• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Allegory/Symbolism in Genesis 1

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
all the matter of the universe in one place that was spread out on day 4

Okay.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

day one earth and light without form but both in existence on day one
day two and three gave form to the earth
day four form to the light

Why does it say God created day and night on the first day? With an evening, and a morning?
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
While holding the literal view is not a salvific issue, it is unchristian to hold that view, which is to say that the non-literal view is in contradiction to the Christian worldview. More accurately, it is in contradiction to the biblical worldview in that the early chapters of Genesis isn't the only place where the bible explicitly (i.e. not in figurative or in any sort of poetic language) affirms a six day creation.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ ”


I'm aware of those verses. Would you like to take on yom and yamim?

In both verses, God says the Israelites shall work “six yamim” and rest on the seventh because “in six yamim” God created everything and rested on the seventh.​
Every major English translation translates yamim in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 as “days.”​
But the English translations do not specify what kind of “days.”​
“Days” has several literal meanings, including 24-hour-days, daylight hours (as in “I work days”), and indefinite time-periods (as in “the days of the Dinosaurs” or “back in your days”).​
Nor does the text specify consecutive days. Indeed, the word “in” is not in the original Hebrew verses.​
And there is no demand in the text for a literal interpretation. It could be allegorical, metaphorical, or symbolic.​
The point is that, while it is reasonable to interpret these verses as specifying creation of everything in six, consecutive 24-hour-days, it is also reasonable to interpret them as specifying creation over long time-periods. The text is ambiguous.​
 

Right Divider

Body part
Why does it say God created day and night on the first day?
Why does this seem like a problem for you?
With an evening, and a morning?
Gen 1:3-5 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (1:4) And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (1:5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Why does it say God created day and night on the first day? With an evening, and a morning?

It doesn't.

What it says is that God created light, then DIVIDED the light from the darkness, and He called the darkness Night and the light Day.

And evening and morning (the rotation of the earth with light on one side, and darkness on the other), was the first day.

I'm aware of those verses. Would you like to take on yom and yamim?

In both verses, God says the Israelites shall work “six yamim” and rest on the seventh because “in six yamim” God created everything and rested on the seventh.​
Every major English translation translates yamim in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 as “days.”​
But the English translations do not specify what kind of “days.”​
“Days” has several literal meanings, including 24-hour-days, daylight hours (as in “I work days”), and indefinite time-periods (as in “the days of the Dinosaurs” or “back in your days”).​
Nor does the text specify consecutive days. Indeed, the word “in” is not in the original Hebrew verses.​
And there is no demand in the text for a literal interpretation. It could be allegorical, metaphorical, or symbolic.​
The point is that, while it is reasonable to interpret these verses as specifying creation of everything in six, consecutive 24-hour-days, it is also reasonable to interpret them as specifying creation over long time-periods. The text is ambiguous.​

What you and the person you are apparently quoting are apparently forgetting or worse, ignoring, is that the meaning of the word is determined by the context.

The context of Genesis 1 does not allow for any meaning of yom/yamim other than a 24-hour period.

By ignoring the context, it has resulted in your confusion.
 

Derf

Well-known member
The difference is that we do NOT claim that Dr. Walt Brown is correct because he's an expert. We claim that his explanations are scientifically valid.
Yes, based on how his explanations fit 1. the text of the bible, and 2. the evidence examined in nature (geology, astronomy, etc.).
We don't compare two sets of authorities, we compare their explanations of the facts.
I'm not sure how one would go about comparing two authorities (or sets thereof), except to compare their explanations. And their explanations can be compared to see which one fits the data better.
The literal six day creation of consistent with the facts throughout scripture, the "poetry/allegory/symbolism" story is not.
The problem with the allegorical/symbolical explanation is that the text can be used to support anything and everything--not that it isn't consistent. By its nature it doesn't have to be consistent. It becomes unfalsifiable, because it can handle any change in scientific knowledge--just change the details of the symbology a little. It provides no basis for predictions. In that way, the text of the bible is made irrelevant.

No authority is for @annabenedetti's position. Were she to seek out authority and be willing to agree with authority, then she would be one of our fellow young-earth creationists.
Of course, everyone will say that about his own viewpoint.
You don't consider believing what God states in Genesis 1 to be sticking with God?
They claim the same thing.
God is only "authority" and not authority?

You're lumping God in as one of two sets of "authorities"?

When we make the claim that our authority is God, and they make the claim that their authority is God, yes. At least one side is not correct, but both are making the same claim. Both sides can claim "I'm sticking with God", but when the views oppose each other, both can't be right. To find out which is right, you have to compare the views...or show one view to be substantially more able to fit actual data. Here's where some are led astray, because the data also has to be interpreted, just like the text. Many Christians fall for the other view because the data has been interpreted to ascribe billions of years to creation, and therefore the other view appears to be more correct to them.

There is a fair amount of data whose interpretation currently speaks of times greater than the 6000-10,000 year timeframe our view demands. Thus it drives the biblical interpretation toward the allegorical/symbolical. If you were to find that the current scientific interpretation of billions of years were correct, there are only two options: 1. change your interpretation of the bible, or 2. ditch the bible altogether. That's why there are atheists and theistic evolutionists today that used to be young earth creationists. While we don't depend on faith to interpret Gen 1 literally, we depend on faith to confirm the interpretation in a number of areas that currently haven't been confirmed, in order to believe in the literal Gen 1 interpretation.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I don't know your position on the hydroplate theory espoused by many here, but those "many" would call Walt Brown an authority, though not an infallible one. Anna has the right to seek out authorities for her position, too. These might be rabbis, or Hebrew experts, or her uncle who told her bed-time stories as a child.

It's no different than us saying "I'll stick with God," if someone has already had to translate the words for us or someone has to develop a system by which to understand the words. It's pitting our "authority" against hers. And that's ok--now let's find out how good her uncle was at telling stories. Let's compare the two sets of "authorities" to see which we should believe.
What's technically an authority? This is one of those times when we have to come to terms, to have a meeting of the minds. What if I have my authorities, but I don't recognize any of the people whom you consider to be authorities? Then I'm just begging the question, aren't I? If I just don't acknowledge your authorities as technically real, then therefore according to me, all of the existing authorities are all already on my side! So therefore I win. There isn't even a need for a discussion. This is just condescending question-begging.

Once we establish that we agree on terms, now we can analyze the problem you've identified. The problem is that my authorities all say one thing, but your authorities all say another. And the claims in question are contraries if not contradictories; in either case they both cannot be true (though two contraries could both be false, no more than one of them, or one of two contradictories, can be true).

So in this case, in this problem, how can we know which authority to appeal to? In order to successfully argue our claim?

Such matters are actually just no longer amenable to being supported, sustained, substantiated, by an appeal to authority.

All the time, for example, all the MD's say one thing and all the DO's say another (osteopaths). Which one is right?

We just can't rely upon appeal to authority. They're both valid authorities (MD's and DO's), they're both technically authorities. But even if it were MD's against witch doctors, to come to terms with me, you have to admit that my authorities are technically authorities. Then we can proceed to the constructive phase, beyond bickering, which is the recognition that if we are basing our view in the matter on any kind of appeal to authority, then that is ipso facto a fallacy. We are obligated to fix that blind spot in our perception and or consciousness.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
They claim the same thing.

They claim, with us, that to believe God created the heaven and the earth in six 24-hour days is to stick with God? That's news to me.

When we make the claim that our authority is God, and they make the claim that their authority is God

Remember, they're not appealing to God, so they're not appealing to authority; they're only appealing to "authority"--to someone who is not God. Do they claim that their "authority," their non-authority, is God?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It's not a deflection, the words are related. And no one seems willing to talk about them.
Except for the — literally — thousands of posts that have been penned on that word and its many uses.

It is a deflection. You assert — contrary to scripture — that the world is billions of years old, but are for some reason desperate to convince people that you do not deny the Bible.

Your inane distractions to the conversation are obvious, even if it is impossible to fathom why you would take such a path.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
It doesn't.

What it says is that God created light, then DIVIDED the light from the darkness, and He called the darkness Night and the light Day.

And evening and morning (the rotation of the earth with light on one side, and darkness on the other), was the first day.

What makes night and day? A fixed light shining on a rotating earth.

What you and the person you are apparently quoting are apparently forgetting or worse, ignoring, is that the meaning of the word is determined by the context.

The context of Genesis 1 does not allow for any meaning of yom/yamim other than a 24-hour period.

By ignoring the context, it has resulted in your confusion.

The YEC context does not allow for any other meaning of yom/yamim because YEC *needs* the context to be a 24 hour period. Which is a shame, Christianity doesn't hinge on a YEC, it hinges on the saving power of Christ.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
For example, you say that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says "because it's allegorical."

You do realize how utterly inane that assessment is, right?

Why is it allegorical? Why do you believe that?

How does the use of allegory dictate that elements of a story cannot be accurate?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Let's look at text that we should agree is allegorical. Here is a passage from the first chapter of Pilgrim's Progress.

20221108_053036.jpg

Are we to believe that the author did not mean one literal night because the book is an allegory of the Christian faith?

That is what you're asking us to believe about Genesis, which calls itself an account of history, not an allegory.


This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, - Genesis 2:4



VS

20221108_054032.jpg

According to Anna, we are supposed to believe that the allegory means one day when it says one day, but the account of history means billions of years when it says six days.

Why?

Give us good reason.
 
Last edited:
Top