Biblical justification for non-historical creation days

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Mercury, Jan 17, 2005.

  1. Mercury

    Mercury
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right now the Baptist Theology & Bible Study section includes some quite lively discussions about creation. I'm Mennonite Brethren and not Baptist, so although I've been following some of those threads with interest, I haven't posted. However, I've been a bit disappointed that when the question of a biblical basis for the theistic evolution (TE) position comes up, there's little but silence. Some people, including me, actually came to the TE position based on the biblical evidence and not the scientific evidence. (Earlier I had embraced a version of the gap theory based on scientific evidence for an old earth, but my later acceptance of TE was based on studying Genesis 1-2.)

    So, I'd like this thread to be strictly about the biblical issues with the various creation positions. Elsewhere, this question was asked about Genesis 1:
    While I wouldn't call the Genesis 1 account an allegory, I do think its framework of days is not intended to be historical. My main reason for this is because it doesn't line up with the order in Genesis 2:4ff and the author/compiler of Genesis seems to have had no problem with that and made no effort to tie the two together. Another reason comes from outside Genesis. The creation week, and particularly the seventh day, is treated as more than a collection of 24-hour days elsewhere in the Bible. Hebrews 3:7-4:13 discusses God's rest after creation. Here's a portion of it:
    In verses 4-5, the author goes directly from quoting Genesis 2:2 to quoting Psalm 95:11 which talks about God's rest. The implication is that God's rest after creation is the same rest we can enter (if we don't fall short of it).

    Also, note the last part of verse 3 which I bolded above: God's work has been finished since the creation of the world. In other words, even if one believes the world is only 6,000 years old, that means God's rest has been going on for 6,000 years now! When Exodus 20:11 explains the Sabbath command by saying "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day", we know from this passage in Hebrews 4 that "he rested on the seventh day" refers to a rest of at least 6,000 years (and in my view, a much longer time). The symbol of God's rest is a day (the Sabbath) but the reality is much more. In another sense the reality is also less, since God does not rest by ceasing all activity. Both the idea of God physically resting and the duration of his rest are symbolic ways to get across a deeper truth.

    Perhaps my way of reading Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11 would be made more clear by explaining how I read another verse:
    In both verses, an ordinance is being instituted (the Sabbath and the Lord's Supper). In the first, creation is equated with six days and God's rest with the seventh day. In the second, bread is equated with Jesus' body which was given for us. I do not believe the bread really is Jesus' body. I think it's symbolic. Similarly, I do not believe creation really happened in six literal days; I believe the days are symbolic.

    In order for us to have a way of remembering what Jesus did for us, he gave us an observance whereby we can remember his sacrifice every time we partake of a piece of bread and a cup of wine in fellowship with believers. The symbolism is detailed more fully in John 6:25-66, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious.

    In order for us to have a way of remembering creation, God gave the Israelites an observance whereby they could remember God's act of creation and God's rest through a week of six days' work and a Sabbath rest. The symbolism is detailed more fully in Genesis 1:1-2:3, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious.

    Now, obviously many Christians will disagree with this -- either with taking the bread symbolically or with taking the days symbolically. I certainly don't want to derail this thread into a discussion of transubstantiation or consubstantiation. But, if you accept this interpretation of either the bread or the days, this comparison may help to show how some people can accept both.
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    That is pretty fascinating since Gen 1-2:3 is a CHRONOLOGY with a timeline and Gen 2:4-end is NOT!

    That is also pretty fascinating since exegetically ALL AGREE that Exodus 20:8-11 is understood by the primary audience to mean a literal 7 day week!

    Amazing in fact since in Exodus 20:8-11 there is exact equivalence established between the week at Sinai and the week during Creation AND the audience was given no reason at ALL to "suspect" that they are not in fact JUST what the text says.

    Since Exodus forms a concise summary of the linear TIMELINE CHRONOLOGY of Gen 1-2:3 that is in perfect harmony between the two -- it is impossible to argue that they do not "match".

    You have to start by "Wanting" them not to agree - it certainly is not in the text.

    Gen 1-2:3 is explicitly the chronology of the event. Gen 2:4-end is a story form "Basis" for marriage and the fall. It omits the creation of many things listed in chronological order in chapter 1-2:3 and CAN NOT be considered as an "alternate chronology".

    Gen 2 does not give "week-day-1,2,3" sequences and does not give "eon-1,eon-2,eon-3" sequences.

    But the "evening and morning were the FIRST DAY" chronological phrasing of Gen 1-2:3 is impossible to ignore (By contrast).

    This part is "easy".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  3. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that the enemies of God's word have rejoiced (wrongly of course) since the findings of Darwin and they will be confounded, not by the finding that science has made a mistake about evolution, but rather by the finding that God's word is, properly interpreted, compatible with the sciences of cosmology and biology.

    Satan will lead people to interpret them as in oppostion as long as he can possibly do so by whatever means he can, seeking to decieve even the very elect. But he won't be able to keep that up forever!
     
  4. Mercury

    Mercury
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's an interesting statement. It's true that after Genesis 1, there is no place in the rest of the Bible that uses a rigid framework of days similar to this chapter. Even when crucial historical events are recorded, such as the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, we don't read about the events in an account clearly divided into days with "and there was evening and there was morning, a ___ day" or a similar refrain after each one. (As evidence of this, just look at all the discussion over the exact day of Jesus' crucifixion!)

    Why is that? There's two options that I can see. Either the rest of the bible isn't as historical as Genesis 1, or the rigid account of days in Genesis 1 is a literary device and not an indication of historicity. My belief is that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is absolutely fundamental to the entire Bible. Because of that, I cannot accept a view of the Bible that diminishes the historicity of these events in an attempt to prop up the historicity of Genesis 1.

    I addressed those issues in my opening post.

    I think you have that backwards. It's only by being sure that Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 are supposed to reconcile that one can force the two into a single chronology. A clear reading of Genesis 2:4-25 (especially in any version other than the NIV) will lead to quite a different chronology than the one in Genesis 1. Very few people dispute this; instead, many Christians propose theories on how the apparent differences should be harmonized, and many non-Christians claim the differences prove the Bible is not even internally consistent.

    Some Christians say that Genesis 1 describes creation of plants and animals in general while Genesis 2 only describes the plants and animals in Eden. Others think Genesis 1 describes the creation of all plants and animals, but they didn't sprout or grow until after man was formed in Genesis 2. Others think Genesis 2 constantly jumps around chronologically as it describes various events. Others, like me, take the plain reading of the text and its different chronology when compared with Genesis 1 as an indication that one or the other -- or both -- of the accounts is not intended to be historical.

    When it comes to events for which there are no human witnesses, I don't really care about the exact chronology. It doesn't matter to me exactly how God created the world or the exact order of Jesus' temptation by Satan. What is more important is that God did create the world (even bacteria, seaweed, angels and other things not mentioned in Genesis 1 or 2), and that my Saviour was tempted in every way (even in ways that aren't recorded), but without sinning. If God and the writers he inspired wanted to convey the details of those events with an order and focus that was selected for reasons other than chronology, that's fine with me.

    That's true, but the absence of those sequences does not mean the account has no chronology. If that were so, then there'd be no way for us to know the chronology of events at Jesus' crucifixion either, since the gospels also lack those sequences. But, we can understand the chronology quite well. In general, in a narrative account (whether historical, parable, or otherwise), things are assumed to have happened in the order they are recorded unless there are clues to the contrary.

    One type of clue is when a passage uses chronological recapitulation -- the return to an event that has already been described. For example, Genesis 5:1 recapitulates to Genesis 1:27. Rather than taking this as a creation of a second Adam (as some do), this should be viewed as a return to an earlier point. Another example is the placement of Adam in Eden. If we read the account in context, it's fairly clear that God first formed Adam, v.7; then planted a garden, v.8a; and then placed Adam in this garden, v.8b. At that point, the account gives a larger description of the garden and its creation (v.9-14). Then, the account returns to its chronological description of events by once again mentioning the placement of Adam in the garden (v.15).

    Another example can be found in Genesis 1 and its treatment of the separation of day from night. This event first happens in v.4-5, and then is recapitulated in v.14. Both verses specifically mention the separation of day from night. This separation could only have occurred once, unless we want to speculate that it somehow didn't "stick" the first time and had to be redone three days later. But if this event only happened once, why is it recorded on two separate days? It's a strong clue that the days of Genesis 1 are not intended to give chronological, historical information.

    Just to be clear, chronological recapitulation is not unique to historical accounts and can also occur in stories or parables. So, finding it in a passage does not show whether or not a passage is historical. It just helps to clarify the intended chronology of the account in question.

    Yes, the phrasing is unique within the Bible, even though the Bible contains many historical accounts.
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Now there is one point where we can all agree. The atheist's view of origins -- his one and only choice for a godless view of origins -- his best and most viable hope of contradicting the Word of God -- is in the myths and fables known today as evolutionism.

    Be that ever so true - it is not a discussion on the point from a Bible basis - which is the format for this thread --

    So I will not expose here and now all the flaws, gaffs, blunders and falsehoods of that false religion, that humanist belief system, that contradiction to the Gospel - known as evolutionism.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    By that we mean a "chronological time sequence" withe "evening and morning were the nth-day" formulas.

    So there CAN BE no "alternate chronology" if there is NO OTHER chronology!

    Get it?

    Having said that - I do not mean to downplay that perfectly concise SUMMARY that God Himself gives in Exodus 20:8-11 of the Gen 1-2:3 chronological SEQUENCE.

    In that SUMMARY God says "FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE... AND RESTED on the SEVENTH day" then He shows EXACT EQUIVALENCE between the days of Gen 1-2:3 and the days of Exodus 20 by saying "SIX DAYS YOU SHALL... FOR IN SIX DAYS THE LORD"..

    It is obvious, simple, apparent and clear to both the primary first-order audience and the foot of sinai and to the non-biased reader today!

    How much easier could it be??

    (Since you offerred nothing by way of evidence or proof for any counter chronology - but seem to cave in to this point at the very start -- the post ends here).

    Thanks for making this such a delightfully easy task.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    An interesting but unsupportable speculation. Fortunately speculation is not a form of exegesis.

    So back to the actual facts.

    No response

    That would be wonderful if it were true.

    All you said was I do not believe creation really happened in six literal days; I believe the days are symbolic.

    As "informative" as that is about what you wish were true - it does not address the point above which is that ALL AGREE that the primary audience HAD to take the 7 days as literal since they LITERALLY had to start a LITERAL 7 day cycle that ended on the VERY DAY that God said was Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh-day memorial of HIS creative act!

    The point remains.

    Next.

    You already caved on this point by admitting that no counter chronology for the 7 days of Creation given in Gen 1-2:3 exists since there is no other chronology for those 7 days.

    See how is this is when we stick with facts?

    Now "see" -- you just "contradicted yourself" and are proceeding with the nonsensical approach of taking a non-Chronology and merging it WITH an ACTUAL chronology to try to get a SINGLE chronology.

    The point remains - only ONE of them is a Chronology - so there can BE no merge.

    Nope - because Gen 2:4-25 is NOT a chronology there is NO TIME (get it? Chronos?) in Gen 2:4-25 NO DAYS, no EONS, no YEARS, no MINUTES, no Evenings and mornings -- no chronological sequence!

    Get it?

    This is really so simple -- it makes it so easy to expose the problems in the wild ranging blue sky stabs of evolutionism!

    Thanks again for this thread!

    You are the greatest! All the other evolutionists on this area avoid the Bible like it was the plague when it comes to evolutionism.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. Seth3

    Seth3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does anyone agree that creation *can be seen in a spiritual light *as long as one holds to the literal as well? Is it allowable to share spiritual interpretation without stepping on toes and getting everyones golden girdle tied in a knot? Or is that of the devil too?

    Just wondering

    God Bless

    Seth3
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    And contradict themselves after having just admitted that ONLY Gen 1 is a Chronology and finding NO TIME chronology at all in Gen 2!!

    How simple - easy - obvious!

    Thanks for pointing that out.

     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    One may imaginatively spiritualize the resurrection the virgin birth the 7 day creation week as allegoriical references to many wonderful spiritual ideas. I don't doubt that this is some form of artistic poetry.

    For example there is the idea of "praying through the sanctuary". Going from the outer court to the holy place to the most holy place and speaking in prayer to God about the various salvation concepts embodied by each of those very literal things.

    I don't think it is of the devil.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  11. Mercury

    Mercury
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I think it's quite possible for there to be a spiritual meaning in a passage as well as a literal meaning. That's similar to what the author of Hebrews does in 4:24-31. The figurative interpretation is in addition to the historical truth, and not in place of it. However, there's other cases where everyone agrees that the figurative meaning is the main one (such as Jesus' parables, many of which are clearly marked), and there's other cases such as this where the intended meaning is hotly debated.

    One of the reasons I am very happy to be in the TE camp is that it acknowledges real theological truths in Genesis 1-2. Unfortunately, many (not all) in the Scientific Creationism camp focus so much on the historical accuracy of all the details that they ignore these truths. It's almost as if they've unwittingly bought in to the naturalist argument that the only truth is scientific truth, so Genesis 1-2 must convey truth on those grounds. That's much like being so preoccupied with which day Jesus was crucified and rose from the grave that one ignores what those natural and supernatural events mean for our own salvation and what they say about God's nature.

    I think the discussion about the historicity of early Genesis is important, but we must not reduce the text to a history and/or science lesson. Genesis 1 in particular does not read like the gospels, or Acts, or Kings. If it is a historical record, it is the only one of its form in the Bible.
     
  12. Seth3

    Seth3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Mercury and Bob for your perspectives.

    God bless

    Seth3
     
  13. Mercury

    Mercury
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, do you disagree that an ordinance can be instituted using symbolic terminology? As I said last post to you, I addressed this issue in my first post. You never replied to my argument, but rather asserted that it was wrong. Do you believe in transubstantiation? If not, then what is the problem with seeing that another ordinance could be instituted in a similar fashion?

    I'm having trouble following you. I specifically referenced Hebrews where it shows that the seventh day of creation is ongoing -- much more than a literal day. This is counter to a literal, historical reading of the chronology. In my last post to you I mentioned how day 1 and 4 recapitulate the same event -- something very strange if the days are indeed chronologically separated. You have not responded at all to the first argument and seemed to miss the point of the second, and yet you say that I've "caved in". Like I said, I don't follow.

    This "point" is really an assertion: that only one account has a chronology. As I already mentioned, if that were true, it would mean that we could not get any chronological details from the gospels because they do not use an evening/morning itemization of each day. I reject that approach because it undermines the historicity of the entire Bible after Genesis 1.

    That's false witness, Bob. I never claimed that Genesis 2 has no chronology. In fact, I claimed that Genesis 2 does have a chronology in my second post that you were apparently responding to: "A clear reading of Genesis 2:4-25 (especially in any version other than the NIV) will lead to quite a different chronology than the one in Genesis 1. ... Others, like me, take the plain reading of the text and its different chronology when compared with Genesis 1 as an indication that one or the other -- or both -- of the accounts is not intended to be historical." Note my repeated statements that Genesis 2 does have a chronology. Do not mistake the presence of a chronology with historicity; Jesus' parables have chronology too.

    It's there in my Bible. In the account for day four it says, "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate 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 expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth'; and it was so." If your Bible doesn't have this, which version are you using? I'm quoting the NASB.

    No, God can do whatever he pleases. However, there is no reason to speculate that God made a light that somehow burnt out after three days and needed to be replaced. The light of day 1 was declared to be "good". Why would it be insufficient?

    Also, God is aware in his creation of natural needs for the things he creates. Genesis 2:5 makes this clear. The plants needed a water supply and a gardener, so man is created and rivers water the garden. Rather than God creating supernatural means to temporarily sustain his creation, Genesis 1-2 describe God creating the natural means that sustain creation (with the single exception of the tree of life that presumably gave immortality to humans).

    Here is another story with no explicit chronological references:

    There was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug a wine press in it, and built a tower, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his produce. The vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned a third. Again he sent another group of slaves larger than the first; and they did the same thing to them. But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, "They will respect my son." But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance." They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

    No days, no reference to morning or afternoon or specific hours. It does have general terms like "then" and "afterward", but similar terms are found in Genesis 2. Do you really claim that in this parable you have no idea about the chronological order the events occurred in? What did the landowner do first, plant a vineyard or build a tower or rent out the vineyard? If you can understand the chronology here, then what's the problem with Genesis 2:4-25?

    [ January 19, 2005, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Mercury ]
     
  14. Mercury

    Mercury
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oops, I see the parable I quoted at the end of my last post mentions "harvest time". That's what I get for reading it in the ESV and then copy-and-pasting from the NASB. Anyway, hopefully it still serves to make the point, and if not, I can easily find another example.

    Perhaps a more obvious one would be Genesis 3, since its only time references are the same ones found in Genesis 2: "then", "when" and "in the day". Does Genesis 3 not have a chronology either, Bob?

    [ January 19, 2005, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Mercury ]
     
  15. Mercury

    Mercury
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm still hoping for some Baptist responses to this topic. I know there's got to be at least a few YEC Baptists out there ( ;) ), so hopefully some of them will see this thread and address some of the issues raised in it.

    Maybe a summary is in order. Generally, the debate over creation is made on scientific grounds. Whenever the evidence becomes hard for young-earth creationists to deny, they pull out the trump card: none of this matters because science is just opinion and the Bible disproves an old earth and all that goes along with it. To see this trump card being played repeatedly, just wander over to the Baptist Theology & Bible Study section.

    This thread is a discussion of the validity of that trump card. Is there any basis aside from science to take Genesis 1 as something other than a historical record of events spanning 144 hours? I've suggested that there are a few reasons from the Bible itself to do so:
    </font>
    1. The seventh day of creation is referred to in Hebrews as God's ongoing rest that we can still enter, if we don't fall short of it. This implies that the seventh day represents far more than a 24-hour time period. If the seventh day is symbolic of much more, then it is reasonable to conclude that the other six days are also symbolic of something more (namely, of God's creation work, whether it spanned a moment or millennia). (See opening post for details.)
      .</font>
    2. When an ordinance is instituted, it is common biblical practice to equate the symbol with what it represents. Jesus said "this is my body..."; Moses said "for in six days...". Of course, this language has caused many throughout the church's history to take the statements literally, and in both cases taking the ordinance as something far less than what it represents is a minority view -- although I believe it's the correct view. (See opening post for details.)
      .</font>
    3. A straight-forward reading of Genesis 2:4-25 leads to a far different order of creation than the one described in Genesis 1. It takes all sorts of interpretational gymnastics to get the two to line up, begging the question of whether they were intended to fit together into a single chronology in the first place. (See my second post for details.)
      .</font>
    4. There is chronological recapitulation between the first and fourth day of creation. On day one, God creates light (called Day) and separates it from darkness (called Night). On day four, God creates luminaries to separate day from night. Since the same one-time event (the separation of day from night) is described on two non-consecutive days, this is a neon sign that the days are not historical or chronological. (See my second post for details.)
      .</font>
    5. If the rigid structure of Genesis 1 with its repeated refrain of evening and morning is taken as a further indication of its historicity, it begs the question of why other events whose historicity is more important (such as Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection) do not use similar language. It is more likely that the rigid division of days is a literary device, especially since there is obvious symmetry in the way the two sets of three days are described. (I may expand on this symmetry in a future post, although its well documented and easy to find.)</font>
    Those are the main reasons that I brought up so far to treat the days of Genesis 1 as having a literary basis more than a historical basis. No appeals to science, no appeals to ancient near-east myths or the documentary hypothesis, just evidence within the Bible. I am not attempting to show that the creation event is not true, but rather that it is presented in a framework of days that serves other purposes.

    As a final note, I should point out that this view of Genesis 1, commonly called the framework interpretation, neither supports nor denies evolution. It does not deal with that question. In fact, [this page] presents a good outline of the view by someone adamantly opposed to evolution, and up until his "evolution disclaimer", he makes many of the same points I've made here.

    So, the points need to be addressed on their own merits, not on whether they lead to scientific theories that a person finds distasteful. Is there anybody, especially any Baptist, who would like to respond to any of these points?
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Mercury - you are missing the point. Just as in science the process demands that you use the scientific method to weed out bias and to let facts stand without twisting them to "your need" -- so when it comes to the Bible the process of reading it accurately demands that you use exegesis - not wild "what if" scenarios.

    Simply arguing that "there exists some form of literature in the world that uses A for a conventin" is not a "form of exegesis".

    A key rule in Exgesis demands that we "admit" to the obvious meaning for the primary audience when evaluting the true intent of the author.

    You simply ignore it altogether in favor of "some literary form ELSEWHERE could possibly use convention-B".

    Such a response does not constitute exegesis of any kind.

    See?

    Because you made no attempt to prove your argument FROM the text!

    Without any attempt at that - what is there to respond to?

    You have to at lest try.

    ... with inserting that literary for in any text at any point that it pleases me to do so?

    Is that what you are trying to argue?

    Don't you see how that is "not" exegesis?

    OR are you arguing that the primary audience of Exodus 20 thought "evolutionism" every time they heard "for in SIX DAYS the LORD"...

    And are you then also insisting that the people of John 6 starting BITING CHRIST??

    The problem that you have is that the primary audience of John 6 "that ACCEPTED his teaching" did NOT BITE Christ.

    AND in the similar way - the primary audience of Exodus 20 REACTED to the 6 days plus Sabbath as a literal 7 DAY week!

    The primary audience rule WORKS in both cases - and indeed - exegesis WORKS!

    see?

    The whole reason that Bible students in all denominations come together on the common ground of exegesis is that ALL see that text-twisting based on even the wildest of notions (as you have shown above) is the tendancy of the bias in everyone if left unchecked by objective means.

    Actually that is not true. Hebrews 4 does NOT give the summary of Gen 1-2:3 that we find in God's own oratory given in Exodus 20:8-11.

    Hebrews 4 is never stated in such as way as to edit the text of Genesis or of Exodus 20.

    In fact the very fact that the LITERAL 7 day week is STILL observed shows that EVEN non-Sabbath keeping Christians are forced to admit to the continuation of that SAME 7 day week EVEN today.

    This is just too obvious to miss.

    When Hebrews applies the Sabbath rest to the land of caanan BEFORE the Cross - and to Joshua - it appeals to a point in time when ALL AGREE that the 7 day week was LITERAL and the Sabbath was LITERALLY the 7th day of the week.

    You seek to create confusion where none exists.

    IT can not be shown from scripture - not even from Hebrews 4.

    Exesgesis is the only option.

    But beyond that - Hebrews 4 does NOT provide a basis for editing Genesis. No exegetical system of theology could sustain such an speculative assertion.


    Yes - you claim that it did but failed to prove it.

    You tried to equivocate beteen the separation of "light and darkness" in vs 4-5 and the idea of the Sun ruling the day and the moon ruling the night. However it is obvious that the moon does not divide the light from the dark.

    On week-day-1 GOD divids the light from the dark.

    AND THEN there is DAY and NIGHT for 3 days BEFORE day 4 when we get the sun and the moon.

    Your claim that day 4 is really day 1 does not hold "water" nor make sense in the least. On Day 1 NO GREAT LIGHTS are created.

    ON day 4 TWO GREAT LIGHTS are created.

    This is so obvious that even the casual reader gets the point.


    You admitted that Gen 1-2:3 IS a Chronology.

    you admitted that IT DOES have the TIME elements of a CHRONology

    You admitted that Gen 2:4-end does not.

    Therefore - Gen 2:4-end can NOT BE AN ALTERNATE Chronology!

    See?

    No minutes, weeks, evenings, mornings, days in Gen 2:4-end so without actually having something to support your claims - you merely assert it to be "another chronology".

    So there is not much for me to respond to because once again you simply "claim it" without having anything IN the chapter to support you.


    Yet "Another" claim that was proven to be false. I showed you that the gospel DO contain Chronological elements like "The 6th hour" and the "9th hour" and "WEEK-day-1" and the next day and EARLY in the morning as it began to dawn etc

    ALL of them chronological terms - NONE of them found in Gen 2:4-end

    See? You had "nothing" in Gen 2 to support you claims and now we find that you claims about the Gospels DENIED the time elements IN THE Gospel accounts!

    You are having an awful time with the actual text in trying to make your case.

    I have already pointed all this out - but you just keep repeating your previous assertions.

    To progress the discussion you need to respond.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    [
    And then you fail to show that Gen 2:4-25 IS a Chronology OR that it HAS any time element listed. No minutes, no sequence of days, no weeks
    NO HOURS, no early in the Morning or "AS it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" etc.

    NOTHING like the time elements of the Gospel OR of Gen 1 nor any reference to time at all.

    You simply "repeat the CLAIM" that you need it to a chronology and "assert it to be" without ever supporting your own assertion with the TIME element IN Gen 2!!

    How obvious is that?

    Having failed to SHOW it to be a chronology you then ASSERT your failure to be "success" by saying take the plain reading of the text and its different chronology when compared with Genesis 1

    Is that supposed to be a compelling form of response Mercury??

    How in the world can you simply pile up assertion after factless assertion as your form of response?

    At some point you have to prove something - show something you say to be true.

    Just like there is no "short cut" around exegesis - there is no way to "skip" proving your many assertions.

    I have stated clearly where your evidence is in absentia.

    There is no indication that Gen 1-2:4 is anything other than "The account" and not "a parable".

    There is no hint that Exodus 20:8-11 is "a parable".

    Trying to equivocate between ACTUAL parables and historic accounts (as you seem to want to do) could never work in all of time.

    In Christ,

    bob
     
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    NASB is fine -- that is my favorite as well.

    Evening and morning -- day and night with God saying "LET THER BE LIGHT".

    He does not say "let there be lights in the sky" -- there is no reason at all to claim that HERE we are seeing both the sun and the moon created - the TWO great lights IN the sky.

    What we DO see is TIME, chronology AND sequence

    Here again TIME is added - EVENING and MORNING and DAY.

    With each of these literal creation days we see ONE rotation of the planet resulting in ONE pair of time markers "EVENING and MORNING".

    And then once again the sequence model "THEN God said" following each completed day.

    In each sequence the pattern is the same - what GOD speaks to - is what is created.

    Day 1 is LIGHT.

    Day 4 is solar bodies. objects in our solar system.

    God makes TWO great lights - one "to rule the day" and another to govern the night.

    But light and dark - day and night were ALREADY established in day 1.

    Day four creates solar OBJECTS in space AFTER plants have been created.
    [/quote

    But then - that's the Bible - the Word of God and not "Wild speculation".

    All agree that the primary audience would easily have gotten these obvious points from the details IN the text.

    Every time you to try get out of the obvious statement you run off to some other context that has nothing at all to do with the text at hand and WOULD not have even been known to the primary audience.

    You fail to establish your attempts as equivocation.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Indeed there is not. Those stories are not coming from me.

    I say that God places a light source on one side of the earth. I do not say what it is nor do I claim "it burnt out".

    You rush to the void of what the text does not say - in order to bend the text back on itself such that the clear and obvious 4th day is in fact the 1st.

    That is NOT apparent from the text NOR would it have been the rendering of the primary audience.

    In other words - your act of speculation does not form a kind of "exegesis".

    Again -a term you insert and an idea you make up.

    Why not just let the text SAY what it so obviously says and leave the part you don't know out?

    You argue out of the void of what you don't know about that light on day 1. That is the weakest possibly basis upon which to establish your need to bend day 4 back on day 1!!

    That is pretty obvious - by any measure.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Indeed - that parable is not a "Chronology" it has no time element to it and so can not be argued as "an alternate chronology" to something else in scripture.

    Just because there is an event OR EVEN a "story" does not mean that all events or all stories are presented IN a Chronology.

    That too is obvious.

    You know - I think you are starting to get that point.

    That story is NOT a Chronology NOR is it an "alternate chronology' to some real chronology.

    See - even you have to get the point after a while! I just love it when logic prevails over bias.

    So in those transitions witih THEN and AFTERWARD you have SEQUENCE but NOT TIME not Chronology so that you can not tell if it is one minute or a day or a week or a year.

    And significantly EVERY time you see the SEQUENCING in Gen 2 with "THEN" you have facts that ALSO fit Gen 1-2:4.

    For example

    Those paired events - joined by sequence conjunctives DO fit IN the Chronology of Gen 1-2:4.

    Events can be placed INTO a Chronology.

    EVEN sequences of events Can be inserted INTO a Chronology - but WITHOUT the Chronology they do not of themselves FORM a Chronology.

    But even more "obvious" once God Himself STATES the Chronology (as we see in Exodus 20:8-11) all room for speculative re-writing of Gen 1 fails.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     

Share This Page

Loading...