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

IMJerusha

New member
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.

Why? Well, you can make the alternative to a literal six day creation fit into your reverential attitude of God as many others can but there are every bit as many who can't due to their immaturity, so in pushing one view over another, we give impetus to the agenda of HaSatan in that immature believers then begin, as Nick mentioned, to question the validity of the rest of God's word. There is wisdom in being a kid at heart and care for the Body as a whole.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Yes. . . and it is very important to believe so.

Genesis is a history book that recounts actual persons and events. It is not a vision of the future, like the Book of Revelation which cannot be read literally in its entirety, but Genesis should be read literally. For Genesis establishes most of the foundational doctrines of the bible.
 

IMJerusha

New member
Yes. . . and it is very important to believe so.

Genesis is a history book that recounts actual persons and events. It is not a vision of the future, like the Book of Revelation which cannot be read literally in its entirety, but Genesis should be read literally. For Genesis establishes most of the foundational doctrines of the bible.


As those who truly understand Christianity's foundational faith (Judaism) will attest to. The Tanakh supports B'rit Chadashah and B'rit Chadashah fulfills the Tanakh.
http://www.jewfaq.org/origins.htm
 

resurrected

BANNED
Banned
I have a question for those who believe the creation of Genesis 1 is metaphorical. At what point in the Book of Genesis does it become factual/historical? Do you believe that Abraham/Issac/Jacob/Joseph were real historical figures? Or is the entire Book of Genesis metaphorical?

Good question.

I'd go farther and ask them if they believe that Adam was a real actual living human being as Luke thought, or if Abraham was a real actual living human being as Matthew thought.

How do you determine what is literal and what is allegorical?

Was the Creation allegorical?
The Flood?
Abraham and Isaac?
Exodus?
The Resurrection?
Salvation?

Do you take any of it literally?

If so, why?




Anybody else out there who thinks "six days" doesn't mean six days care to take a crack at this?
 

tomlapalm

New member
Why? Well, you can make the alternative to a literal six day creation fit into your reverential attitude of God as many others can but there are every bit as many who can't due to their immaturity, so in pushing one view over another, we give impetus to the agenda of HaSatan in that immature believers then begin, as Nick mentioned, to question the validity of the rest of God's word. There is wisdom in being a kid at heart and care for the Body as a whole.

We should question God's word to our understanding. It will stand. Truth will stand. We shouldn't change it to fit our understanding.

The positions/errors we should reject must become apparent under reproof.

This type of error is from English bias
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
OK, someone needs a lesson in how to speak and read.
:plain: Wonderful. That really changes...nothing...ever.

When you read something you need to engage your brain because there are things called inferences, metaphors and other things.
You mean right after Genesis. :rolleyes:

So far as I can see it, we both believe that God is the author of creation and that Genesis speaks to this. You see six days as the context determining how we read everything around it and I see everything around it as the context for how we read six days.

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.
Rather, you choose to understand the literary device in use, the approach that isn't literal. No where does the scripture state it as less than or other than literal. You apply a larger understanding to arrive at the context.

Just so. And for your pains there would undoubtedly been someone to call you stupid, your understanding at odds with God's word, etc. There's never a shortage of that sort of person.

Now the rarer thing to find, when you're less than dead set on a proposition and curious about how others could read it differently, as I was at the outset of this thing that should have been a conversation, is to find someone who can say, "I understand why you think that, but have you considered this..." or "Well, I'd agree if not for this..."

That sort of person is interested in illuminating a truth...which begs the question, what are you interested in doing?

This..this I'm not interested in. If you know someone who shares your opinion who'd actually like to tell me why and help me see that side of it better tell them to give me a nudge.

:e4e:
 

genuineoriginal

New member
You see six days as the context determining how we read everything around it and I see everything around it as the context for how we read six days.
Would you mind explaining how you get around the whole light-dark, day-night, "and it was evening, and it was morning", parts that provide the context for how we read six days?
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Would you mind explaining how you get around the whole light-dark, day-night, "and it was evening, and it was morning", parts that provide the context for how we read six days?
I don't know what you mean by get around and I'm not particularly entrenched. That's why I made the mistake of asking my old friend Stripe to explain a few things, including his thinking on the whole.

Here's the gist, if you're going to ascribe the willful creation of the universe, poetically or not, you're going to touch on the earth and the things that take our immediate notice, our frame of reference. If you're trying to set out a literal description then poetry only gets in the way, as it would with geneology. It's no help. I'd be happy to go into it with you but it won't be today. I'm too disappointed and weary of the sort of squabbling that wasn't remotely my intent or interest in becoming embroiled in. That sort of thing is why I mostly leave off on religious topics except in defense of the faith among its detractors.

PM me if you want to go into it and I'll get back to you as soon as I'm able.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
I don't know what you mean by get around and I'm not particularly entrenched.
I am entrenched in the belief that the story in the Bible shows that God created the earth in six literal 12 hour days (He didn't work at night).
I get this from the context of Genesis 1, which makes sure that the "day" is not confused with something else by describing the difference between light (called Day) and darkness (called Night), and the repetition of "and it was evening, and it was morning" to show that the six days are six consecutive periods of light separated by periods of darkness.

I do not see any other way to read this, not when so much trouble was taken to ensure that there was no confusion.

If you do not want to discuss this further on this thread, thank you for your time.

:e4e:
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
How do you determine what is literal and what is allegorical?
Normally, literary genre. one of the problems with this question is the line between straight history and symbolic/mythic retelling is somewhat blurred in ancient near eastern culture (ANE). Most stories are re-told with particular emphasis to make a particular point. (Compare Kings and Chronicles)

Was the Creation allegorical?
I wouldn't call it allegory per se. But it's not intended as a literal re-telling of history either, though some aspects may be intended at least partly historically (esp. the story of Adam and Eve).

The Flood?
The flood has some of the same literary elements as Genesis, the basis is likely an actual flood, though not likely one on a global scale.

Shown below is a chiasm - a particular literary style in the ANE. It may have served as a mnemonic device (for oral transmission) as well as a literary one.
Code:
A Noah (6:10a)
__B Shem, Ham, and Japheth (10b)
___C Ark to be built (14-16)
____D Flood announced (17)
_____E Covenant with Noah (18-20)
______F Food in the ark (21)
_______G Command to enter the ark (7:1-3)
________H 7 days waiting for flood (4-5)
_________I 7 days waiting for flood (7-10)
__________J Entry to ark (11-15)
___________K YHWH shuts Noah in (16)
____________L 40 days flood (17a)
_____________M Waters increase (17b-18)
______________N Mountains covered (19-20)
_______________O 150 days water prevail (21-24)

________________P GOD REMEMBERS NOAH (8:1)

_______________O’ 150 days waters abate (3)
______________N’ Mountain tops visible (4-5)
_____________M’ Waters abate (5)
____________L’ 40 days (end of) (6a)
___________K’ Noah opens window of ark (6b)
__________J’ Raven and dove leave ark (7-9)
_________I’ 7 days waiting for waters to subside (10-11)
________H’ 7 days waiting for waters to subside (12-13)
_______G’ Command to leave ark (15-17 [22])
______F’ Food outside ark (9:1-4)
_____E’ Covenant with all flesh (8-10)
____D’ No flood in the future (11-17)
___C’ Ark (18a)
__B’ Shem, Ham and Japheth (18b)
A’ Noah (19)

Abraham and Isaac?
Exodus?
There are still literary devices even within these stories. They are written in a more narrative style, however.

There are also lots of cultural practices that are confirmed in contemporary, non-biblical sources. This also indicates there is a true

The Resurrection?
Salvation?
Both are presented as stories coming from eyewitnesses, rather different from the earlier books of the bible.

Do you take any of it literally?

If so, why?
Of course, some of the Bible is clearly intended as historical narrative, some is apocalyptic literature with obscure meaning (parts of Daniel, Revelation and Ezekiel). Others are songs and sayings (Psalms, proverbs). Each has to be understood in the appropriate genre and context. We can read on the surface and take all scripture the same way, but this will inevitably cause distortions in our understanding. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
 

Paulos

New member
Anybody else out there who thinks "six days" doesn't mean six days care to take a crack at this?

This guy does:

I'm not a YEC...I don't interpret Genesis 1 as a historical text.

Why do you insist on interpreting a composite secondary account of the flood, found in Genesis,
which is obviously far younger than similar flood accounts in ancient cuneform tablets from Sumeria,
as literal detailed accounts,
when it is obvious they have been heavily edited and truncated,
and in fact recast for children's story-telling?

If you understand the Genesis account for what it is,
namely a Jewish children's story commented upon by Jewish priests,
to reflect later food-law restrictions,
then you'd know you can't rely upon it as a detailed scientific historical account...


Its a cartoon sketch for kids...


Why bring up the question of the reliability of ancient documents
regarding an event filtered through thousands of years and ideological
and didactic purposes?
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
Anybody else out there who thinks "six days" doesn't mean six days care to take a crack at this?

"He that liveth for ever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king for ever" (Ecclesiasticus 18:1). I think that this is a favorite quote of St. Augustine's.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I believe Genesis 1 is a historical account. It records the actual history of what God did to make the world and how he did it and his motives.

However, what it says about that history has nothing to do with answering the concerns of modern western man about geological and biological history. The ancient near easterners had no concern over such matters but that doesn't stop them being interested in some aspects of what actually happened.

We can't expect the human authors of the Bible to answer our specific cultural questions. If this were so, then the Bible would have to change in every generation. Rather, the onus is on us to understand what questions they were asking and answering when the text was first written.

To understand them, our first task is to understand the meanings of the words used.

Bara: = created. There are two words in Hebrew bara and asah. Asah is used in the same sense as our word 'do' or 'make'. Bara however is used mainly of artistic creation. I don't believe the ancient Israelites had any concept of Platonic thought and in general they were quite a monistic or earth centred people. Bara does not mean created out of nothing. It means created of a work of art. So the creation isn't just God's handiwork - that is an understatement - the passage is not about God's power but about God's intelligence, his wisdom, his planning, his personality, his order, his beauty, all the things that make a work of art what it is. That is the primary emphasis of the passage.

Let me reiterate: I believe this is true history and the truth is that God is an artist and the world is his artwork.

Perhaps more after some sleep.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
God, according to scripture, said it was a creation in six days, for God, it is six days. For me, I do not know what today is, so, why should I argue?

He said the evening and the morning were the first day. That isn't a metaphor. It means what it says. Don't you think?
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
"He that liveth for ever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king for ever" (Ecclesiasticus 18:1). I think that this is a favorite quote of St. Augustine's.

Do you have a favorite quote of Saint Saul? Called Paul in Greek? He is our apostle you know. He was assigned to our ministry. Simon bar Jonah (Peter) was assigned to the circumcision.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Good luck getting an answer.
He had one. You're just still sore because you stuck your foot in your mouth trying to kick me with it for who knows what reason elsewhere.

I offered an opinion. When Stripe engaged me I gave him the beginning of what I hoped would be a clarifying discussion. As I said at the beginning, I'm not wedded to either reading, but my inclination is to see it as a non literal, poetic illustration of God's authority and authorship of creation. Instead of giving me reasons to think otherwise and answers/invitations to explore the alternative he rested on "It says six days!" and offering insults/making demands and declaring all sorts of things that suited him.

Too bad. Too bad for you too in this and that other approach I mentioned. But it's your dime. :e4e:
 
Top