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

[Lighthouse]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you can figure it out if you think about it a little longer.

I don't need to think about it any longer to know what you were implying, I got that the moment I read your post. It's a failure of an argument.

 

[noguru]

Brother, you keep pointing this out, but I am awaiting something substantive that speaks to the points I have made earlier to support your warrant that the hermeneutic I and the church has held now needs to be thrown out and supplanted with something else. For example, I offered a few starting points, repeated once more:

These persons {who would deny the grammtico-historical method} bear the burden to argue:

- we have not read Genesis thoroughly, skipping nothing, adding nothing
- we have not understood the passage(s) correctly as narratives
- we do not have the right rules for interpreting narrative texts
- that there is no such thing as a narrative text
- that God does not intend an essential meaning for a passage of text that remains the same throughout all time and places
- and so on.

I am at a loss as to why we need to continue this back and forth until the issues above are taken up by those that would argue the Genesis creation account is poetry or something other than a historical narrative. Those that have attempted to do so immediately begin by discounting the grammatico-historical hermeneutic method. They offer no warrant for so doing other than to support their position concerning the Genesis account. Again, I must say that just won't do. These persons are (1) entrenched in their view that scientific theories about the age of the earth are in fact truths, or (2) they begin with no presupposition that a Triune God exists and created the world out of nothing, or (3) they are simply feeling embarrassed to admit otherwise (e.g., M. Kline) and want to come up with something to appease the secular academy because they have bought into their rhetoric that any sort of young earth view means one is a bible-thumping wacko.

I don't have a problem being considered odd by those with whom I associate. For at risk from capitulation is the nature of God, God's power, God's goodness, the nature of man created in His image, but fallen because of sin, the consequences and nature of sin, the nature of marriage, the origin of death and an enemy, the meaning and origin of work, the origin of the weekly day of rest, the first and last Adam, and so much more.

AMR

I have attempted to get to square one with you in regard to addressing your concerns. But you will not even follow me there, because you want all of it answered prior to even considering how we should revisit square one. With all due respect brother, you are the one who has the unreasnable expecation in this regard. And in the end that will not be my undoing.

 

[Desert Reign]

Originally from Desert Reign

But you understand it so can you please answer - did the original human author have any concerns about speciation?

Was he addressing the issue of speciation or taxonomy? Was he addressing the issue of geology or tectonics or earth movements generally?


Originally Posted by Stripe
:AMR:

No.

No.

Good. So you are in agreement that the original author did not address the issues that modern biologists or geologists try to address?

And no answer was the outspoken reply.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Perhaps you can answer the question I've asked of Stripe. The first three days of the Genesis account have evening and morning, without the sun, moon and stars. Do you think that speaks to a literal, chronological recounting of events?

Morning and evening simply dilineate the rotation of the earth on its axis, one revolution per 24 hour period. It is a literal chronological account of the historical narrative.

Do you think the pattern of separating in a set of three days followed by filling of those spaces has any bearing on the meaning of the text as a chronological account vs. a logical construct? (ex a topical account rather than an ordered one)

The Genesis account shows God in three days making the uninhabitable earth productive and in three more days filling the uninhabited earth with life.

The six days of God creating begin with God speaking.

As noted above, the words day, night, evening, and morning indicate the beginning of the rotation of the earth on the first day. The Hebrew 'ehad ("one" day, "second day", etc.) is used as an ordinal number, supporting this view.

As noted in the Genesis account, from "the beginning", God is making divisions, as He does throughout Scripture: Holy Place vs. Holy of Holies, Israel from other nations, holy vs. profane, clean vs. unclean, etc.

As to the rest of your assertions, I refer you back to the exchanges with noguru and state once more that anyone attempting to mount a defense of a position that falls outside the six, twenty-four hour day view must first establish that the grammatico-historical hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture has been misused by the church militant and should be abandoned.

"In the beginning God" is vitally important and cannot be construed to mean other than creation ex nihilo (from nothing). This is easily deduced from the good and necessary consequence of Scripture. In the beginning implies as much. The Hebrew bara (create) does as well, likewise formless and void. The New Testament confirms the same conclusion, for example, see Hebrews 11:3, Romans 4:17, and John 1:3. The verse's emphasis concerns the origin of the universe--God. God is eternal and everything that exists, existed, or will exist owes its origin to God.

From this singular phrase, we find atheism, pantheism, polytheism, materialism, naturalism (evolution), and fatalism refuted. Q.E.D.

AMR

 

[Stripe]

And no answer was the outspoken reply.

The original author was God. He wrote a historical account of His creation work in the six days.

 

[Alate_One]

Morning and evening simply dileneate the rotation of the earth on its axis, one revolution per 24 hour period. It is a literal chronological account of the historical narrative.

Morning and evening are defined by the presence and absence of light. We now know this is caused by the rotation of the earth with respect to a light source, however there is no mention of the earth's rotation in the text. However we see in Genesis 1:5, that day and night is marked by the presence or absence of light.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

So the question is, where is the light coming from that's defining day and night?


There's also this:

And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Perhaps you can explain what the firmament is?

The Hebrew 'ehad ("one" day, "second day", etc.) is used as an ordinal number, supporting this view.

From what I've read, the first day at least is a cardinal number "one day".

As noted in the Genesis account, from "the beginning", God is making divisions, as He does throughout Scripture: Holy Place vs. Holy of Holies, Israel from other nations, holy vs. profane, clean vs. unclean, etc.

Indeed, but the point I was making was the particular correlation of the separation in day one to the filling in day four, separation in day two, filling in day five and separation in day three and filling in day 6.

This parallels the "formless and void" phrase at the beginning of the passage. Basically creating form and then filling it, a logical construct.

As to the rest of your assertions, I refer you back to the exchanges with noguru and state once more that anyone attempting to mount a defense of a position that falls outside the six, twenty-four hour day view must first establish that the grammtico-historical hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture has been misused by the church militant and should be abandoned.

I would question whether this particular hermaneutic has actually been the only historical viewpoint of the church. Others have been used. This is a short summary of views

 

[Alate_One]

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20090611....org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm

:listen: AMR is PCA, not PCUSA.

 

[Paulos]

:listen: AMR is PCA, not PCUSA.

I know. It's still worth a read.

 

[Alate_One]

I know. It's still worth a read.

Indeed I don't disagree with the statement, though I probably would disagree with a lot of other things from the PCUSA.

I found something similar from John Stott.

“What may we say about the ‘how’ of God’s creative activity. Not many Christians today find it necessary to defend the concept of a literal six-day creation, for the text does not demand it, and scientific discovery appears to contradict it. The biblical text presents itself not as a scientific treatise but as a highly stylized literary statement (deliberately framed in three pairs, the fourth “day” corresponding to the first, the fifth to the second, and the sixth to the third). Moreover, the geological evidence for a gradual development over thousands of millions of years seems conclusive. …” “It is most unfortunate that some who debate this issue (evolution) begin by assuming that the words “creation” and “evolution” are mutually exclusive. If everything has come into existence through evolution, they say, then biblical creation has been disproved, whereas if God has created all things, then evolution must be false. It is, rather, this naïve alternative which is false. It presupposes a very narrow definition of the two terms, both of which in fact have a wide range of meanings, and both of which are being freshly discussed today…” “I myself believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve, as the original couple from whom the human race is descended*….But my acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical is not incompatible with my belief that several forms of pre-Adamic ‘hominid’ may have existed for thousands of years previously. These hominids began to advance culturally. They made their cave drawings and buried their dead. It is conceivable that God created Adam out of one of them. You may call them homo erectus. I think you may even call some of them homo sapiens, for these are arbitrary scientific names. But Adam was the first homo divinus, if I may coin a phrase, the first man to whom may be given the Biblical designation ‘made in the image of God’. Precisely what the divine likeness was, which was stamped upon him, we do not know, for Scripture nowhere tells us. But Scripture seems to suggest that it includes rational, moral, social, and spiritual faculties which make man unlike all other creatures and like God the creator, and on account of which he was given ‘dominion’ over the lower creation.” (John Stott [1999], Understanding the Bible: Expanded Edition; 54-56)

source

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Morning and evening are defined by the presence and absence of light. We now know this is caused by the rotation of the earth with respect to a light source, however there is no mention of the earth's rotation in the text. However we see in Genesis 1:5, that day and night is marked by the presence or absence of light.

So the question is, where is the light coming from that's defining day and night?

Why do you assume lights in the sky were necessary at this juncture, particularly in view of verse 14? Could this light not be the shekinah glory of God (Rev. 22:5)? Could God have created the stars, moon, and sun on the first day then gave them their specific functions on the fourth day (verses 14-18)? Or, could not God have created the sun on the first day, becoming visible on the fourth day? I am not seeing any issue here that warrants adopting alternatives to the six day account. Suffice it to say that the Lord God, by the very ordering of the creation we read in Genesis, bears witness to the fact that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon, else the light that will surround us in our glory is a lie (Rev. 21:23).

Perhaps you can explain what the firmament is?

The raqiya, expanse, firmament, sky, etc., or the heavenly vault above the earth. In other words what you see when you look up. The use of expanse is phenomenological. When we look up the sun and stars look as if they are sitting in the skies and when we see planes or birds it as if they glide through the expanse, piercing it.

Indeed, but the point I was making was the particular correlation of the separation in day one to the filling in day four, separation in day two, filling in day five and separation in day three and filling in day 6.
This parallels the "formless and void" phrase at the beginning of the passage. Basically creating form and then filling it, a logical construct.

Not a logical construct. Just God working out creation according to His own counsel.

I would question whether this particular hermaneutic has actually been the only historical viewpoint of the church. Others have been used. This is a short summary of views

"this particular hermeneutic" is the grammatico-historical hermeneutic used for all of Scripture. It was the methodology of the Reformers to recover the gospel that had been corrupted by the allegorical methods of others, the quadriga, etc., in particular, the frequent methods used by Rome. If you are arguing a return to these methods, then you are only making the point I have been making more relevant. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Alate_One]

Why do you assume lights in the sky were necessary at this juncture, particularly in view of verse 14? Could this light not be the shekinah glory of God (Rev. 22:5)?

It could have been that, but it isn't mentioned in the text, I would expect it to be. God's glory isn't located in a particular spot, nor would it make sense for it to stop at night.

Could God have created the stars, moon, and sun on the first day then gave them their specific functions on the fourth day (verses 14-18)?

Which would somewhat indicate a topical/functional construct rather than a chronological recording of what was *created* when.

Or, could not God have created the sun on the first day, becoming visible on the fourth day?

Indeed, but why essentially hide that in the creation account?

I am not seeing any issue here that warrants adopting alternatives to the six day account.

They're issues that caused many people in the past to question a strict literal interpretation.

My alternative hypothesis to why the sun moon and stars aren't mentioned/created until the fourth day is because the surrounding cultures of the time, worshiped those objects as deities. By delaying them to the fourth day, their importance is minimized and they are specifically listed as simply being lights in the sky. The purpose of the creation story is less to recount history, as to fight against the encroachment of pagan ideas, using a similar literary format. Much as John's gospel is directed against gnosticism but uses the style of gnostic teaching.

The raqiya, expanse, firmament, sky, etc., or the heavenly vault above the earth. In other words what you see when you look up. The use of expanse is phenomenological. When we look up the sun and stars look as if they are sitting in the skies and when we see planes or birds it as if they glide through the expanse, piercing it.

So the sky just *looks* as if it's a hard dome and there's water above it.

"this particular hermeneutic" is the grammatic-historical heremeneutic used for all of Scripture.

Is that what you use to interpret the imagery of Revelation?
I think there is such a thing as taking a good idea a bit too far/rigidly.

 

[Autumn Delight]

Nobody can say for sure. We can 'believe' a lot of things, yet the truth is we do not always 'know'.

It is definitely possible it was a literal six days and just as possible it was not.

 

[Zeke]

Genesis 1:28-31, 2:7, 1Cor 15:45-46, Genesis 2:8-9, 1Cor 15:47.

Matt 15:11, Genesis 2:17, it couldn't have been a literal fruit or garden, it was speaking about the temple made without hands 1Cor 3:16-18, John 4:23-24, 16:25. 2Cor 3:6, so what killed both Adams in the story?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

My alternative hypothesis to why the sun moon and stars aren't mentioned/created until the fourth day is because the surrounding cultures of the time, worshiped those objects as deities. By delaying them to the fourth day, their importance is minimized and they are specifically listed as simply being lights in the sky. The purpose of the creation story is less to recount history, as to fight against the encroachment of pagan ideas, using a similar literary format. Much as John's gospel is directed against gnosticism but uses the style of gnostic teaching.

This position has been mentioned in the literature, nor is it objectionable, for example, see:

G. Hasel, "The Polemical Nature of the Genesis Cosmology," Evangelical Quarterly 46 (1974):81-102. <--dealing with astrology concerns

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1—17. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990. <--dealing with pagan worship

re: your other comments:

Why expect all things to be explicitly mentioned in the text? Everything that is needed to be in the text is in the text just as the Author (God) wanted it to be. I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. God's sovereignty prepared the writers, their lives, experiences, vocabulary, so that they would write exactly what God wanted to be written. Nothing here should be taken to assume that fallible men produced fallible writings. B.B. Warfield’s classic illustration drives home this point, wherein he speaks of a stained-glass Cathedral window. The window is not viewed as distorting the pure light, but rather is exactly fulfilling the design of the architect in producing exactly the effect that he desired. So I am not opposed to speculating that God expects us to dig deep from time to time.

There is plenty of evidence in Scripture showing God revealing His motives or plans in the fullness of time. So, to say he is "hiding" things may, in a sense be true, but when considered against the whole counsel of the Lord, the wisdom behind God's choices and methods is often made clear. Beyond that, it is best to be mindful of Deut. 29:29.

Darkness (hosek, absence of light) is frequently associated with evil in the Scriptures. The darkness of the creation days could prepare the reader for the Fall to come in Eden.

Your statement regarding the grammatico-historical hermeneutic--"there is such a thing as taking a good idea a bit too far/rigidly"--demonstrates my point in this thread. It has been my ongoing position that others that desire to find other than a six literal day account of creation in Genesis must toss aside the grammatico-historical hermeneutical method that the Reformers used to bring Christendom back to in order to recover the gospel.

From the grammatical aspect, the Scriptures and all other books are written in a human language and all the rules of understanding any language apply. Unfortunately, the grammatical aspect used in too much of hermeneutics today has went beyond the simple motivation for understanding the grammar of Scripture, the simple motivation being: that the literal meaning of Scripture is the only correct meaning. And by this I don’t mean we ignore figures of speech, genres, the many dreams or visions with accompanying symbolic representations, and so forth--all of which was revealed in the infallible record of Scripture in historical progression. If the literal meaning is not the correct meaning, then there is no hope for the ordinary believer to understand anything in Scripture and we are at the mercy of a special priestly-like order of men, the higher critics, to properly interpret Scripture for us, and thus, well on our way back to Rome.

The historical method of hermeneutics means that revelation was given in history and thusly the believer should learn all that they can about the historical backdrops of Scripture. Unfortunately again, proponents of redaction criticism, higher criticism, etc., have exceeded the intent of the historical method by arguing that the believer’s understanding of Scripture depends upon such knowledge, as if this extra scaffolding is needed to shore up the Bible's infallibility. On the contrary, I do not think I, nor anyone else that is filled with the Spirit, needs to be required to understand archeology, rabbinic writings, Greek thought, Egyptian poetry, etc., to understand the open book of Scripture. Of course, such knowledge may help, but it is not a lynchpin of understanding Scripture.

The underlying issue, the root issue in my opinion, is that so many have rejected or recast the infallibility of Scripture. The authority of Scripture is self-testifying. Scripture is the very Word of our Triune God in the words of men as the words of our Triune God. With this presupposition--the only presupposition one needs to properly interpret Scripture--we need not

- wax eloquent or spend our efforts towards the verification of Scripture’s claims; or
- seek evidence outside of Scripture to defend the claims of Scripture to determine if we should believe Scripture.

There have been far too many hermeneutical chimeras raised by the “scholars” to hide the underlying issue that they frequently find wanting: that of the authority of the Word of God. So we are subjected to treatises that argue from extra-Scriptural sources, e.g., that the sun and moon really did not stand still because of a prayer, an axe head could not have floated, there is a Synoptic “problem”, Paul could not have written Colossians, and on and on. Denying the very testimony of Scripture itself is the error of these approaches to what we call hermeneutics today, for it is nothing more than a denial of the verbal inspiration of Scripture.

That being said, I want to be clear and state that an expert in hermeneutics has no advantage over the ordinary believer. If these experts believe this, they are fooling themselves and deny the perspicuity of Scripture. But I am not claiming the truths of Scripture can be exhausted, for the truths of Scripture are indeed inexhaustible. Hermeneutics merely helps us systematize and make more clear what is already intuitively known by the Spirit filled believer. Sadly, many think hermeneutics has plenty of new things to communicate to the serious student of Scripture. These “scholars” would have us believe they have found the key to unlocking an apparently closed book and are now able to share new information about Scripture with the ordinary believer.

I am not advocating any sort of “me and my Bible” stance. Such a sad stance is one taken by those that refuse to stand on the shoulders of others in the church militant who have come before us. We can all immediately recognize it when we hear the self-righteous retort “I don’t believe in the writings of men, I believe my Bible”. Such a view is the view of one who is un-teachable.

When we deny the verbal inspiration of Scripture and seek out odd hermeneutics to support our views, the door is flung wide open to passing off wholesale sections of Scripture as "culturally or time conditioned", since after all, the men “authoring” Scripture only wrote about what they knew at the time when they "authored" the texts they wrote. This approach is an unfounded warrant for all manner of the heresy and unorthodoxy that has crept into the visible churches. It is as if God, the Author of Scripture, was unable to communicate things known only by direct revelation to those men He used to write Scripture.

AMR

 

[Stripe]

Devotion to evolution requires the severe mangling of scripture.

 

[gcthomas]

[Acceptance of?] evolution requires the severe mangling of scripture.

Only for the minority who are literalists and get hung up on the specific wording written for a specific people at a particular time, rather than the underlying truths, such as they are. The alternative is to mangle the study of reality, which is silly and embarrassing.

 

[Stripe]

Only for the minority who are literalists and get hung up on the specific wording written for a specific people at a particular time, rather than the underlying truths, such as they are. The alternative is to mangle the study of reality, which is silly and embarrassing.

Evolution can make bedfellows of even the most disparate.

 

[gcthomas]

Evolution can make bedfellows of even the most disparate.

Yup. Truth can do that.

:cheers:

 

[Stripe]

Nope. The truth divides.

Atheists and Christians can be comfortable together with evolution. The truth is that there will be eternal separation for the two.

One of them will die first and then they will never be reunited.

 

[gcthomas]

Nope. The truth divides.

Atheists and Christians can be comfortable together with evolution. The truth is that there will be eternal separation for the two.

One of them will die first and then they will never be reunited.

We'll all die and be forever separated. But that just enhances the joy of being alive in a fantastic and exciting world!