The days of Genesis 1

IF I was in a battle and prayed to God that the sun I observed on a daily basis crossing the sky would stop; then yeah, I would believe that the sun quit moving….From my perspective and that of Joshua’s it did. What’s the problem? So what that we now know that the earth rotates; It still doesn’t change the fact that Joshua recorded what he saw, which was the sun stopping. Just as it doesn’t stop your local weatherman from STILL referring to “sunrise” and “sunset”.

 

But think of those words. Think about "sunrise" and "sunset." Do you disagree with my assertion about why they are the words we use? For how long do you think people in general have known that it was the rotation of the earth that caused this?

 

How long people knew or didn't know is not the point. The Bible clearly does not make the assertion that the sun moves around the earth as a matter of scientific fact. Yet you still believe that anyone reading it would come to that conclusion. Even if someone with no knowledge of science came to the scriptures to determine whether geocentrism or heliocentrism were true, there is no way to be dogmatic about it from the scriptures, as you (continually) claim. The most that one could come away with, at least from the Joshua passage, is that, from the PERSPECTIVE of those who were in the battle, the sun stopped in the sky. And were you there, you would say the same thing. Trying to interpret scripture WITHOUT taking into account the perspective and context of the subjects is dangerous business. Further, you did not address that this was a miraculous event and not the norm. Even if the passage could be constrained to make a scientific claim, the fact that this was a one-time-only miracle would negate any general conlusions one would try to draw.

 

I do not say that it says that as fact. I say that if you read it literally, you will come to that conclusion. Just as fine theologians such as Calvin and Luther did. Even once the truth was demonstrated, they stuck to their geocentric position claiming that saying that the earth orbiting the sun contradicted the Bible and the Holy Spirit. And we have a parallel with old earth. The evidence is way more than sufficient to demonstrate that the universe is old and that all life on earth is related through common descent. Yet we still have some who insist that their literal interpretation must be correct despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is no physical evidence for a young earth nor for individually created kinds. But some refuse to consider that the creation account might not be literal just as Calvin and Luther refused to accept that the verses they thought indicated an unmoving earth might not be literal.

And for the record, it absolutely was a miraculous event recorded in Joshua.

 

Galileo was maligned and abused by those that were of the opinion that the Bible favored geocentrism. He writes in his letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (c. 1615):

“Some of the brethren raise a question concerning the motion of heaven, whether it is fixed or moved. If it is moved, they say, how is it a firmament?”

“Showing a greater fondness for their own opinions than for the truth, they sought to deny and disprove the new things which, if they had cared to look for themselves, their own senses would have demonstrated to them. To this end they hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly, and which were ill suited to their purposes.”

“…these men have resolved to fabricate a shield for their fallacies out of the mantle of pretended religion and the authority of the Bible. These they apply, with little judgment, to the refutation of arguments that they do not understand and have not even listened to.”

“…to this end they make a shield of their hypocritical zeal for religion. They go about invoking the Bible, which they would have minister to their deceitful purposes.”

“Copernicus never discusses matters of religion or faith, nor does he use arguments that depend in any way upon the authority of sacred writings which he might have interpreted erroneously. He stands always upon physical conclusions pertaining to the celestial motions, and deals with them by astronomical and geometrical demonstration, founded primarily upon sense experiences and very exact observations. He did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scriptures when they were rightly understood. And thus at the end of his letter of dedication addressing the pope, he said:
‘If there should chance to be any exegetes ignorant of mathematics who pretend to skill in that discipline, and dare to condemn and censure this hypothesis of mine upon the authority of some scriptural passage twisted to their purpose, I value them not, but disdain their unconsidered judgment.”

“…I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth- whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might fall into error.”

"Hence I should think it would be the part of prudence not to permit anyone to usurp scriptural texts and force them in some way to maintain any physical conclusion to be true, when at some future time the senses and demonstrative or necessary reasons may show the contrary.”

Galileo also writes at great length about the Joshua passage, expounding what he believes it's proper interpretation should be.

Rob

 

Standard red herring from our evolutionist friends trying to dodge the subject title.

Try "exegesis".

Hey! Wait a minute - there goes that weather channel again "talking about sunRISE"!!! They must be using poetry!

Oh NO! Now we see Einstein arguing that motion can be stated FROM the FRAME OF REFERENCE of the observer!! He must be a poet too!!

Goody! So now we don't have to believe the Bible, or the weather channel OR Einstein.

My What "light" those evolutionists have!!

Indeed. But "maybe" we can weasel it in as an "excuse" not to believe God's Account of origins and to trust our atheist bretheren when they offer "their counter" to God's account - like our Christian evolutionist bretheren do.

Surely that is all the excuse we would need to do such a thing to the text of God's Word right?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Actually, it is the ill-advised parading of the literal teaching of Genesis One as in opposition to the findings of science that is harming the cause of Christ, because it attempts to require people to choose between intellectual integrety and coming to know God. Driving a wedge between people and God this way is not good; it is a tragedy.

 

"How can two walk together unless they agree..."

To try to bring God down to our depraved level by trying to prove/disprove His Word by rummaging through His Creation takes no small amount of arrogance.

Einstein believed in a higher intelligence than he--apparently Al just never bothered to seek the personal God revealed in the Bible.

To say: "there is no God" means that one knows everything. There are many who ascribe to the "agnostic" or "cannot know" for sure.

To say that the universe came about by "theistic evolution", one must allegorize(actually ignore) the Book of Genesis. One may as well through out the rest of the Books too--if one part is wrong, it is all wrong--including Jesus the Savior of this old "big banged"up world.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Fortunately, Bro. James, I do not have to depend on your interpretation to decide whether or not to trust in Jesus!

Genesis One has some obvious artistic touches added into the narrative. There is a pattern of correspondence between days one and four, two and five, three and six. There is a rhythm of repitious phrasing. These elements in a narrative indicate that style was considered at least as important as literal content and leave room to consider them as non-literal, especially in the hidden purposes of the all knowing Author who prepared these verses to be acceptable for pre-scientific and scientific audiences alike.

 

My post was not addressing salvation--let me rephrase something:

If one can deny the literalness of Genesis Chapter 1, one can also deny the literalness of John 14:6--maybe Jesus meant I am a way, a truth, and a life, anyone can come to the Father... A lot of folks believe that.

Jesus paid it all

Selah,

Bro. James

P.S. Whether The Word of God passes through the paradigm of science/pseudoscience or not is irrelevant--we are all depraved--and without excuse. See Romans Ch. 1.

[ October 22, 2004, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]

 

Bro James,

"If one can deny the literalness of Genesis Chapter 1, one can also deny the literalness of John 14:6--maybe Jesus meant I am a way, a truth, and a life, anyone can come to the Father... A lot of folks believe that.

Interesting point. I don't agree with the first part really but the second part (bold) is very true.

I think that we can say that on a historicogrammatical level the OT and NT are quite different, written in different languages and styles with different original audiences. The NT was clearly meant to be a document of witness for the gospel. John 14:6 CANNOT reasonably be reinterpreted otherwise. Genesis 1 is a little different. There ARE reasons to see it as being a "theological epic" of sorts, not intended to be literally true. Now that being said the Bible IS for all of us today so I would not expect all Christians to swallow the theological epic thing - but it is quite cogent on an academic level.

The last part is true and is maybe a little worrisome. If we dispense with a traditional reading, ostensibly in deference to science, do we then open the door for people to dispense with traditional NT interpretation in deference to a universlaist outlook? Hopefully not! But the possibility is there.

I still however, as a conservative Christian, want to know what God intended. As such I am not against revising traditional man-made stances if they seem less than adequate.

 

Ill advised teaching of Genesis... wow... is that as bad as those 'ill advised' teachings of Jesus? You can continue to value the word of Man above the Word of God if you like.... but 'intellectual integrity' is not dismissing the Absolute Truth in God's word in place of an idea who's founders only presented it because they wanted an alternate to scripture.

In fact it is evolution which drives the wedge... as most scientists were creation scientists believing a literal Genesis until Evolution became popular. Now look at the churches in countries which have embraced evolution - they are dead or dying.

Unfortunately you are not depending on ANY biblical interpretation, but rather the science of man in place of the Word.

Classifying it as non-literal does not give you the go-ahead to dismiss it entirely and IN IT'S PLACE insert a doctrine that is entirely contradicted by the Bible (evolution). If it's non-literal... than give us a non-literal exegesis... don't dismiss it like it's a fairy tale.

Yes it was written for all audiences... that means it was written to be understood by all audiences... meaning those with or those without scientific knowledge can understand it. The only way for this to be true is for it to be literal in meaning. Moreover, the Bible demonstrates it's literalness time and time again.

Indeed... yet Jesus himself in the 'historicogrammatical' tone of the New Testament cites Genesis literally. Therefore we have a conclusive link between the literal language of the NT and the literal language of Genesis. We have a conclusive link between Genesis and Jesus' teachings. With this link... if you undermine Genesis, than you undermine Jesus Christ. If you can dismiss Genesis... than you can dimiss Jesus when he quotes Genesis. If you can dismiss anything of what Jesus says, then you can dismiss the whole of what Jesus says.

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Here you are... a direct link between Jesus' teachings and Genesis 1.

 

Amen! I think I will take Jesus Christ at His word over fallible man's any day. Espcially since Jesus was there in the beginning, I'd say He knows what He is talking about.

 

When the Bible tells us to work for six days and have a day of rest on the seventh, does this really mean that mankind should worship every week? Doesn't it mean we should work for six undefined periods, each lasting millions of years, and then rest for a period of millions of years?

 

So that's what my boss is trying to do!

Rob

 

To Charles Meadows,

Most of my reply to you has already been posted above by other posters.

Several remarks in passing: There is nothing wrong with cogency in academia so long as we realize that our wills and minds are reprobate without the mind of Christ which comes from above. The Apostle Paul said we need to renew our minds daily--not in "Origin of Species", but rather the "Book of Books".

Nicodemus, John, Ch. 3, was probably a cogent academian--a Master of Israel. He was not Born Again--he did not see the simplicity of being born from above. Sadly, it is not recorded that he ever did.

The problems arise when the "Masters" think the "Master" is confused about what happened and who did it.

Confusion is a basic tactic of the Wicked One.

God is not the author of confusion.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Although I believe in an old earth, this made me laugh hard.

Good one.