A literal 6 24-hr days?

[john6:63]

I believe the Author of Genesis has gone to great lengths to properly define the word day the first time it appears. In (Genesis 1:4) we read that God separated the "light from the darkness." Then in (Genesis 1:5) we read, God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. In other words, the terms were being very carefully defined.

The first time the word day is used; it is defined as the light to distinguish it from the darkness called night. (Genesis 1:5) then finishes off with, "And the evening and the morning were the first day." This is the same phrase used for each of the other five days, and shows that there was a clearly established cycle of days and nights (i.e., periods of light and periods of darkness). The periods of light on each of the six days were when God did his work, and the periods of darkness were when God did no creative work.

This is why I believe the earth and universe was created in 6 literal 24-hour days. It’s clearly defined.

I would like to say that I consider everyone here to be my fellow comrades in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We all give our hearts and souls to our Lord in service to Him. However, I don’t see this issue of not taking the Bible literally, an issue that’s not important. I believe this is in fact, an important issue facing Christianity today.

I will be out of town until Sunday evening May 11. Why am I saying this, so no one will think I’ve fallen off the face of the earth….

Have a great weekend!

[ May 08, 2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: john6:63 ]

 

[Meatros]

Personally I don't think it's very well defined. What is "the light", is it the sun? Stars? If it was the sun, then what about Gen 17?

 

[john6:63]

What about (Gen 17)? If I remember correctly it’s about the Lord making a covenant between He and Abraham.

 

[Meatros]

In addition, how could morning or evening be established if there was no moon or sun?

Did God keep the vegetation alive before he created the sun?

If God created light before the sun, then why is the sun necessary?

 

[john6:63]

How did God raise His Son from the dead?

 

[Meatros]

D'oh, I meant Genesis 1:17

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by john6:63:
How did God raise His Son from the dead?

What does that have to do with whether or not Genesis should be taken literally or not?

 

[Helen]

It has to do with it, Meatros, because if you choose to disbelieve one miracle, why not all the others as well.

The first light was probably from a quasar in the center of the Milky Way. Light and dark would be produced by a rotating earth, the same way it is produced today. Evening and morning are clearly delineated in Genesis 1. Eras do not have mornings and evenings.

 

[Meatros]

It has to do with it, Meatros, because if you choose to disbelieve one miracle, why not all the others as well.

No, it is combining two issues that illogically. It is setting up a strawman to attack. Or to go down a slippery slope of unacceptable consequences.

The OP was about why Genesis should be taken literally, not why other portions of the bible should or shouldn't. The bible wasn't all written at one time and the bible also wasn't written in the same style.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by Helen:
The first light was probably from a quasar in the center of the Milky Way. Light and dark would be produced by a rotating earth, the same way it is produced today. Evening and morning are clearly delineated in Genesis 1. Eras do not have mornings and evenings.

A post-hoc explanation might clear things up if one is to interpret things that way, however what it definately means is

the Author of Genesis has gone to great lengths to properly define the word day

is *not* true.

 

[john6:63]

I like this young creationists explanation:

“One of the possible reasons God deliberately left the creation of the sun until the fourth day is because he knew that, down through the ages, cultures would try to worship the sun as the source of life. Not only this, modern-day theories tell us that the sun came before the earth. God is showing us he made the earth and light to start with, that he can sustain it with its day and night cycle, and that the sun was created on the fourth day as a tool of his to be the bearer of light from that time.”

If you want to use science to discredit Genesis. I’m going to be bias as well and use scientists who support Genesis.

 

[Meatros]

This is all entirely opinion and serves as further example that Genesis doesn't properly define day. Also where does God mention how many hours are in a day, in Genesis?

You still haven't explained why the creation of the sun was necessary.

God deliberately left the creation of the sun until the fourth day is because he knew that, down through the ages, cultures would try to worship the sun as the source of life.

How does leaving the creation of the sun until the fourth day absolve this?

 

[Helen]

Genesis most certainly does define days, as I just posted on another thread. Here is the list again:

http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/98sep/einwechter.shtml

http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Hosea.htm

http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cxb.htm

http://www.truthsearcher.com/DaysOfGenOne3.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3569.asp -- a short but well-written quick explanation of some of the material

http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-how_long_were_the_days_of_gen1.html

www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/rsixdays.pdf

http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx8c.htm

http://www.jewishpath.com/holidays/gematria/yom_kippur_2001.html

www.credoquarterly.com/laboratorium.pdf

http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~derjn/wfs3hn.html


Of course the creation of the sun was not necessary. Nothing in creation is necessary. However God chose to create and how to create and what to create and then He told us enough of what He did for us to get at least a picture of it all, if not enough understanding to satisfy those who are curious.

 

[john6:63]

Do I honestly have to re-post my answer? I answered you already. My previous post was a pretty good explanation.

Why is the sun necessary? You serious?

Why was the tree of life and the the tree of knowledge of good and evil necessary?
Why was the covenant between God and Abraham necessary?
Why was the flood necessary?
Why were the plagues in Egypt necessary?
Why was the need for Jesus, Gods only son necessary?

God is a loving, caring, forgiving, judging and just God! But hey, you knew that already.

 

[Meatros]

Okay, first of all the claim presented by John is this:

Author of Genesis has gone to great lengths to properly define the word day the first time it appears

and

In other words, the terms were being very carefully defined.

Which isn't true, as I've demonstrated. I've looked at the first website you presented Helen and I take issue with this:

Genesis 1:1-2:3 explicitly states that God created the world in six days. A straightforward reading of the Biblical text leads one to believe that the days of creation were six, literal, twenty-four-hour days.

The author has taken liberties to say that in Genesis 1:1-2:3 is 24 hours. Perhaps I missed it while I was perusing my bible, but where is 24 mentioned?

 

[Meatros]

Why is the sun necessary? You serious?

If God could keep the plants alive before the sun, why is it necessary to create the sun?

Why was the tree of life and the the tree of knowledge of good and evil necessary?
Why was the covenant between God and Abraham necessary?
Why was the flood necessary?
Why were the plagues in Egypt necessary?
Why was the need for Jesus, Gods only son necessary?

God is a loving, caring, forgiving, judging and just God! But hey, you knew that already.

Strawman, stick to the subject.

 

[john6:63]

The following is a dialogue between a science professor (SP) and a student (S).

SP: The DAYS of Genesis are obliviously “symbolic.”

S: You mean professor they could symbolize six (6) seconds?

SP: Yes, that’s right!!

S: Or even 6 billion years?

SP: Yes they could mean “ANYTHING!!!”

S: What about 6 days?

SP: SIX DAYS, NOOOOOO!!!!!!

 

[Meatros]

So instead of refuting what I've presented you choose to make a joke in an effort to undermind the credibility of those who view Genesis as non-literal?

Basically an ad-hom that doesn't support what you've asserted.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Helen:
It has to do with it, Meatros, because if you choose to disbelieve one miracle, why not all the others as well.

Informal fallacy - slippery slope.

It is not a matter of disbelieving a miracle. When viewed properly, science and the Bible should not contradict one another. To a number of us, there is incontrovertible evidence of an old earth. Choosing to accept the revelation from God in nature around us, Genesis 1 & 2 tells us of the relationship between God and his creation and the sinful nature of man and so on. There should be certain evidence if the earth is old and certain evidence if the earth is young. The evidence seems to say young.

This has no bearing on whether Jesus was who he said he was or whether he walked on water or whether he died and arose again. If we doubted these things, we wouldn't be here discussing this. Those are issues of faith. You cannot expect to ever have any evidence for that. You can look at geology and biology and paleontology and astronomy and so on and find out how old the world is and explain the current diversity of life and astronomical observations in scientific terms. Science and the Bible won't contradict each other so the reading of Genesis must follow what we are given from scientific revelations.

An example I know you are tired of. The whole four legged insect thing that wouldn't go away. You went to great pains to show how that wasn't a mistake. But, for me, the point was that you had to bring in knowledge you have from outside the Bible to understand the passage properly. A straightforward, literal reading says four legged insects. Same thing. We have to trust that God would not fool us with what we learn from nature. Now I know that you will argue that nature does show a young earth and that is for the rest of this forum. But trying to find the proper reading of Genesis does not lead to denying the things we agree on and have faith in.

The first light was probably from a quasar in the center of the Milky Way. Light and dark would be produced by a rotating earth, the same way it is produced today. Evening and morning are clearly delineated in Genesis 1. Eras do not have mornings and evenings.

I believe in another thread I showed that if the brightest known quasar, which is orders of magnitude more massive the our own supermassive black hole, were placed at the center of the galaxy the brightness here would be a little greater than that of Venus at its brightest and a little dimmer than a full moon. I do not think anyone confuses a full moon night with daytime. I can show my work if needed, it is a quite simple calculation. I didn't keep my references, however, so I would have to look the information up again. It is just a matter of luminosity and distance.

 

[Helen]

Yes, Barry would like to see your calculations on the quasar light. Please feel free to email us at [email protected] if you do it as an attachment. Baptistmail is a pain in the neck with attachments.

As far as the insect thing, why does it bother you that I was interested to see if there was an idiom involved? There was. It is not my fault if the Bible translators did not know about it! The same, by the way, goes for salt. I was asked by a Bible study student once why we were compared to salt by Jesus. Instead of the stock answer I told her I would look it up. I spent a couple of hours later tracking every single reference to salt in the Concordance. I was finished, with nothing new, and then I thought, "there's one more: lose saltiness". As it turns out, the words translated into that phrase are used only four times in the New Testament (in the entire Bible, actually). But only two times are those words translated as 'lose saltiness' -- in Matthew's and Luke's renditions of the Sermon on the Mount. However Paul also used those words and they are translated entirely differently in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 1: they are translated as 'become foolish' or 'become fools'.

If I had not taken the time, I would not know that. It is a idiomatic usage which the Jews already knew.

A little research does not hurt when reading the Bible. And Bible does explain Bible. If you want to use only Bible for the insects, you can. Check on its classification of animals throughout and you will see it is in one of three ways, always:

1. by clean and unclean
2. by locomotion
3. by 'kind' and this is closely tied with the concept of 'nephesh' which, because it also translates as 'soul', seems to indicate that which allows an animal to learn as well as have a relationship with other species.

Now, the insects are clearly being classified in Exodus by locomotion. They are put in contrast to birds. Birds have two feet. Insects and all bugs have more. Now, if you check the use of 'four-footed' in your Concordance, you will see that it is used idiomatically.

You never have to leave Bible. You simply have to know it.

And 'slippery slope' is not a fallacy here, but a fact. When you are taught that you have to depend on yourself and your own understanding to comprehend the 'real truth' of the Bible, where are you going to stop? With Genesis? OK, what about all the references to the events in Genesis, including creation itself, scattered throughout the Bible? OK, reinterpret those. But those are connected to various lessons and doctrines. That means we had better take a look at those lessons and doctrines...

And if you want to see the final end result, check out the Jesus Seminar. Miracles are all discounted there, as is His deity.

It started at the top of a slippery slope of doubt that God knows how to communicate clearly to us humans.