annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Okay.
Why does it say God created day and night on the first day? With an evening, and a morning?
-
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
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
Okay.
Why does it say God created day and night on the first day? With an evening, and a morning?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
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.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I've already given my reason.
Right Divider
Body part
Why does this seem like a problem for you?
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.
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 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
Yes, based on how his explanations fit 1. the text of the bible, and 2. the evidence examined in nature (geology, astronomy, etc.).
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 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.
Of course, everyone will say that about his own viewpoint.
They claim the same thing.
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.
"It's allegorical"?
That's your reason for why "six days" cannot mean "six days"?
You do realize how utterly inane that is, right?
Last edited:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
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
Of course. So what?
No, what I'd like is for you to respond to the point I made and stop deflecting the discussion over to something else.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
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.
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?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
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
What makes night and day? A fixed light shining on a rotating earth.
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.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Not in this thread, that's for sure. No one seems willing to touch the word with a ten foot pole.
Uh huh.
We know why you'll keep whining about this distraction instead of engaging substantively on the questions you've been challenged with.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
It must be quite a problem for you then.
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?
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?
Not really. I have the perfect tool to deal with such "problems."
Let's look at text that we should agree is allegorical. Here is a passage from the first chapter of Pilgrim's Progress.
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.
VS
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.
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
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: