for himself.

 

[Alate_One]

Why?

Because you assert all things must be read in the same fashion? Because you insist that if the bible is once talking in straight-forward prose that every idiom must also be straight-forward prose?

Genesis isn't straightforward prose and it's focused on things modern people such as ourselves are less interested in.

Saying "the sun stood still" is straightforward prose. It was meant exactly the way it was stated. It's only scientific knowledge that leads you to assert it's an idiom.

If I say "The sun is rising" and then I say "I will return in five days" are you going to be similarly thus confused? Will you believe me a geocentrist or that I mean I will be around a few billion years from now?

There's a difference between reading what you said 5 minutes ago, in my own cultural context and reading scripture. When reading scripture, I'm reading what someone wrote thousands of years ago in a very different culture from my own and a very different understanding of the universe than my own. You do understand there's a difference between the two, right?

The sun rises and the sun sets were not always understood to be metaphoric. They became so because of scientific knowledge.

What people believed has no impact on what the bible actually says.

What people believed before the culture changed due to scientific information tells you that your assumption of "what it says" is based on something other than the bible. They had only the Bible, we have many other things to inform us.

And the bible is in no way committed to geocentrism.

Tell that to Copernicus, Luther, Calvin and Galileo.

Yes, it is. Read the OP.

It isn't in the context of actual Biblical interpretation. You should be consistent in whatever criteria you use across the Bible. If you choose to believe something is metaphoric for reasons outside of scripture, you should acknowledge that.

When you have a rational response to the bible, then it might be worthwhile talking science with you.

You complaining about "rational responses" is rather rich. Repeating "it says six days" over and over is not how one has a rational discussion.

Rational is to accept or reject what the bible clearly says. Rational, if you think "Six days" doesn't mean what it plainly says, is to have very convincing and very obvious reasons why it does not mean what it plainly says. Rational is not to say "It's poetry" ad nauseum.

Gee except I haven't done that at all (you're projecting again). The fact that the seven day account of Genesis has poetic elements certainly not the only reason to say six days isn't the point of the passage. It has a particular format that doesn't necessarily make sense as straight historical narrative.

It's like you've read the story of the cursing of the fig tree, and someone says "it doesn't matter what kind of tree it was, that wasn't the point of the parable" and you run around saying "it was a fig tree, a fig!" As if this small detail was the whole point of the story.

Nothing in scripture departs from "Six days".

Nothing in scripture departs from geocentrism/flat earth either. Your point being?

Some parts of the bible are figurative. I can give good reason for any passage that I might claim to be solely figurative.

And in the case of the geocentric passages, those are based on your own scientific understanding of the universe.

But you pretend that because you have a figurative meaning for an overall passage you can dismiss a single detail.

It says six days yes, but that's not the point of the passage, to tell us the earth is young. You can argue the passage doesn't even tell us that. It does tell us that God created the universe and what the purpose and position of the objects and creatures are.

 

[noguru]

Well if we're going to play it like that!

If all homos are humans, and all YECs are humans, then all YECs are homos.

That was quite unnecessary. What I would also like you to note is that Stripe, who use to make statements like that, now seems to refrain from that. And you have now stooped to the lowest common denominator retort. I think you should leave that kind of thing for ACCW. Since he still likes to play in the muck.

 

[resurrected]

Well if we're going to play it like that!

If all homos are humans, and all YECs are humans, then all YECs are homos.

I'm not telling aCW

you go tell him

 

[kmoney]

Perhaps you can step us through the argument then. Here it is as I see it:
Bible: Six days.
Christian: Six days.
Evolutionist: A billion years.
Christian: Why?
Evolutionist: Because Genesis 1 is poetry.
Christian: So are lots of other historical accounts.
Evolutionist: But it's poetry.

Perhaps you can simply and clearly state what the evolutionists are saying for that last line 'cos I can't see anything else.

What was the question that began that hypothetical exchange? Is the time period in Genesis supposed to be 6 days or billions or years? I don't think anyone is saying that the author actually meant/thought the time period was billions of years but they used 6 days for poetic reasons. I agree with you that poetry can be used to recount history and that saying something is poetry can't be the whole or final argument. What I believe they are saying is that the author's main points were about God being the creator and His purposes in that creation and used a narrative to get those points across. In that narrative God did certain things on certain days but the timeframe wasn't the primary point. Or even a secondary point. The purpose of Genesis wasn't to explain how it happened. Perhaps you think that all boils down to "BUT IT'S POETRY" but I don't see it that way.

Just curious, do you think we can learn anything from looking at other ANE texts? Or looking at the culture and time period in which Genesis was written?

It's not an assumption to think He was talking about "Six days".

It is incorrect to think He was talking about any other length of time. It is simply insane to insist that Genesis refers to anything but what it plainly teaches. I do ask for good reason. Perhaps I shouldn't as there can never be one.

I don't think the author was talking about a different length of time. And I think that anyone who tries to force a different time period onto those "days" or tries to force a huge gap somewhere in the text to get an old earth aren't being honest with the text.

Well, I'm a lot smarter than you are so perhaps you can just explain the complicated bits you think I am leaving out and I'll show you how they are easily simplified and of no relevance.

And perhaps you might not just walk away from our discussion this time. I much prefer to talk to you than many.

If you are so smart then you should know that saying things like "well, I'm a lot smarter than you so..." usually won't get you much progress in a discussion with someone.

Continued use of this is just emotional blackmail. The only means to salvation is the confession of Jesus Christ as lord and saviour.

Please don't continually bring this up as if it is relevant. :up:

Emotional blackmail? Who am I blackmailing?

All I meant was that your challenge to either reject the "clear teaching" of Genesis or reject evolution doesn't accomplish anything. So what, someone can deny the "clear teaching of Genesis". I don't understand why you are so concerned about forcing someone into that decision.

 

[kmoney]

Well if we're going to play it like that!

If all homos are humans, and all YECs are humans, then all YECs are homos.

Maybe you should draw some venn diagrams to check your logic there. :chuckle:

 

[noguru]

All I meant was that your challenge to either reject the "clear teaching" of Genesis or reject evolution doesn't accomplish anything. So what, someone can deny the "clear teaching of Genesis". I don't understand why you are so concerned about forcing someone into that decision.

I think it is because he feels forced into that decision. And if he does not force that on others then his whole argument falls apart.