Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Old-Pilgrim

the Days of Creation

Recommended Posts

What does the Evolutionist say about Creation? 

What does it matter to us?

When I come to studying the Bible I don’t really give a hoot what other people believe, be they Pope or be they Darwinian, in that, what others believe doesn’t change that which it true. So with that in mind lets have a brief look at The Day and Night of Genesis, and then a few thoughts on the topic to finish.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I don’t think rules or principles of interpretation are always the best way to approach the Bible, rules are ok, but must never become chains to which we must submit the word of truth, there will always be exceptions to the rule, such as the so called The Johannine Comma () however in this case I will apply the so called rule of the first mention to see if it assists.

Here in we have light, darkness, we have Day and Night And the evening and the morning the first day.

The light has been made, it is called day, we have the darkness already, it is called night, we have evening and the morning which were the first day, and yet the sun and the moon have not yet been made, so what is the light that has been made???

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth…
The same word ‘day’ is used here to recount in some detail several days of the creation account in chapter one. So it isn’t referring to a single 24hour day or a single day as mentioned in Chapter one.

And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

This vision of the evening and the morning wasn’t in reference to a vision about a 24 hour time period

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it….
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Da 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.’ This also sounds like a long period of time is being talked about.

 

It sounds to me like God is still resting, or at least that there is no way this is talking about our sun day calendar days. No this is talking about the original days, God's Days.

I haven’t spent too much time on this point, but I think there is sufficient scriptural Evidence to support the view that the first day, and therefore the first week were not based on our sun. And so a dogmatic and judgemental attitude on this topic isn’t sustainable by scriptural standards.

Edited by Old-Pilgrim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooo...what exactly is the point you're trying to make about the first day and what does it have to do with the presence or absence of the sun? Is the dogmatic attitude you're talking about in reference to asserting a literal six 24-hour day creation week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think far too many way overthink this, trying to see in it what just isn't there.

The Bible gives us the first day, which consisted of light and dark, and evening and a morning, the first day. That the word 'day', yom in the Hebrew, CAN refer to something other than a literal day, the fact that it is contextually tied to light and dark, and evening and morning, makes it very easily understandable as referring to a literal, 24 hour day, THE FIRST DAY. It could hardly be any plainer, except that man wants so badly to change what it plain. Like, oh, its just TOO plain. 

So yes, I believe it can be dogmatically held to a literal 6-day, 24 hour interpretation. The very establishment of time, in hours, days, weeks, months and years is founded upon the six-day interpretation, otherwise it is all just man-made and really has no meaning, save for what we choose to make of it. Why do we have a 7-day week, 12 month year? Why not just cut it up some other way? Because its how God created it. 

As for the vision of evening and morning, I suspect that refers literally to the times the vision was given, not reference to the content of the vision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just go ahead and put this out there in hopes it averts any potential doubt remaining about the need to be dogmatic on this...

Leading Hebrew scholar James Barr (who does not himself believe in Biblical creationism by the way) had this to say:

"...probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writes(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

  • creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
  • the figures contained in Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
  • Noah's flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those on the ark"

One should also note that until the 18th century when Charles Lyell began to push uniformitarian geology and Charles Darwin came up with his theory of evolution based on Lyell's deep time, the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, and individual churches for that matter, wholeheartedly asserted a young earth with a literal 6-day creation.

Finally, and most importantly, if you compromise a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 you undermine the following, which renders them meaningless and destroys your foundation for saving faith:

  1. The 3rd Commandment rests on a literal interpretation of the creation week (Ex 21:8-11; Deu 5:12-15)
  2. Jesus understood it as a literal event to support his teachings (ex. Matt 19:8; Mark 10:6)
  3. The explanation of the origin of sin and how it was overcome (Rom 5:12-21)

If you compromise here, you may as well throw the whole Bible out and make things up as you go. This is one of those foundational passages of the Bible on which the whole of Christianity rests. Without it, nothing else makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooo...what exactly is the point you're trying to make about the first day and what does it have to do with the presence or absence of the sun? Is the dogmatic attitude you're talking about in reference to asserting a literal six 24-hour day creation week?

sorry for my late reply I wasn't notified.

Dogmatic, I have heard people go as far as doubting that a Christian can believe anything other than a 24hour day.

QUESTION  what is the light that has been made Gen1:5 Because it is called DAY and made the first DAY of the seven day week of Genesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think far too many way overthink this, trying to see in it what just isn't there.

The Bible gives us the first day, which consisted of light and dark, and evening and a morning, the first day. That the word 'day', yom in the Hebrew, CAN refer to something other than a literal day, the fact that it is contextually tied to light and dark, and evening and morning, makes it very easily understandable as referring to a literal, 24 hour day, THE FIRST DAY. It could hardly be any plainer, except that man wants so badly to change what it plain. Like, oh, its just TOO plain. 

So yes, I believe it can be dogmatically held to a literal 6-day, 24 hour interpretation. The very establishment of time, in hours, days, weeks, months and years is founded upon the six-day interpretation, otherwise it is all just man-made and really has no meaning, save for what we choose to make of it. Why do we have a 7-day week, 12 month year? Why not just cut it up some other way? Because its how God created it. 

As for the vision of evening and morning, I suspect that refers literally to the times the vision was given, not reference to the content of the vision. 

QUESTION  what is the light that has been made Gen1:5 Because it is called DAY and made the first DAY of the seven day week of Genesis.

That has got to be a cue for some  prayerful meditation.

Apparently All Christians used to believe that the earth travelled round the sun, very few Christians dogmaticly hold to that view any more.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 Why do we have a 7-day week, 12 month year? Why not just cut it up some other way? Because its how God created it. 

As for the vision of evening and morning, I suspect that refers literally to the times the vision was given, not reference to the content of the vision. 

I think the days are obviously determined by the cycles of the sun in relation to the earth, and the Hebrews used the moon for times as well, it says that is what they are for, times and seasons for us. But the week probably never started until God gave revelation to Moses, he spoke to him face to face, i think that is when the week would have started, based on the week of Genesis, but as wee see throughout scripture, God has His days, and we have ours.

Does it matter? well As the sun and moon are for times and seasons for us, the only possible purpose of God revealing a little about his week and his days would most likely be to teach us something about his times and seasons, such as Him not being slack concerning his promises.

Edited by Old-Pilgrim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The source of the light is largely irrelevant, but Rev 21:23 indicates that it could have been God's glory if nothing else. The presence of the sun is not necessary for light to exist.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you feel that it is wrong to dogmatically assert a 24-hour day? Why look for any interpretation other than the obvious and plain meaning on this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The source of the light is largely irrelevant, but Rev 21:23 indicates that it could have been God's glory if nothing else. The presence of the sun is not necessary for light to exist.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you feel that it is wrong to dogmatically assert a 24-hour day? Why look for any interpretation other than the obvious and plain meaning on this one?

I don't see any harm in believing it to be a seven '24 hour day' week, but now that I see that it cannot be that, then I think it is wrong for others to unnecessarily oppress me and try to intimidate me to conform to an interpretation which I have grown out of, I honestly don't worry about people believing in a 'man's week' time scale for creation, and if what I am seeing is right, then it can only put me in a more spacious and better place ready to be taught perhaps the next point, perhaps on for example, what happens after Harvest? well generally there is a change of season and then another spring, and then another harvest, and so on, it is never ending, so we have the Gospel harvest due in its season, then what Is it never ending too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just go ahead and put this out there in hopes it averts any potential doubt remaining about the need to be dogmatic on this...

Leading Hebrew scholar James Barr (who does not himself believe in Biblical creationism by the way) had this to say:

"...probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writes(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

  • creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
  • the figures contained in Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
  • Noah's flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those on the ark"

One should also note that until the 18th century when Charles Lyell began to push uniformitarian geology and Charles Darwin came up with his theory of evolution based on Lyell's deep time, the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, and individual churches for that matter, wholeheartedly asserted a young earth with a literal 6-day creation.

Finally, and most importantly, if you compromise a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 you undermine the following, which renders them meaningless and destroys your foundation for saving faith:

  1. The 3rd Commandment rests on a literal interpretation of the creation week (Ex 21:8-11; Deu 5:12-15)
  2. Jesus understood it as a literal event to support his teachings (ex. Matt 19:8; Mark 10:6)
  3. The explanation of the origin of sin and how it was overcome (Rom 5:12-21)

If you compromise here, you may as well throw the whole Bible out and make things up as you go. This is one of those foundational passages of the Bible on which the whole of Christianity rests. Without it, nothing else makes sense.

I'll go off and have a look at you three points on scripture now....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree That Genesis is literal. I believe it is historical  in our scientific sense of the word from At least chapter 2 I didn't see anything in those verses which deny what I am saying, I think one of the earliest mentions of the Sabath is  Ex 35:1 And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them. Ex 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.  This might have been about the time when a seven day week was established, Adam might have passed some history down to Moses time, But would Adam have had the revelation of Gen 1 which God Gave to Moses? The principle of one man and one woman seems to have been passed down to some degree either by Adam & Co or simply nature, but was perhaps being lost sight of by the time of Moses.

 

 

 

Edited by Old-Pilgrim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'll just go ahead and put this out there in hopes it averts any potential doubt remaining about the need to be dogmatic on this...

Leading Hebrew scholar James Barr (who does not himself believe in Biblical creationism by the way) had this to say:

"...probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writes(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

  • creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
  • the figures contained in Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
  • Noah's flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those on the ark"

One should also note that until the 18th century when Charles Lyell began to push uniformitarian geology and Charles Darwin came up with his theory of evolution based on Lyell's deep time, the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars, and individual churches for that matter, wholeheartedly asserted a young earth with a literal 6-day creation.

Finally, and most importantly, if you compromise a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 you undermine the following, which renders them meaningless and destroys your foundation for saving faith:

  1. The 3rd Commandment rests on a literal interpretation of the creation week (Ex 21:8-11; Deu 5:12-15)
  2. Jesus understood it as a literal event to support his teachings (ex. Matt 19:8; Mark 10:6)
  3. The explanation of the origin of sin and how it was overcome (Rom 5:12-21)

If you compromise here, you may as well throw the whole Bible out and make things up as you go. This is one of those foundational passages of the Bible on which the whole of Christianity rests. Without it, nothing else makes sense.

I understand a certain uneasiness about moving to a theological  position which seems to be closer to the worlds, but why should we fear them, they are but the hand and the sword of the Lord?

I would say the third Commandment rests on the faith of the revelation of God to Moses, confirmed by the Prophets the Lord and the Apostles. I affirm that God Created Man Adam, male and female made he them, upright and they sought out evil. They never evolved nor are they evolving now.

I believe that the day will dawn and the day star will arise in our heart and so we should expect more understanding in general.2Pe 1:19

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old Pilgrim, again, you're trying to read too much into it. You say it CAN'T be a literal 14-hour, 7-day week. By what basis can you say that? The plain, clear reading insists it must be that.

What was the light created on day 1? Was it the showing forth of God's light? Maybe, but I don't think so. What did we have present at that point? God, the earth, which was water, or at least, only water showing, and darkness. It has been shown that when water is subjected to certain sound waves, it will produce light. For all we know, the light came from the sound of God's voice, saying "Let there be light", causing the water to literally glow. For God to separate that light, from whatever source, from the dark, and create a day/night cycle, is not problem for a God who can do all else He does. He is a God of order, and the first order of business was to create the basis for time, to which all else of His physical creation would be subject. Not seeing the problem here.

 

It really seems like you are fighting and struggling to find some other way to interpret the creation, as though because so many believe it to be literal and a young earth, somehow that means its wrong. Its so simple, so plainly written, that to deny it would mean to stretch.

I have dealt at length with some gap theorists recently, and what I found to be their main focus was a re-interpretation of a single verse in Hebrews, and insistence that while they consider themselves KJV-only, yet ALL the English translations have gotten two tiny details in gen 1 wrong, and somehow, from these tiny, insignificant examples of what they claim to be wrong in translation, this proves that Lucifer ruled a pre-Adamic world for millions of years, and that his sin brought death into the world, not Adam's.  no real scriptural proof. And you provide no proof for your stand, you just seem like you just...don't want to accept it.

Edited by Ukulelemike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree That Genesis is literal. I believe it is historical  in our scientific sense of the word from At least chapter 2 I didn't see anything in those verses which deny what I am saying, I think one of the earliest mentions of the Sabath is  Ex 35:1 And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them. Ex 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.  This might have been about the time when a seven day week was established, Adam might have passed some history down to Moses time, But would Adam have had the revelation of Gen 1 which God Gave to Moses? The principle of one man and one woman seems to have been passed down to some degree either by Adam & Co or simply nature, but was perhaps being lost sight of by the time of Moses.

Conjecturing that Adam may have observed a Sabbath or passed down the revelation is unnecessary since Moses received the revelation from God Himself. Truly, it's irrelevant to the point.

    I understand a certain uneasiness about moving to a theological  position which seems to be closer to the worlds, but why should we fear them, they are but the hand and the sword of the Lord?

It's not about uneasiness, it's about staying faithful to what the Scripture says because that's what it says. Moving to the theological position that is closer to the world only serves the purpose of capitulating to an atheistic worldview. The only  reason the six 24-hour day creation view was ever reconsidered was to try to harmonize the Bible with the atheistic worldview of uniformitarianism/evolution. To accept anything other than what the Bible plainly says is to consciously deny God's eye-witness account of creation in favor of man's theory that presumes God doesn't exist. It is no different than denying that homosexuality, or adultery, or divorce, or blasphemy, or idolatry are sins. The Bible plainly declares them to be so. Such is the case with the Creation account.

    I would say the third Commandment rests on the faith of the revelation of God to Moses, confirmed by the Prophets the Lord and the Apostles. I affirm that God Created Man Adam, male and female made he them, upright and they sought out evil. They never evolved nor are they evolving now.

I would say the third commandment rests on the fact that God created everything in existence over a 6-day timespan. It's right there in the verse:

Ex 20:11 - "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Both "For" and "wherefore" are statements of purpose that explain the reason for the commandment. You may have to accept the commandment by faith, but it's efficacy rests upon the fact of a 6-day creation.

I'm glad you don't believe in evolution, but you're straddling the fence between God's Word and man's denial of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hello I guess this is about my last words on this topic, hope you find time to read them and consider them.

By the time Moses had been born, the word 'Day' must have been used to reference a day, this must have been in the language presumably from the beginning,

Then God gave Moses revelation including Gen 1&2 God would have used the language which he had Given Man before in Adam

So the Days of Genesis were named by words which the Hebrewians were familiar with, just in a very similar manner that we are familiar with the English, they would have been familiar with the Hebrew words for Days, Evenings and Mornings.

The question is, do we define the understanding of the First Day in Genesis, by the Context of Moses Culture, or do we define our understanding of the Day of Genesis by the Context within which it is given, I.E. within the revelation.

In a similar way to the visions of Daniel, we see the use of words with which the Hibrewians are familiar, ie week or days, do we define those weeks, and days, by conforming them to the Hebrew culture, which would be very similar to us demanding that a week is a literal seven day week, or do we define them with the context of the vision with which they are contained?

As I read Genesis,  Chapter one in particular cannot be historical in the proper sense of the word, for obvious reasons, I.e. in the early verses there was no earth and no man to take a record of anything. After the third day we read:

Ge 1:14-16 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: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 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.

We can tell from the description that this is talking about what we now know as the sun and moon and stars. That is the creation of our days, and our inhabitable environment.

After the fifth day God made the Animals and finally Adam/Man, male and female made he them. So there is the start of Man's history, and a more detailed account from an historical perspective is given in Genesis two. But our 24 hour days or warm periods, only started in day four of of Genesis 1.

And I say again if you take a thoughtful look at Genesis 1:1-5 God made a Light, and he called that light DAY, this was the original first mentioned and first created Day, and the warmth wasn’t anything to do with our sun. So the other six days (and evenings) must be of the same type as this first one. That is why I say contextually it cannot be in reference to our 24 hour days, because our days had not been created as yet.

Job 38:4-12 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

As far as going against the word of God or the fundamentals, I’ve been here before, it is religious tradition talking, I guess some fear, my faith is in God as revealed in Christ, not in any traditional interpretation of the Bible. I used to be Catholic, I recognise Zeal based in Tradition, The Gospel is an attack on the fundamental Catholic world-view which to them is almost like life itself, it is their historical and spiritual sense of self. You sound like you are doing the same thing, putting some of your faith in tradition/traditional understanding and equating it with faith in God or Gods revealed word, or putting your faith in Gods word as interpreted by tradition. I can assure you I will not knowingly go against Gods word on any point, this does however lead to clashing with Christian traditional interpretations quite often.

And I say again I don't think this (Moses days or Gods days) is a fundamental doctrine of Scripture, other than in it is an accurate account of God creating the universe given by revelation through Moses, as the text itself affirms, latter in Genesis, If I recall. But in that we find it in our Bible that is enough affirmation to it's accuracy for me. I believe the creation account is foundational to a mature understanding But Christ told Peter that it was the revelation of who Christ was which was the rock on which the Church was to be built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Why not just accept what Scripture says? Sword and others have given excellent answers already yet you continue to carry on which makes a person wonder "why".

Well John, if we all go for the easy option we might still be Roman Catholic, I'm sure they used to wonder about what motivated those pesky separatists.I rely on Scripture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well John, if we all go for the easy option we might still be Roman Catholic, I'm sure they used to wonder about what motivated those pesky separatists.I rely on Scripture. 

Relying on Scripture means believing and accepting what Scripture says, not trying to scheme it or intellectualize it away. While others have presented the clear meaning of Scripture, you have attempted to circumvent this and invent your own concept in its place. That's far more akin to the methods of the RCC than is accepting God's Word for what it says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hello I guess this is about my last words on this topic, hope you find time to read them and consider them.

By the time Moses had been born, the word 'Day' must have been used to reference a day, this must have been in the language presumably from the beginning,

Then God gave Moses revelation including Gen 1&2 God would have used the language which he had Given Man before in Adam

So the Days of Genesis were named by words which the Hebrewians were familiar with, just in a very similar manner that we are familiar with the English, they would have been familiar with the Hebrew words for Days, Evenings and Mornings.

The question is, do we define the understanding of the First Day in Genesis, by the Context of Moses Culture, or do we define our understanding of the Day of Genesis by the Context within which it is given, I.E. within the revelation.

The answer is an unequivocal, yes, we define the understanding of the First Day in Genesis by the context of Moses and the culture he lived in. He was perfectly capable of understanding long expanses of time and had a language capable of expressing it. You can't assume that ancient man was ignorant and just couldn't grasp such a simple concept as time. He grew up in a relatively advanced culture that build pyramids and had a ridiculously complex pantheon of false gods. Of course he could understand if God wanted to convey anything other than a literal day. He used the language of a literal day because that's exactly the message He wanted to convey. One of the key principles of biblical interpretation is that a passage of Scripture cannot mean what it never meant to the original audience. Otherwise, it is false or incomplete revelation and that is not reflective of a God defined by truth, justice, and holiness.

As I read Genesis,  Chapter one in particular cannot be historical in the proper sense of the word, for obvious reasons, I.e. in the early verses there was no earth and no man to take a record of anything. After the third day we read:

It is absolutely, without a doubt, 100% historical narrative prose. There are no traces or hints of Hebrew poetry, prophecy, of apocalyptic literature and there are no indications of rhetorical devices such as allegory or symbolism. It is the same linguistic structure as the historical narrative prose that follows it (i.e. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther). You're making unwarranted assumptions about the literary nature of Genesis 1 that are in complete contradiction to what just about every Hebrew scholar of every era will tell you.

As far as going against the word of God or the fundamentals, I’ve been here before, it is religious tradition talking, I guess some fear, my faith is in God as revealed in Christ, not in any traditional interpretation of the Bible. I used to be Catholic, I recognise Zeal based in Tradition, The Gospel is an attack on the fundamental Catholic world-view which to them is almost like life itself, it is their historical and spiritual sense of self. You sound like you are doing the same thing, putting some of your faith in tradition/traditional understanding and equating it with faith in God or Gods revealed word, or putting your faith in Gods word as interpreted by tradition. I can assure you I will not knowingly go against Gods word on any point, this does however lead to clashing with Christian traditional interpretations quite often.

And I say again I don't think this (Moses days or Gods days) is a fundamental doctrine of Scripture, other than in it is an accurate account of God creating the universe given by revelation through Moses, as the text itself affirms, latter in Genesis, If I recall. But in that we find it in our Bible that is enough affirmation to it's accuracy for me. I believe the creation account is foundational to a mature understanding But Christ told Peter that it was the revelation of who Christ was which was the rock on which the Church was to be built.

I apologize if I have been coming on a little strong on this one, but it is not an issue of tradition. A tradition is a dogmatic practice or doctrinal assertion that has no biblical foundation. The Catholic church has many of these, and I'm sure you know them well. However, this is an issue of sound biblical interpretation. 300 years ago your position would have made absolutely no sense to anyone capable of reading the Bible in any language. 100-200 years ago you would have been looked at cross-eyed and called out for supporting Darwin. 50 years ago you would have been accused of being on Darwin's side of the Scopes Trial. Today, there are so many Christians have capitulated to evolutionary theory being taught as fact for long that they've felt compelled to reinterpret Genesis to accommodate the evolutionary timeline at the expense of upholding biblical inerrancy. Your position, whether you believe so or not, is a concession an atheistic worldview that has been steadily beating the drum that the earth is older than the Bible says it is. Non-literal interpretations of Genesis only ever made sense after people began trumpeting deep time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>It is absolutely, without a doubt, 100% historical narrative prose. There are no traces or hints of Hebrew poetry, prophecy, of apocalyptic literature and there are no indications of rhetorical devices such as allegory or symbolism<<<

Matt you are getting very unreasonable, using many words but not making much sense,

Your not making much sense, History is a written record of events written by people who were there, Apoccalypic, is An apocalypse (Ancient Greek: …meaning "uncovering"), translated literally from Greek, is a disclosure of knowledge, i.e., a lifting of the veil or revelation. In religious contexts it is usually a disclosure of something hidden. I don’t need to ask you, you should know yourself neither Moses nor Adam Nor Job was there when the events of Gen 1:1 took place, so it is apocalyptic by all normal usage of the words. The Lord doesn’t just reveal in vision or in potery, he spoke to Moses face to face, as a friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is, do we define the understanding of the First Day in Genesis, by the Context of Moses Culture, or do we define our understanding of the Day of Genesis by the Context within which it is given, I.E. within the revelation.

>>>The answer is an unequivocal, yes, we define the understanding of the First Day in Genesis by the context of Moses and the culture he lived in<<<

So do you take the weeks of Daniel as weeks, and the wheels of Ezekiel as chariot wheels or something wheels? but then Chariots don't have wheels within wheels.

If The Lord was wishing to give the impression that the first day was based on our sun, I think he might have said that.

something like 'God made the Sun and the moon the first day' Its true, he could have.

The way he has done it just shows us that his Days are bigger than ours, we can be rather blind at times and assume things. Matt you seem to be overly worried about what the heathen are up to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I say again I don't think this (Moses days or Gods days) is a fundamental doctrine of Scripture, other than in it is an accurate account of God creating the universe given by revelation through Moses, as the text itself affirms, latter in Genesis, If I recall. But in that we find it in our Bible that is enough affirmation to it's accuracy for me. I believe the creation account is foundational to a mature understanding But Christ told Peter that it was the revelation of who Christ was which was the rock on which the Church was to be built.

I think I agree with this one. If someone has to have read Genesis for themselves and understood everything in it, as well as having read and understood everything else in scripture that reveals something about what sin is and/or where it comes from, then don't we end up asserting that the Gospel message is nothing less than all of scripture, and that a person must have read and correctly understood all of scripture in order to be saved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>It is absolutely, without a doubt, 100% historical narrative prose. There are no traces or hints of Hebrew poetry, prophecy, of apocalyptic literature and there are no indications of rhetorical devices such as allegory or symbolism<<<

Matt you are getting very unreasonable, using many words but not making much sense,

Your not making much sense, History is a written record of events written by people who were there, Apoccalypic, is An apocalypse (Ancient Greek: …meaning "uncovering"), translated literally from Greek, is a disclosure of knowledge, i.e., a lifting of the veil or revelation. In religious contexts it is usually a disclosure of something hidden. I don’t need to ask you, you should know yourself neither Moses nor Adam Nor Job was there when the events of Gen 1:1 took place, so it is apocalyptic by all normal usage of the words. The Lord doesn’t just reveal in vision or in potery, he spoke to Moses face to face, as a friend.

What I mean is its literary structure and genre is prose (as opposed to poetry or prophecy or apocalypse) and its sub-genre is historical narrative (i.e. event x then event y then event z, etc). All of these different types of writing are distinctly different. Prose is characterized by use of common-use language and matter-of-fact expression. Historical narrative is a relating of past events in chronological sequence, often interspersed with dialogue (as opposed to fictional or mythical writing).Yes, Genesis was revealed to Moses, but it was recorded as history in the style of Hebrew prose writing and not as apocalyptic literature which is highly figurative, ominous, and often poetic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is, do we define the understanding of the First Day in Genesis, by the Context of Moses Culture, or do we define our understanding of the Day of Genesis by the Context within which it is given, I.E. within the revelation.

>>>The answer is an unequivocal, yes, we define the understanding of the First Day in Genesis by the context of Moses and the culture he lived in<<<

So do you take the weeks of Daniel as weeks, and the wheels of Ezekiel as chariot wheels or something wheels? but then Chariots don't have wheels within wheels.

If The Lord was wishing to give the impression that the first day was based on our sun, I think he might have said that.

something like 'God made the Sun and the moon the first day' Its true, he could have.

The way he has done it just shows us that his Days are bigger than ours, we can be rather blind at times and assume things. Matt you seem to be overly worried about what the heathen are up to.

No, Daniel and Ezekiel are both prophecy. Hebrew prophecy contains a large amount of symbolism and is usually written in verse form with a lot of rhetorical language. It is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

I'm "overly worried about what the heathen are up to" because it has infected the modern church like a virus. It is turning the youth who grow up with one foot in church and one in the secular world being force-fed an atheistic worldview away from the church and away from Jesus Christ. The overwhelming majority of people who reject the faith they grew up say their journey toward atheism began with a rejection of Genesis in favor of Darwinism. For a church to concede any ground on this issue is to willfully cast a stumbling block before an unsaved youth, which was met with harsh criticism by Jesus Himself (Matt 18:6)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 32 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...