In the Beginning....

That does not constitute "all through scripture". Quite the exaggeration.

Neither did he say this in the context you have placed it. I would encourage you to read the next two verses.

No, you have overstated the symbolic in scripture and neither the wording nor the context in the creation account allows for the symbolism you are trying to impose on this.

 

What in Scripture states that the creation account is to be taken literally?

First, you are asking the wrong question. The question is, where does it say that it is allegory? I can answer that one. It doesn't!! Secondly, who are you to determine that is allegorical where there is no definitive indicator that it is?

 

This is where the "rubber hits the road".

 

It never announces- "Hey this is allegory!" yet in many many places it is.

Regardless, the word "day" means other things even when not allegorically such as: In Columbus' DAY many Christians still believed the world was flat because they forced their traditional view on the Scriptures.

Or, "In Galileo's DAY many Christians gave the church a black eye by ignorantly claiming that the Scripture demands a geocentric galaxy."

Or, "In our DAY many Christians are hindering our ability to reach thinking people because they make claims that go against what appear to be clear scientific facts."

 

Or "I never thought there would come a day when Christians would doubt that God meant a literal 24-hour period of time when he said 'day'."

Obviously God meant "billions of years" but Moses didn't have the language to say it.

 

Yes, that was a broad statement. Can you give me an example from Scripture of where this statement does not apply, where it is an exaggeration? In other words, an example from the Bible of a profound even reavealed through direct revelation, that is not couched in symbolic terms? That would be helpful.

Yes, the context does imply prophets in the nation at that time (is that what you meant?), but I was observing that the principle is consistent throughout Scripture. Again, some examples from Scripture, of my mistakes, would help clarify things.

I only know of one place in Scripture where we are told that something is allegorical, could you give some other examples? It seems that this is something God wants us to be discerning about. The only real unambiguous events are the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. Over and over, Scripture affirms the reality of those events, very directly and explicitly. (Ok, Paul does refer to the Exodus as having "happened", but I don't know of any others.)

So I don't think this is a bad question, given the content of the narrative, and comparing with other revelations. My point is that we need to have Biblical reasons for taking it either as literal or allegorical, neither science-based NOR literary-based.

 

Actually, I was asking for something that must have been given through revelation (like a future event). After creation, everything else could have been documented as eyewitness. It may have been revealed directly, but we don't know that from Scripture. (For example, Henry Morris, in his book "Biblical Creationism" give details of how the rest of Genesis could have been document by Adam, Noah, and Noah's sons.)

Sorry, I don't understand. Can you elaborate what your point is? Thanks.

 

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
It is evidient and clear that when God tells us more than once we might aught to pay a lttle more attention.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Folks either the God and the Bible are absolutley correct or it is not. I don't have to believe that Gods word was inspired God word tells me so.

 

Out of curiousity do you even know the arguments for the old earth model? You are painting a picture of a position that is so obvious that a child could see it. This is what annoys me about the whole debate and why I choose to watch on and see how foolish it progresses.

For your interest here is an article highlighting the issues involved.
http://www.reasons.org/age-earth/bi...-old-earth-creationism-contradict-genesis-1-0

I suppose an ignorant person might like to email them and tell them that day means day and the bible is literal..etc Yeah, like they are THAT stupid?? All due respect, common sense....

Darren

 

Jim, you like to play games with the scripture to fit your world view. It's not you who defines the scriptures agenda. Rather, it should be the other way around. I wonder what other gymnastics you play with God's word twisting it to fit your idea of the way things should be? I'd hate to be in your shoes bearing the responsibility of redefining "Thus saith the Lord."

 

The article doesn't rest on any one quote anyway, obviously. What were the other 2 major flaws?? The issues still rest upon their own merits.

Darren

 

How much of the Bible do you take literally? The whole thing, even when the genre doesn't call for it?

It's imperative that we research genre and historical context when exegeting and interpreting scripture. Genesis is no exception.

 

That's a very strong assertion, thank you for being clear. If I am twisting Scripture, then please explain how.

I believe God inspired all of Scripture, and used many forms (theology, narrative, allegory, etc). Allegorical narrative is no less the word of God than clear doctrine. I don't think we should use any human agent (science or human literary genres) to interpret Scripture, but rather we should let Scripture interpret Scripture. Sometimes the Word clearly says that another part of the Word is literal, sometimes it makes it clear that it is not literal, sometimes neither is explicitly state. In the latter case, should we not seek God's intention from the rest of His Word?

That's why I'm trying to seek an alignment with interpretation with other Scripture. Of course, I could be wrong, which is why I ask for examples from Scripture, or clear exegesis, etc, to show the mistakes.

Simply stating that I'm misusing the Word, without showing me how, is not edifying.