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

[Ask Mr. Religion]

This is really worth reading as it fleshes out all the possible views:

http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.pdf

Web version:

http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html

The above are from my denomination. Here is one from another conservative denomination:

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

I believe in the calendar day interpretation - six literal days. I think this view best supports literal hermeneutic approaches and the nature of creation as fulfilment of divine fiat--something important when dealing with moral and theological matters. Creation is a moral prerogative of God and God alone. Once folks start nuancing Genesis we soon see this same sort of nuancing hermeneutic working its way into Paul's teachings about women, ordination, homosexuality, etc. Commiting to Genesis' historical view means we commit to the norms of nature as God so made it, thus there is no negotiation when it comes to what "male", "female", "be fruitful and multiply", "work", "Sabbath", and so much more really means.

[FONT=&quot]If it has not become evident yet, I strongly believe we pay a price when we attempt to make peace with evolution. Biblical authority, perspicuity, inerrancy, and original sin are the first casualties of this peace-making. Now some will say, well, the Genesis creation view debate is "not essential". To those I respond that there are no doctrines in Scripture that exist as islands. Let's not go down the accommodation road--that the Bible is accommodated to ancient science and may even factually be wrong. Where does it end? Is the Bible accommodated to ancient theology? Ancient morality? Denying the Bible of its right to speak to us counter-culturally will eviserate its authority and power.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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?

Moonbeams.......sigh.

 

[Town Heretic]

This is really worth reading as it deals with all the possible views:

http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.pdf

Web version:

http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html

I believe in the calendar day interpretation - six literal days. I think this view best supports literal hermeneutic approaches and the nature of creation as fulfilment of divine fiat--something important when dealing with moral and theological matters. Creation is a moral prerogative of God and God alone. Once folks start nuancing Genesis we soon see this same sort of nuancing hermeneutic working its way into Paul's teachings about women, ordination, homosexuality, etc. Commiting to Genesis' historical view means we commit to the norms of nature as God so made it, thus there is no negotiation when it comes to what "male", "female", "be fruitful and multiply", "work", "Sabbath", and so much more really means.

I don't see that, but I can appreciate the concern. It's probably because while I've read a good bit of theological consideration (your contributions noted and appreciated, by the way) my faith is really rooted in the experiential and a simple salvific message. Christ called me, he is God and this life is about responding to that, finding joy in his joy, purpose in his purpose for me and wisdom in relation.

[FONT=&quot]If it has not become evident yet, I strongly believe we pay a price when we attempt to make peace with evolution. Biblical authority, perspicuity, inerrancy, and original sin are the first casualties of this peace-making. Now some will say, well, the Genesis creation view debate is "not essential". To those I respond that there are no doctrines in Scripture that exist as islands. Let's not go down the accommodation road--that the Bible is accommodated to ancient science and may even factually be wrong. Where does it end? Is the Bible accommodated to ancient theology? Ancient morality? Denying the Bible of its right to speak to us counter-culturally will eviserate its authority and power.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

To me this isn't about evolutionary theory. It's more a discussion of literary address, of rhetoric and meaning and how we approach understanding it.

Thanks for the links. I'll give them a look. :e4e:

 

[Nick M]

He had one.

So do I. When he said six days, he really meant you are a troll. That makes about the same sense.

You're just still sore

I am not sore, not even after the run.

because you stuck your foot in your mouth

How so? When you mocked an easy target knowing you do the same thing? Get real.

trying to kick me with it for who knows what reason elsewhere.

Because you are a liberal hypcrite. Duh.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I don't see that, but I can appreciate the concern. It's probably because while I've read a good bit of theological consideration (your contributions noted and appreciated, by the way) my faith is really rooted in the experiential and a simple salvific message. Christ called me, he is God and this life is about responding to that, finding joy in his joy, purpose in his purpose for me and wisdom in relation.

Thank you for the kind words.

I can certainly appreciate this perspective, but I think seeking more than the experiential is important and too often neglected.

To me this isn't about evolutionary theory. It's more a discussion of literary address, of rhetoric and meaning and how we approach understanding it.

Indeed it is. My point is that once one departs from the literal hermeneutical approach to this historical account, one usually lands in the old earth camp, with all its assorted baggage.
Note:
By "literal" I mean "to follow the conventions of the particular literary form we are studying". By "historical" I mean that "what is being described actually happened in our space-time world".

Thanks for the links. I'll give them a look.

I was disappointed in the report's outcome, in that it left the decision of dealing with the issue of how Genesis is viewed within my denomination in the hands of the local sessions or presbyteries. Nevertheless, the report is a thorough treatment of all the common views as well as the arguments for and against.

AMR

 

[Town Heretic]

...When you mocked an easy target knowing you do the same thing? Get real.

Letsargue was declaring that he wouldn't consider anything other than his own opinion. You do realize that Observations is largely edited reposts of me doing the opposite of that don't you?

Hypocrisy would entail me doing what he's doing and criticizing him for it. That's not the case in my temporary closing of Observations, both because of what I just set out and because the people who sponsored the lock out weren't actually commenting on it or taking me to task on any particular point. I was avoiding spam. You know I don't avoid argument.

Because you are a liberal hypcrite. Duh.

You left out alien astronaut. Because I'm as much that as any of the other labels you feel like slapping on me to suit your apparently sour mood.

 

[Town Heretic]

Thank you for the kind words.

I appreciate your efforts.

I can certainly appreciate this perspective, but I think seeking more than the experiential is important and too often neglected.

I suspect balance is an ongoing concern no matter how you approach the Holy.

Indeed it is. My point is that once one departs from the literal hermeneutical approach to this historical account, one usually lands in the old earth camp, with all its assorted baggage.

I remain blissfully ignorant of much of this, honestly. Old/new, literal/poetic, I've met and keep counsel with the root of it. So it's more an intellectual curiosity than a particular concern. I wouldn't be upset at all if I had it wrong.

I was disappointed in the report's outcome, in that it left the decision of dealing with the issue of how Genesis is viewed within my denomination in the hands of the local sessions or presbyteries. Nevertheless, the report is a thorough treatment of all the common views as well as the arguments for and against.

I look forward to reading it.

 

[Ktoyou]

I appreciate your efforts.


I suspect balance is an ongoing concern no matter how you approach the Holy.


I remain blissfully ignorant of much of this, honestly. Old/new, literal/poetic, I've met and keep counsel with the root of it. So it's more an intellectual curiosity than a particular concern. I wouldn't be upset at all if I had it wrong.


I look forward to reading it.

I repped him saying you would understand it, but few others, I do and will be gald to make it clear; it is a great post!

 

[Ktoyou]

By "literal" I mean "to follow the conventions of the particular literary form we are studying".

Much like literary criticism, the text is approached by what method is accepted for the study

By "historical" I mean that "what is being described actually happened in our space-time world".

This is what some think is literal, yet there is a deference, as AMR boldly points out.

 

[noguru]

This is really worth reading as it fleshes out all the possible views:

http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.pdf

Web version:

http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html

I believe in the calendar day interpretation - six literal days. I think this view best supports literal hermeneutic approaches and the nature of creation as fulfilment of divine fiat--something important when dealing with moral and theological matters. Creation is a moral prerogative of God and God alone. Once folks start nuancing Genesis we soon see this same sort of nuancing hermeneutic working its way into Paul's teachings about women, ordination, homosexuality, etc. Commiting to Genesis' historical view means we commit to the norms of nature as God so made it, thus there is no negotiation when it comes to what "male", "female", "be fruitful and multiply", "work", "Sabbath", and so much more really means.

[FONT=&quot]If it has not become evident yet, I strongly believe we pay a price when we attempt to make peace with evolution. Biblical authority, perspicuity, inerrancy, and original sin are the first casualties of this peace-making. Now some will say, well, the Genesis creation view debate is "not essential". To those I respond that there are no doctrines in Scripture that exist as islands. Let's not go down the accommodation road--that the Bible is accommodated to ancient science and may even factually be wrong. Where does it end? Is the Bible accommodated to ancient theology? Ancient morality? Denying the Bible of its right to speak to us counter-culturally will eviserate its authority and power.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
AMR

Morality is not fluid like our understanding of it might be. Our understanding of the right and wrong action may change with deepening knowledge of the specifics, but for the most part it is only our understanding that is fluid and not the objective reality.

I would like to hear some specifics of how evolution, or anything in modern science for that matter, changes the theology and/or morality outlined in scripture rather than just our understanding of it. And how our deepening understanding of the objective reality around us is actually a negative factor in applying that absolute morality and theology?

 

[Desert Reign]

To me this isn't about evolutionary theory. It's more a discussion of literary address, of rhetoric and meaning and how we approach understanding it.

I agree with that. It has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Evolution is just a modern theory specific to our own age.

What is the principal concern of the author of the passage? This is set out in verse 2.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 **The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

In this translation (NKJV), a word in the Hebrew text has been omitted where I've placed a double asterisk. It's the word for 'and' or 'but'. Whatever it exactly means, it draws some kind of comparison or contrast with what precedes it. It doesn't mean that God made something and then it became bad - which would support a gap theory - and it doesn't mean that God made it bad, which is what the translation implies. Instead it's a literary comparison. It restarts the narrative at a point in time further back than the first verse so as to explain the purpose of the passage in terms creating order from the pre-existent chaos:

So:

verse 1: God begins his artistic creation.
verse 2: this creation narrative starts from the point where everything was in chaos. And what God was going to do was to bring order and intelligence and artistry to that chaos.

This is not to say that there was a primaeval chaos that had been in existence as long as God had been. It is just setting out a narrative theme that the acts of God are primarily acts of intelligence, not raw power.

The theme of creating order from chaos is illustrated in several ways in the passage:

God made the animals, trees, birds and fish each after their kind. Again, nothing to do with evolution but to emphasise that these things were not random organisms stuck here and there but each distinct and playing a role in the whole.

God made the sun and moon to create order in time. History could actually begin because time could now be counted.

God made man to govern that order and presumably to ensure that it did not revert to chaos. Man's first act was to establish the first taxonomy.

Primarily, the act of artistic creation was through separation. God switched on the light and then he went through the garage sorting out all the miscellaneous bits of junk into tools, spares, cleaning products and so on. And he put all the tools in one place, the cleaning products in another and so on until what was an utterly useless pile of junk became a beautiful, tidy workshop. And not content with a mere static work, he put in some living beings, a clock mechanism to make things move and some people to start and manage the process of life.

 

[Selaphiel]

[FONT=&quot]If it has not become evident yet, I strongly believe we pay a price when we attempt to make peace with evolution. Biblical authority, perspicuity, inerrancy, and original sin are the first casualties of this peace-making. Now some will say, well, the Genesis creation view debate is "not essential". To those I respond that there are no doctrines in Scripture that exist as islands. Let's not go down the accommodation road--that the Bible is accommodated to ancient science and may even factually be wrong. Where does it end? Is the Bible accommodated to ancient theology? Ancient morality? Denying the Bible of its right to speak to us counter-culturally will eviserate its authority and power.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
AMR

But we also pay a price if we choose to deny the results of an honest critical approach to reality. Evolution is not a matter of culture, it is a descriptive theory that explains our observations of nature, whose observations should hold up regardless of the culture of the observer.
This is the problem of many modern fundamentalist approaches to scripture, it reduces the religion to an adherence to a book, it essentially turns the Bible into an idol.
It is possible to adhere to understand the world as ultimately created by God and still accept the theory of evolution as well as other theories of science that are relevant to telling us about the origin of our planet and our universe. That is not to say that science has no impact on such ideas (on the contrary, I contest that they should), but rather that ideas of creation are ultimately metaphysical and not scientific.
It is simply a fact that the Bible is wrong on many things, it reflects a cosmology that is no longer tenable in light of modern scientific knowledge, or in some cases even the knowledge obtained in antiquity. But is communicating an eternally correct cosmology the central issue in scripture?
To make a long story short, a scientific theory does not cease to be accurate just because some religious groups see a problem with it. To take seriously the idea that God is truth, is to take knowledge and critical thinking seriously which is to take science seriously as a very important methodology to reveal truths about the natural world.

:e4e:

 

[chrysostom]

If it has not become evident yet, I strongly believe we pay a price when we attempt to make peace with evolution. Biblical authority, perspicuity, inerrancy, and original sin are the first casualties of this peace-making.

reason and logic are the first casualties to your approach

 

[noguru]

and that leads to people like you who believe it is important to believe that it is not important

Well as you just noted. I do not think we should sacrifice reason or logic in our defense of any position. I think that it is very imortant not to sacrifice those human tools in understanding the objective reality around us. Because when we sacrifice those, we are in essence saying "Talk to the hand, cause the face ain't listening".

You know that my dog likes to eat out of my cats litter box. I can't explain to the dog why that is not a good idea. So I must put a cover on the cat box to stop the dog from doing something that her instinct tells her to do. Can I blame the dog for doing things that her instinct tells her to do? If I could explain and the dog could understand, then I would not need the cover on the cat box.

What people who, without reason and logic, cling to a literal scientific interpretation of Genesis are doing, is expecting that humans should have had a modern view of science in a pre-scientific society. How does one explain to an animal, that is unaware of the nuances of his/her surroundings, all the intricate and complex scientific aspects that may be involved with right and wrong, before that animal is capable of understanding those nuances?

 

[Traditio]

Moonbeams.......sigh.

AMR: To my understanding, St. Augustine didn't believe that the 6 days were literal (check out the last few books of Confessions; also, he has a literal commentary on Genesis which I haven't read yet). His reasons were for these reasons: we know that God is eternal. "Eternal" means "doesn't change." If you take the 6 days literally, we find that God performed 6 different works on 6 different days. He started to do this work. He finished it. And then He stopped.

God can't do that; He exceeds time. Whatever these 6 days signify, they can't signify separate actions on the part of God which really succeeded each other. If you grant me the deuterocanonical books, there's even a verse which says as much, as I posted earlier: God "created all things together" (Sirah 18:1).

This is not to say that the creation story is false. On the contrary: I think it's absolutely true in the sense that it was intended, and there are many figurative interpretations which can be applied (St. Augustine mentions several).

Also, something that I've never seen Protestants consider: St. Augustine pays special attention to the fact that Genesis tells us that God made Heaven and earth before the 6 days. He understands this as the creation of the spiritual creation and prime matter respectively, which are not subject to temporal change. Well if a created thing (prime matter or an angel) isn't subject to the alteration of the 6 days, then how can God?

 

[Desert Reign]

contd....

In God's garage there aren't just piles of similar things in random places. In God's garage the shelves are specially designed for what they contain. Special shelves for power tools, special containers for oil, special racks for drill bits and so on. In keeping with the theme of order, God first creates the shelves:

day 1: light / darkness
day 2: sea and air
day 3: land and vegetation.

Then he makes the things that go on those shelves:
day 4 (for the light and darkness in day 1) sun and moon respectively
day 5 (for the sea and air in day 2) fish and birds respectively
day 6 (for the land and vegetation in day 3) humans and animals respectively.

Of course 'day' is being used as a placeholder here. 'Day' means just a normal literal day; that is undisputed and those who say it means a thousand years on the basis of some New Testament text written over a thousand years later are wrong. Does that mean that no one could have understood this passage correctly until Peter? Of course not! It means a day of 24 hours.

But the 24 hours is completely irrelevant to the message being conveyed in just the same way that when we say "I am going to table this motion at the next meeting", it is completely irrelevant whether the table in question is made of oak or ash or whether it has 4 legs or 6.

The entire scheme is arranged so as to show one message: that God made his creation with purpose and with order. This is the historical truth.

This particular historical truth has nothing to do with how old the Earth is or how species are different or similar or what the history of that process might have been. It is absolutely antithetical to the idea that the present state of the world is due to random accidents. And I sometimes feel that evolutionists like to glory in the idea that life is completely meaningless and that they are proud of their supposed protozoan heritage.

But on the other hand I have the feeling that many Christians also like to glory in their foolishness in just the same way and they think that unless they are fools then they cannot be Christian. The Bible says that if we pursue righteousness then we will be persecuted - it doesn't say that we have to go out of our way to be persecuted in order to be righteous. It's not that way round. The Bible says that the message of the cross is foolishness to unbelieving philosophers but it doesn't say that we have to become fools in order to prove that we are preaching that message. It's not that way round. To read Genesis 1 as meaning that God created the world in a specific order with light before the sun and with all species fixed in their places in 6 days of 24 hours is just trying one's hardest to look like a fool and is missing the real message.

I did say 'some' Christians, didn't I? Yes, I do mean Stripe and a few others here but I don't mean everybody. And I did say 'some' evolutionists didn't I (or 'sometimes')? And I don't mean all of them of course. YEC is giving Christianity a bad name.

 

[Stripe]

I made the mistake of asking my old friend Stripe to explain a few things, including his thinking on the whole.

I answered. "Six days" means what it plainly says. If you want to believe it means something else, you have to give good reason.

Still no good reason from you. Bible still says "Six days".

 

[Alate_One]

contd....

In God's garage there aren't just piles of similar things in random places. In God's garage the shelves are specially designed for what they contain. Special shelves for power tools, special containers for oil, special racks for drill bits and so on. In keeping with the theme of order, God first creates the shelves:

day 1: light / darkness
day 2: sea and air
day 3: land and vegetation.

Then he makes the things that go on those shelves:
day 4 (for the light and darkness in day 1) sun and moon respectively
day 5 (for the sea and air in day 2) fish and birds respectively
day 6 (for the land and vegetation in day 3) humans and animals respectively.

Of course 'day' is being used as a placeholder here. 'Day' means just a normal literal day; that is undisputed and those who say it means a thousand years on the basis of some New Testament text written over a thousand years later are wrong. Does that mean that no one could have understood this passage correctly until Peter? Of course not! It means a day of 24 hours.

But the 24 hours is completely irrelevant to the message being conveyed in just the same way that when we say "I am going to table this motion at the next meeting", it is completely irrelevant whether the table in question is made of oak or ash or whether it has 4 legs or 6.

I agree with basically everything you said here. However, I take issue with this:

It is absolutely antithetical to the idea that the present state of the world is due to random accidents. And I sometimes feel that evolutionists like to glory in the idea that life is completely meaningless and that they are proud of their supposed protozoan heritage.

Here is where the problem is. For the Christian, no event should be considered a "random accident". Was it a random accident that a young man from Macedonia conquered much of the world and brought a common language with him? This would sow the seeds for the later spread of Christianity. Is that any more of an accident than the various events that have moved living organisms in one direction or another in terms of evolutionary path?

Christians should be careful not to tangle an atheistic teleology up with evolution as a natural process. The two do not have to go together.

 

[Stripe]

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.

Ah, great. Another "it's poetry therefore it isn't history" argument. Here we have the name of the kind of poetry. This makes it easy to look for other examples of chiasms in the bible. Many of those are chiasms describing what you would expect even the evolutionists to concede as historical.

The "it's poetry" argument is dead in the water.

What you need is a good reason, not the same reason that has been shot full of holes repeated ad nauseum

Good luck getting an answer.

I got lots of answers.

missing the real message

Accepting your "real message" as a valid out-take from Genesis does nothing to show it must not be historical narrative.

Evolutionists. Utterly devoid of good reasons since 1906.

 

[Desert Reign]

I agree with basically everything you said here. However, I take issue with this:

Here is where the problem is. For the Christian, no event should be considered a "random accident". Was it a random accident that a young man from Macedonia conquered much of the world and brought a common language with him? This would sow the seeds for the later spread of Christianity. Is that any more of an accident than the various events that have moved living organisms in one direction or another in terms of evolutionary path?

Christians should be careful not to tangle an atheistic teleology up with evolution as a natural process. The two do not have to go together.

All right. On the Nazaroo thread you (or was it Noguru?) said that mutations were errors of copying. I don't mind if you want to avoid the word 'random' but 'error' is not really different. A sum total of errors does not equate to purpose. Natural selection is stated to be the driver of change but this is then surely an exaggeration because the change (=mutation) has already occurred before natural selection has operated. But maybe you are right. The nearest thing I can think of in relation to traditional evolutionary theory is that God controlled the environment in order to ensure that certain developments occurred and not others. But even this idea is somewhat insipid and I can easily think of lots of contrary vps. The fact is that biota are a part of their own environment and this to my mind is a nail in the coffin of traditional evolutionary theory: there cannot possibly be any development from simple to complex - only a continuous, directionless process of adaptation to circumstances.

But as to Alexander, I have no issue with that: the Bible records what happened. If it had happened differently, it would have recorded that. Those who are hung up on predestination seem to think that everything in the Bible had to happen the way it did. Of course it didn't. If the New Testament had been written in Aramaic, that would have changed nothing. Apart from I would have been an expert in that language and not ancient Greek...