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

[noguru]

I have provided several pointers to other materials that outline my position adequately. I would hope that persons interested in this topic avail themselves of the materials and thoroughly aquaint themselves of it as I fear things explanantory of things explained. This is a serious topic and requires serious effort. A quick fix or superficial cheat sheet for folks to wade into the topic with gund blazing is a negligent tactic. In addition to educating themselves on all the issues, including proper heremeneutical methods, if anyone wants to weigh in and declare the majority view erroneous, they need to do more than basically claim "science says" or "the text is poetry". These persons bear the burden to argue

- we have not read Genesis thoroughly, skipping nothing, adding nothing
- we have not understood the passage(s) correctly as narratives
- we do not have the right rules for interpreting narrative texts
- that there is no such thing as a narrative text
- that God does not intend an essential meaning for a passage of text that remains the same throughout all time and places
- and so on. :AMR:

[FONT=&quot]I have no problem with science challenging biblical interpretations. But science cannot provide any reasons for changing our biblical interpretations. We must recognize that the more down on the hermeneutical tree the oponent's axes strikes, the more fundamental are the changes they are demanding. I remain convinced, along with many, many others, that those that deny the six-day view have offered no cogent criticisms. Instead those that deny the six day view arrogantly dismiss the grammtico-historical hermeneutic.
[/FONT]
AMR

My thread was not an attempt at a quick fix. It was an attempt to get the ball rolling. Because I have heard many with your view point expressing their disatisfaction with the foundational philosophical assumptions in science.

If you and the many others with which you agree, would like to get your chosen grammatico-historical hermeneutics (which supports the literal 6 day creation as scientifically accurate) as a part of the foundational philosophical assumptions in science then you need to start somewhere.

 

[Stripe]

If the meaning is plain and we're dealing with six literal chronological days, how can you have evening and morning for three days with no sun, moon or stars?

Irrelevant. And you know the response I will give to this question. This is an argument from ignorance and an attempt to dodge the real issue.

Your discomfort with there being no sun does not discount the fact that the bible says "Six days". What you have to do is show why "Six days" means something other than what it says and tell us what that alternative meaning is.

 

[Zeke]

Irrelevant. And you know the response I will give to this question. This is an argument from ignorance and an attempt to dodge the real issue.

Your discomfort with there being no sun does not discount the fact that the bible says "Six days". What you have to do is show why "Six days" means something other than what it says and tell us what that alternative meaning is.

Adam was also sweating blood waiting for the sun to go down on his day of death.

 

[noguru]

Adam was also sweating blood waiting for the sun to go down on his day of death.

YECs write that off as "God demonstrating his mercy" (though that really does not make any logical sense - nor is that view supported by anything in scripture), rather than accept the death referred to was a spiritual death and not a physical death.

 

[Lighthouse]

Today we know that the earth both rotates and revolves around the sun; therefore, whenever we speak of "sunrise" or "sunset" we are using idiomatic expressions. However, there is no reason to suppose that the author of Ecclesiastes 1:5 intended it to be taken as an "idiomatic expression" when he referred to the sun rising or setting. A phrase is to be taken as an idiomatic expression only when the person speaking it knows it to be such, but the geocentric model was the commonly held belief among all ancient peoples, including the Hebrews, and their scriptures reflect this belief.

And so what? Is that supposed to mean anything? So what if they didn't know?

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the earth rotates or revolves around the sun. Where did you get the idea that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun? You didn't get it from scripture, that's for sure.

So?

Furthermore, based on your line of argument, one could just as reasonably assert that the Genesis accounts of creation and the flood are filled with "figures of speech" (e.g. "days" meaning eons instead of literal 24 hour periods, etc.).

Maybe if one was an uneducated fool, who didn't know how to tell when something is literal and when it's a metaphor or simile.

2 Samuel 22:16, Psalms 18:15 and Proverbs 8:26 show that "earth" and "world" are effectively synonyms with regard to Psalm 93:1 and 1 Chronicles 16:30.

Do they now? Can you support that argument?

Let's take a look at Psalm 104:5:

You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever...​

"Foundations" is plural; "it" is singular. "It" refers to the singular earth, not to the plural foundations.

:think:

So I was wrong. Still, Psalms is poetry, so figures of speech are its foundation.*

*see what I did there?

:chuckle:

I am not at all surprised you think I contradicted myself. You need a remedial English class.

 

[Lighthouse]

YECs write that off as "God demonstrating his mercy" (though that really does not make any logical sense - nor is that view supported by anything in scripture), rather than accept the death referred to was a spiritual death and not a physical death.

This YEC right here has always believed it was a spiritual death. It's the only thing that makes sense.

Also, the rest of the YEC crowd in the inner circle of TOL, afaik, sees it the same way. Any of them can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[noguru]

This YEC right here has always believed it was a spiritual death. It's the only thing that makes sense.

Also, the rest of the YEC crowd in the inner circle of TOL, afaik, sees it the same way. Any of them can correct me if I'm wrong.

:think:

The inner circle of TOL?

At any rate, I do agree with you on the "spiritual death" part.

I have heard some try to defend the "no death before the fall" and also try to stay consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis (literal meaning of death) by claiming "God showed mercy to Adam by not killing him the very day he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil". Of course there are problems with either stance here when one is trying to cling to a "literal" meaning for everything in Genesis. But that subject might be for another thread. Perhaps I should let the inner circle decide that.

 

[Zeke]

YECs write that off as "God demonstrating his mercy" (though that really does not make any logical sense - nor is that view supported by anything in scripture), rather than accept the death referred to was a spiritual death and not a physical death.

Its the same with the fruit, instead of letting the spiritual word teach them what it means Matthew 15:11, they want to talk about literal apples and oranges.

Blessings Zeke.

 

[Lighthouse]

:think:

The inner circle of TOL?

Those in agreement on most things with the directors of TOL, such as myself or Stripe.

At any rate, I do agree with you on the "spiritual death" part.

I have heard some try to defend the "no death before the fall" and also try to stay consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis (literal meaning of death) by claiming "God showed mercy to Adam by not killing him the very day he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil". Of course there are problems with either stance here when one is trying to cling to a "literal" meaning for everything in Genesis. But that subject might be for another thread. Perhaps I should let the inner circle decide that.

I still believe there was no death before the Fall.

 

[noguru]

Those in agreement on most things with the directors of TOL, such as myself or Stripe.

I kind of figured out what you meant by "inner cirlce". I just thought it an odd way to express that. But hey who am I to question a member of the inner circle.

I still believe there was no death before the Fall.

Yes, I know.

 

[Alate_One]

Irrelevant. And you know the response I will give to this question.

I do? Humor me and fill me in.

This is an argument from ignorance and an attempt to dodge the real issue.

It's an argument from sense-making. (Maybe you should try it for once) :chuckle: It's the reason some ancient theologians have said it can't be a literal, chronological re-telling of history.

Your discomfort with there being no sun does not discount the fact that the bible says "Six days". What you have to do is show why "Six days" means something other than what it says and tell us what that alternative meaning is.

Has nothing to do with discomfort and everything to do with whether your interpretation makes sense, given the text.

There's a clear pattern of separation and filling. Three days of separation followed by three days of filling the separated parts. To deny that is silly.

Then you have the problem of your evening and mornings *before* the sun, moon and stars are created. This is only a problem if the days are actually chronological, as you assert. And since you apparently have no answer for this problem, I'm rightly justified in dismissing your assertions.

(See what I did there?) :shocked:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And since you have chosen that, you feel that you should not have to defend your position, as it should be the default position for any Christian.

It is more than the "digging your heels in" that you imply. Anyone adopting a position other than what I have articulated is going to have to borrow a great deal of currency from my worldview. Others do not get to claim they have "truth" when they deny a Truth-Maker behind their claim to truth.

The believer's principle of interpretation is to be based upon the assumption that God is the final and self-contained reference point. The non-believer's principle of interpretation is that man as self-contained is the final and self contained reference point. What we claim to know is always derivative, it is never original. It is always derivative and receptive. Do not misunderstand me; a truly humble epistemology is not one that denies the possibility of certainty. Instead a truly humble epistemology is one that insists that certainty can only be the product of faith in the triune God of the Bible.

AMR

 

[noguru]

It is more than the "digging your heels in" that you imply. Anyone adopting a position other than what I have articulated is going to have to borrow a great deal of currency from my worldview. Others do not get to claim they have "truth" when they deny a Truth-Maker behind their claim to truth.

The believer's principle of interpretation is to be based upon the assumption that God is the final and self-contained reference point. The non-believer's principle of interpretation is that man as self-contained is the final and self contained reference point. What we claim to know is always derivative, it is never original. It is always derivative and receptive. Do not misunderstand me; a truly humble epistemology is not one that denies the possibility of certainty. Instead a truly humble epistemology is one that insists that certainty can only be the product of faith in the triune God of the Bible.

AMR

Yes, but while you and I agree may agree on all that you have included in this specific post. This in no way creates a logical necessity for your previous claims, where you hold that your pre-scientific grammatico-historical hermeneutics which allows only for a literal six day creation can be the only, or even the most accurate option for a Christian. The subject matter in this specific posts reaches far outside the bounds or the realm of science. Science does not have to answer every question regarding the physical world, before it can answer one or even some.

 

[xAvarice]

I do? Humor me and fill me in.

Now, now - you cannot have both!

 

[Stripe]

It's an argument from sense-making. (Maybe you should try it for once) :chuckle: It's the reason some ancient theologians have said it can't be a literal, chronological re-telling of history.

It's the reason they reject the plain teaching of scripture.

Has nothing to do with discomfort and everything to do with whether your interpretation makes sense, given the text.

The text says "Six days".

There's a clear pattern of separation and filling. Three days of separation followed by three days of filling the separated parts. To deny that is silly.

It's not denied. What you continually refuse to do is show how this pattern means "Six days" does not mean what it plainly says.

Then you have the problem of your evening and mornings *before* the sun, moon and stars are created. This is only a problem if the days are actually chronological, as you assert. And since you apparently have no answer for this problem, I'm rightly justified in dismissing your assertions.

What assertions? :idunno:

 

[Paulos]

And so what? Is that supposed to mean anything? So what if they didn't know?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you can figure it out if you think about it a little longer.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Yes, but while you and I agree may agree on all that you have included in this specific post. This in no way creates a logical necessity for your previous claims, where you hold that your pre-scientific grammatico-historical hermeneutics which allows only for a literal six day creation can be the only, or even the most accurate option for a Christian. The subject matter in this specific posts reaches far outside the bounds or the realm of science. Science does not have to answer every question regarding the physical world, before it can answer one or even some.

Brother, you keep pointing this out, but I am awaiting something substantive that speaks to the points I have made earlier to support your warrant that the hermeneutic I and the church has held now needs to be thrown out and supplanted with something else. For example, I offered a few starting points, repeated once more:

These persons {who would deny the grammatico-historical method} bear the burden to argue:

- we have not read Genesis thoroughly, skipping nothing, adding nothing
- we have not understood the passage(s) correctly as narratives
- we do not have the right rules for interpreting narrative texts
- that there is no such thing as a narrative text
- that God does not intend an essential meaning for a passage of text that remains the same throughout all time and places
- and so on.

I am at a loss as to why we need to continue this back and forth until the issues above are taken up by those that would argue the Genesis creation account is poetry or something other than a historical narrative. Those that have attempted to do so immediately begin by discounting the grammatico-historical hermeneutic method. They offer no warrant for so doing other than to support their position concerning the Genesis account. Again, I must say that just won't do. These persons are (1) entrenched in their view that scientific theories about the age of the earth are in fact truths, or (2) they begin with no presupposition that a Triune God exists and created the world out of nothing, or (3) they are simply feeling embarrassed to admit otherwise (e.g., M. Kline) and want to come up with something to appease the secular academy because they have bought into their rhetoric that any sort of young earth view means one is a bible-thumping wacko.

I don't have a problem being considered odd by those with whom I associate. For at risk from capitulation is the nature of God, God's power, God's goodness, the nature of man created in His image, but fallen because of sin, the consequences and nature of sin, the nature of marriage, the origin of death and an enemy, the meaning and origin of work, the origin of the weekly day of rest, the first and last Adam, and so much more.

AMR

 

[Paulos]

Brother, you keep pointing this out, but I am awaiting something substantive that speaks to the points I have made earlier to support your warrant that the hermeneutic I and the church has held now needs to be thrown out and supplanted with something else.

Haven't you granted yourself a new hermeneutic in order to accept the modern scientific understanding of cosmology (heliocentrism, etc.), which is in contradistinction to the voice of the historical church and the standard gramatico-historic hermeneutic?

 

[Alate_One]

Brother, you keep pointing this out, but I am awaiting something substantive that speaks to the points I have made earlier to support your warrant that the hermeneutic I and the church has held now needs to be thrown out and supplanted with something else.

Perhaps you can answer the question I've asked of Stripe. The first three days of the Genesis account have evening and morning, without the sun, moon and stars. Do you think that speaks to a literal, chronological recounting of events?

Do you think the pattern of separating in a set of three days followed by filling of those spaces has any bearing on the meaning of the text as a chronological account vs. a logical construct? (ex a topical account rather than an ordered one)

- we have not read Genesis thoroughly, skipping nothing, adding nothing

See what I said above.

- we have not understood the passage(s) correctly as narratives

Narrative doesn't necessarily mean the passage is intended as a chronological/historical account.

- we do not have the right rules for interpreting narrative texts

I would question the "rules" for interpreting *ancient* narratives of this type in particular.

I think your other possibilities aren't likely to be true.

I don't have a problem being considered odd by those with whom I associate. For at risk from capitulation is the nature of God, God's power, God's goodness, the nature of man created in His image, but fallen because of sin, the consequences and nature of sin, the nature of marriage, the origin of death and an enemy, the meaning and origin of work, the origin of the weekly day of rest, the first and last Adam, and so much more.

I think these are not so difficult to work out as you suppose.

 

[Paulos]

No these verses do not "clearly" teach what you are asserting. If anything they simply point out the geocentric nature of the text is understood as anthropocentric and not as dogma. The lesson learned is to take the findings from science very cautiously.

See also:
http://www.opc.org/GA/CreationReport.pdf

AMR

Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory...Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included, and to enter into open dialogue with responsible persons involved in scientific tasks about the achievement, failures and limits of their activities and of ours. The truth or falsity of the theory of evolution is not the question at issue and certainly not a question which lies within the competence of the Permanent Theological Committee. The real and only issue is whether there exists clear incompatibility between evolution and the Biblical doctrine of Creation. Unless it is clearly necessary to uphold a basic Biblical doctrine, the Church is not called upon and should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution. We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction...​

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20090611....org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm