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

[Ask Mr. Religion]

More seriously, was that a time commentary or something else?

Augustine first approaches the subject in his De Civitate De (City of God). He gives it the fuller treatment in the work I cited above, The Literal Meaning of Genesis. He was quite taken by the six days aspect as the number six symbolized perfection. The discussion takes place as he wrestles with the nature of these six days.

AMR

 

[Stripe]

And the geocentric model was far more widely accepted (by theologians) in historic Christianity than a literal interpretation of the seven day account ever has been. Yet, that interpretive model has been almost completely rejected in modern Christianity due entirely to the arrival of new extra-biblical evidence.

The bible does not say "The Sun orbits the Earth".

The bible does say "Six days".

Time to talk about reality when discussing the bible rather than making up whatever you like to defend your precious evolutionism.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

You will pardon me if I proclaim my adherence to a book, the Bible, as it is my sole rule in all matters of life.

Once we admit evolution we now have to come up with some very fancy hermeneutical hoops to jump through to deal with the very clear literal meaning of days in Exodus 20:11. The Sabbath ordinance then comes into doubt. Next we have the first Adam as allegorical, so the last Adam is also allegorical. [FONT=&quot] Paul treats Adam as the first human sinner, not any of the assumed millions of humanoids needed by evolution. The Adam and Christ comparison in Romans depends upon a literal Adam. The Bible teaches that death came through Adamic sin. Millions of years of death and destruction prior to "Adam" turns that explanation upside down.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Context, hermeneutics, grammar, etc. all side with normal days. Only when one feels insecure in the face of naturalistic science do we have any reason for stretching "days" beyond their plain reading.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Rushdoony has a good book worth reading on the implications of abandoning the six day literal account: Revolt against Maturity http://www.amazon.com/Revolt-against-maturity-Biblical-psychology/dp/B0006F3YQQ [/FONT]

A review of the book is here.

 

[resurrected]

No Adam?

No sin.

No sin?

No condemnation.

No condemnation?

No need for salvation.

No need for salvation?

No need for Jesus.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God authored the physical world and the evidence we can find there, did He not?

If one thinks that God did not author the physical world, then one has obviously rejected the first and most obvious point of Genesis.

If He did author the physical world, then the evidence there is of the same authority as what can be found in scripture.

I am not quite sure what point you are making from my post. You seem to be trying to elevate creation as a co-equal partner to the sole rule of our life, the special revelation of God, the Bible. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. I do believe that there is no conflict between general and special revelation. Wherever truth is being discovered, it is God's truth. But let's not forget that sin distorts man's discoveries of the non-Christian world in secular fields.

AMR

 

[andyc]

If you don't believe God when he says he created the world in six days, why do you believe him about other things?

That's never been a problem for you. You don't believe 2/3 of the new testament.

 

[Paulos]

The bible does not say "The Sun orbits the Earth".

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the earth either rotates or revolves around the sun. However, there are many verses which state that the earth is stationary and that the sun revolves around the earth.

For example, regarding a stationary earth, Psalm 104:5 states that God "laid the foundations of the earth so that it should not be moved forever". Psalm 93:1 says that God established the earth "so that it cannot be moved". 1 Chronicles 16:30 says much the same thing.

Regarding the motion of the sun, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that the sun "rises, goes down, and hastens to the place where it arose". Likewise, Psalm 19:6 states that the sun completes a "circuit" around the earth, as it moves from one end of the sky to the other and then sets, only to rise again at the other end of the sky.

Clearly, these verses teach that the earth is stationary and that the sun revolves around the earth. So, where did you get the idea that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun?

 

[Lighthouse]

"morning and evening" have to be beginning and ending of a period.

It cannot be as we use it because the terms are used before the sun was made. v14

So what it was before the sun was made? It wasn't before light was made and separated from the darkness.

Then you read it again.

"made and created" is what is says.

Not "created and created" nor "made and made"

Please look closer.

"made and created"

two different words with two different meanings

When two different words are used with two different meanings, God knows what he is talking about.

oatmeal

:doh:

How are you so dense?

The very verses you posted that I left in the quote of your post use both words to mean the very same thing.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
-Genesis 1:26-27

God said, "Let us make man in our image..," and, "...God created man in His own image..,"

That's never been a problem for you. You don't believe 2/3 of the new testament.

Lying scum.

Believing certain things were written to and for certain people, and that some of those things were not written to us; the Body of Christ; does not equate to disbelieving them.

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the earth either rotates or revolves around the sun. However, there are many verses which state that the earth is stationary and that the sun revolves around the earth.

For example, regarding a stationary earth, Psalm 104:5 states that God "laid the foundations of the earth so that it should not be moved forever". Psalm 93:1 says that God established the earth "so that it cannot be moved". 1 Chronicles 16:30 says much the same thing.

Regarding the motion of the sun, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that the sun "rises, goes down, and hastens to the place where it arose". Likewise, Psalm 19:6 states that the sun completes a "circuit" around the earth, as it moves from one end of the sky to the other and then sets, only to rise again at the other end of the sky.

Clearly, these verses teach that the earth is stationary and that the sun revolves around the earth. So, where did you get the idea that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun?

So you don't know what figures of speech are? Why do you assume "world" means "earth"?

And even today we still say the sun rises and goes down, or sets, when we know it doesn't actually do so. It's not literal; it's about perspective.

Also, Psalm 104:5 is about the foundations not being moved.

 

[Paulos]

So you don't know what figures of speech are? ...And even today we still say the sun rises and goes down, or sets, when we know it doesn't actually do so. It's not literal; it's about perspective.

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.

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.

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.).

Why do you assume "world" means "earth"?

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.

Also, Psalm 104:5 is about the foundations not being moved.

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.

 

[annabenedetti]

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.

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.

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.).

:up:

 

[noguru]

I am not quite sure what point you are making from my post. You seem to be trying to elevate creation as a co-equal partner to the sole rule of our life, the special revelation of God, the Bible. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. I do believe that there is no conflict between general and special revelation. Wherever truth is being discovered, it is God's truth. But let's not forget that sin distorts man's discoveries of the non-Christian world in secular fields.
AMR

What I highlighted in black is certainly not what I am doing. I am not elevating anything of the sort. I am considering all evidence at hand from the various areas of inquiry.

I agree with what I put in blue. Any seeming conflict would be rooted in our subjective perspective and not the objective reality.

The sentence I put in purple is making a logically unwarranted conclusion. Just because I am a Christian does not mean I should ignore evidence from what you claim is a "secular field". Science is definitely nuetral in regard to including any assumption regarding the interpretation of a theological text, otherwise it would begin with a biased assumption regarding specific interpretations of that theological text.

This does not mean we should just toss out the evidence, simply because it may not confirm the initial interpretive assumption of a theological text. My whole point is and has been that the ancients lacked a modern scientific vocabulary and understanding of what has become modern science. I think that noting this is both honest and applicable in determining the various models in the specific science of origins.

I do not think God will fault me for being honest about this. I am not particularly concerned with what others might think about my attempts at being honest. I am accountable foremost to God and myself for being honest. If others do not appreciate that attempt, then that is their choice, and it might be their problem but it is not my problem.

 

[Stripe]

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the earth either rotates or revolves around the sun. However, there are many verses which state that the earth is stationary and that the sun revolves around the earth.

Nope.

That would be your commitment to a cartoon version of the bible.

For example, regarding a stationary earth, Psalm 104:5 states that God "laid the foundations of the earth so that it should not be moved forever". Psalm 93:1 says that God established the earth "so that it cannot be moved". 1 Chronicles 16:30 says much the same thing.

If you were prepared with a rational response to the "Six days" issue, perhaps we could discuss the theology and science of other matters. But since you will stick firmly to your "It's poetry" nonsense there is no point.

 

[noguru]

If you were prepared with a rational response to the "Six days" issue, perhaps we could discuss the theology and science of other matters. But since you will stick firmly to your "It's poetry" nonsense there is no point.

Paulos has demonstrated that he is well prepared with a rational response for this issue. Your inability to decipher what is rational has no bearing on the objective reality.

 

[noguru]

No Adam?

No sin.

No sin?

No condemnation.

No condemnation?

No need for salvation.

No need for salvation?

No need for Jesus.

There was an Adam whether he was born and grew into an adult or whether he was created as a fully grown adult. Therefore there is sin either way you slice it. Can you please discontinue posting this irrelevant comment again? Since it has been covered already a multitude of times. Perhaps you should work on developing your memory so that you can retain this information.

 

[Desert Reign]

Then you're equivocating on the definition of historical that is in use.

Genesis is historical narrative.

I agree with that statement (as regards Genesis ch 1).

But let me get this right: so you believe that the human writer of Genesis 1 was scientifically concerned about how species were differentiated and about geological processes and the like and that those were the issues he was trying to address? And that's what you call historical narrative?

 

[Stripe]

I agree with that statement (as regards Genesis ch 1).

Then we have no argument.

But let me get this right: so you believe that the human writer of Genesis 1 was scientifically concerned about how species were differentiated and about geological processes and the like and that those were the issues he was trying to address? And that's what you call historical narrative?

God was concerned with describing what He had done when nobody was there to see it. That is historical narrative.

I'm not sure why you would talk about species when He talked of kinds. There was very limited description of a geological process.

 

[resurrected]

You seem calmer today, so I'll give this a shot:

There was an Adam whether he was born and grew into an adult or whether he was created as a fully grown adult.

How do you know this?

Why don't you take the Adam tale as allusion or amplification or poetry?

Therefore there is sin either way you slice it.

You don't get to therefore without proving your premise.

Can you please discontinue posting this irrelevant comment again? Since it has been covered already a multitude of times.

If it's beyond your capacity to support, might I suggest that you just skim over it?

That way it won't cause you so much distress.

 

[resurrected]

For example, regarding a stationary earth, Psalm 104:5 states that God "laid the foundations of the earth so that it should not be moved forever". Psalm 93:1 says that God established the earth "so that it cannot be moved". 1 Chronicles 16:30 says much the same thing.

What do you suppose the author meant by "cannot be moved"?

I know - heck, my kids know - that you can move earth with a shovel.

I'd be very surprised if the ancients didn't also.

 

[Alate_One]

Nope.

That would be your commitment to a cartoon version of the bible.

Nope, that's your inability to recognize that if you interpret "six days" with literal, scientific importance, there's no reason to not interpret the other passages Paulos linked as literal "science teaching".

Again, historical records of what Christians believed show the geocentric model was UNIVERSALLY believed. There was no argument, unlike the creation stories.

The question isn't just "six days", it's how do you deal with extra-biblical evidence and what many parts of scripture plainly say. You're just as willing to turn anything that's a problem for you into "figurative language" based on extrabiblical knowledge as it suits you. That makes you a hypocrite.

 

[Desert Reign]

Then we have no argument.

God was concerned with describing what He had done when nobody was there to see it. That is historical narrative.

Like I said, I've no objection that this is history. It is only obvious that he is describing what happened before man was around. Modern geology and evolutionary biology is also attempting to describe what happened before man was around.
I'm talking about the human author. Are you suggesting that he understood Genesis 1 to be a scientific geological history? Please answer this question.

I'm not sure why you would talk about species when He talked of kinds. There was very limited description of a geological process.

Are you saying that the human writer understood and appreciated the difference between species and genus?