1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Biblical justification for non-historical creation days

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

  1. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    True. Which is why I have not argued that. I have stated that the Bible, in another place where it institutes an ordinance, uses the same type of symbolic language we find in Exodus 20:11.

    No, I've made clear that evolution is not the issue here. You didn't address the fact that the same arguments I've made are also made by some people who reject evolution (see the link near the bottom of my last post).

    And no, the people of John 6 did not start biting Christ. They said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" "His disciples grumbled at this" and "As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore" (John 6:60-61, 66). If only they had known Jesus was just speaking symbolically! About the only clue is what Jesus said to his inner circle: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life" (John 6:63).

    Your first paragraph is confused: I said Hebrews 4 refers to the Genesis 1-2:3 creation account, not that it summarizes it. As to your second paragraph, nobody is claiming that Hebrews 4 edits Genesis 1. It helps us understand how Genesis 1 was intended. Apparently, the seventh day is ongoing.

    No, I gave a summary of what the text says. "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."

    There's no equivocation there. Your claim that it is "obvious that the moon does not divide the light from the dark" is just your own attempt to read science into the Bible. On the fourth day, God said "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night". That contradicts what you have said.

    Your problem is in the third claim. I have never said that Genesis 2:4-25 does not have a chronology. I have stated in this thread explicitly and repeatedly that it does.

    I have never claimed those elements were missing. What I said was based on your original statement about the evening/morning repetition in Genesis 1 being a key proof of its historicity. I pointed out that the gospels do not use a similar evening/morning repetition. At that point, you moved the goal posts and said they contained other chronological indicators -- a point that is obvious to all and that I've never denied.

    However, none of those chronological statements you listed are found in Genesis 3. Does that mean you think Genesis 3 has no chronology? I think it does have a pretty clear order of events. The statements you listed are not at all necessary for a text to contain a chronology.
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Bob said --
    But in Gen 1-2:3 you have CHRONOLOGY!

    In Exodus 20:8-11 you have CONFIRMATION of that Chronology in summary - that SHOWS a literal 7 day timeline faithful reproduced and honored in memorial to this very day!!


    True - you have sequence - not chronology.

    You don't know if it was in minutes, days, or years.

    That is the obvious part.

    Once again - in your pattern of equivocating - you equivocate here between sequence and actual chronology.

    This is where I once again refer you to the "Chronos" of Chronology.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    "again" you equivocate between a sequence and a chronology. You argue that when all you have is a sequence (even if only bits and pieces of a sequence) you have a Chronology.

    WHEN does God come calling for Adam? Vs 8 implies evening or late afternoon and because of that TIME ELEMENT you have a tiny framework for Chronology because you can argue that the timeline is likely to be just one day -- and the events of the fall happen before the late afternoon.

    But ONLY because of that TIME element - (time that is ALSO MISSING from Gen 2) can you even argue a WEAK chronology in Gen 3. Primarily it is just a sequence of events.

    For example no time is given between the time of God's speaking to Adam and the Angel standing at the gate.

    We don't know how long it took them to leave the garden because no time is given. We know the "THEN" sequences but not the time.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no idea where you are going with this. If you want to use the term "sequence", that is fine with me. Both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have a sequence. It is not the same. Maybe such obvious differences are an indication that the author, who placed these accounts back-to-back, didn't intend for them to be merged into a single sequence.

    Anyway, I'll expand on that a bit. The Bible contains descriptions of many things we can't comprehend -- things that are beyond human experience. To explain the unexplainable, Scripture tends to use many pictures, none of which are complete, but each of which explains certain things.

    For instance, the Bible gives many pictures of God. Here's some of them:
    </font>
    • God is Spirit (John 4:24; Psalm 139:7-10).</font>
    • God is invisible (Col. 1:15; 1 John 4:12).</font>
    • God is not a man (Num. 23:19; Hos. 11:9).</font>
    • God is a consuming fire (Deut. 4:24).</font>
    • God is the spring of living waters (Jer. 2:13).</font>
    • God is our shepherd (Psalm 23).</font>
    • God is a warrior (Ex. 15:2-3).</font>
    • God is a protective mother bird (Psalm 91:4).</font>
    If we take any one of these too seriously while excluding others, it can warp our image of God. If we focus on the first three, we may think of God as more of a "force" or a diffused gas than a personal being. Each of the remaining pictures stress certain aspects of God's character that the more technical descriptions don't get across. We don't get the best picture of God by literally combining all the pictures -- that only leads to nonsense -- but instead by combining the characteristics that underlie each picture.

    As another example, Jesus uses three parables to explain why he has come to seek and to save the lost. Luke 15 contains the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost (or prodigal) son. None of the pictures is totally accurate by themselves (for instance, God can be in more than one place at a time, unlike the shepherd who needs to leave his 99 sheep to go after the lost one) but put together they paint a more complete and accurate picture.

    Finally, getting to the point, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25 give two stories of the creation of the world. Trying to merge the two into one literal account is as ridiculous as trying to merge the parables of the lost sheep, coin and son into a single story, or of merging the descriptions of God as fire, spring, shepherd, warrior, and bird into a single figure. The two creation accounts are not contradictory, but rather they give different halves of a whole. If the two halves could neatly fit together into a single historical story, there would have been no reason to present them separately in the first place.

    The first account starts with primordial waters overwhelming an earth that is "formless and void" (Gen. 1:1-2) while the second starts with primordial ground that saw no rain (Gen. 2:4-5). The first puts man's creation at the end while the second has man created first before the plants have grown or animals have been formed (unless you read it from the NIV, which tries to smooth over the difference with the animals; this is clearer in more word-for-word translations such as the NASB, KJV, NKJV or ESV). In the first God tells the humans to rule over the other creatures and subdue the earth; in the second man is placed in the garden to "work it and take care of it". The first portrays God creating mainly by speaking; the second has God forming Adam from dust and breathing life into him. Similarly, the first portrays God (Elohim, the Hebrew generic name for God) as above his creation while in the second God (Yahweh, the Hebrew personal name for God) walks in the garden with Adam and Eve.

    Many people explain away these differences by taking one account or the other as less literal. Generally, the first account is taken as authoritative and the second is just used to add further detail to the sixth day. When there's an apparent contradiction (such as the plants already existing by this time in the first account but not being there in the second), the first chapter is taken literally and the second is adjusted to fit.

    My approach is to take both accounts as two sides of a coin. Either account would lead to misinterpretations if the other is excluded from consideration. For instance, the first account stresses God's transcendence, while the second stresses God's immanence. The first shows God's sovereignty as creation takes place in highly ordered and structured days, while the second focuses on God's providence, with things being created in response to needs (man to till the ground, woman as a helper for man). The first stresses how humanity is created in God's image with dominion over the earth, while the second stresses that we came from dust and have an duty to take care of the world. Industrialists may prefer the first account while environmentalists prefer the second, but by taking both together we find balance.

    It is not a matter of contradiction. Most of the differences are so plainly obvious that it is the height of arrogance to think we've only noticed them now. They were as evident when the accounts were compiled together as they are now. They are presented side by side, which is a pretty good clue that the writer of Genesis wasn't disturbed by their differences. Consider two proverbs in the Bible that are often given on Bible contradiction web sites: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself" and "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes". What the contradiction web sites try to minimize is where the proverbs are found: Proverbs 26:4-5 -- in other words, they are back to back! Obviously the compiler of Proverbs was well aware that these two proverbs gave different advice for a similar situation, and yet under divine inspiration he had no problem including them both. This was not a flaw he overlooked or some secret that was only discovered by later generations; the proverbs are two sides of the same coin, and so they were placed side by side. There are times when each is relevant, and it is better to keep both in mind than to always use one to the exclusion of the other.

    There are other times when the Bible uses multiple accounts quite differently. Jesus' crucifixion is recorded in detail four times, yet we don't see the huge differences between the accounts that we do in creation or in the parables of the lost items. When Samuel/Kings and Chronicles give accounts of Israel's rulers, they select their details in order to fit their individual purpose, but yet the details mesh together. Saul is followed by David who is followed by Solomon in both accounts, and any differences are in minor details such as the exact moment a king died. Most of the details are exactly the same in both accounts (sometimes word for word).

    In the creation accounts, by contrast, hardly any details are the same. While both describe God as creating everything, they do it in totally different ways. Somebody who reads Genesis 2:4-25 without any preconceived ideas from the preceding chapter would get a totally different picture of creation than one who tries to reconcile the second chapter to the first. I think we often miss much of what the second account has to say to us because we are only willing to view it through the filter of the first chapter, instead of viewing both through the filter of the entire Bible.
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by BobRyan:
    "again" you equivocate between a sequence and a chronology. You argue that when all you have is a sequence (even if only bits and pieces of a sequence) you have a Chronology.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That is true - but a sequence can be partial or complete and the sequence of HOW something is mentioned can be very different than the sequence of "actual events" in a chronology.

    Finally - a sequence that is not placed in the setting of a Chronology CAN NOT be claimed as "another Chronology" - and that is a mistake you have already made between Gen 1-2:4 and Gen:5-end.

    Your "problem" with Gen 1-2:4 is your need to ignore it. This is also your problem with the summary of that chronolgy given in Exodus 20:8-11.

    Your problem with exegesis is ALSO your need to ignore it - as we have seen you veere time after time AWAY from the obvious meaning of the passage to the first order primary audience.

    Your problem with Gen 2:5-45 is your need to equivocate between a partial sequence (where only SOME events have the THEN conjuctive) and an actual chronology.

    Your problem with Exodus 20:8-11 is that it hardwires a literal 7 day week to the 7 evening and mornings of Gen 1. It is incredibly obvious that the primary audience "gets it" and even today we ALL continue with that same 7 day week.

    Your other problem with exegesis is the assumption you make in your posts that if you can find ANY text in all of scripture that is not explicit - then you can justify inserting a kind of fog into the clear and explicit chronology of Gen 1.

    All of your methods so far have been seen to fail exegetical soundness and amount to simply speculating "anyway".

    Your idea that "if the Bible ever did something with any parable that is less explicit than the chronology of Gen 1 - then we can blow the fog of uncertainty into the actual chronology of Gen 1" has been tried in post after post.

    But that speculative approach never gets beyond pure speculation.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Well - as "nice as that story is" - your use of it 'needs' to ignore the fact that God Himself takes this soooo literally that in John 1 the GOSPEL account is BASED on the ACTUAL making of ALL things by Christ the Creator.

    In Exodus 20:8-11 THE ACTUAL 7 evenings and mornings of Gen 1 are taking Sooo literally that WE TOO are commanded to observe the EXACT SAME week and the primary audience does so - as do Christians and Jews today (and the majority of all mankind).

    And there is where your problem remains. No good way to undo - what is so clearly set in stone in scripture.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Again your efforts to equivocate between a Chronology and a partial sequence are "repeated here".

    #1. No mention of time in Gen 2:5-45 so no chronology and hence no ALTERNATE chronology to be merged with Gen 1-2:5.

    #2. No re-assignment of all events in Gen 1-2:4 in the Gen 2:5-45 partial sequence so no need to "pretend" that everything in Gen is re-arranged in Gen 2.

    #3. There is NEW information in the partial sequence of Gen 2 that is not present AT ALL in the full CHRONOLOGY of Gen 1-2:5 because Gen 1 gives NO events of man "doing anything" on day 6 or day 7.

    There is NEW information in Gen 2 that you can not ignore AND you can not USE Gen 2 to DELETED that obvious and clear information of Gen 1.

    This means that taking the NEW information in BOTH and taking the CHRONOLOGY as a CHRONOLOGY while accepting the PARTIAL SEQUENCE of Gen 2:5-45 as only a PARTIAL SEQUENCE brings perfect understanding and harmony to the Bible reading AND pays strict attention to exegesis.

    With all that going for it - you would wonder why your attempt would even be made to dilute and misrepresent Gen 1-2:4 would even be made in the first place.

    What drives you to make these equivocations and wild speculations?


    AND they would BOTH have to be CHRONOLOGIES.

    Since they obviously are NOT BOTH chronologies there is no way to simple merge them as a single Chronology "obviously".

    It is the constant appeal to equivocation in your posts that throws them off the path of reason.

    You can not equate a partial sequence like Gen 2:5-45 with a Chronology like Gen 1-2:5!

    Get it?

    How easy can this be?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe Christ Jesus made the universe and all that is in it. I most certainly do not ignore that.

    And in Exodus 31:17 where a similar statement is made, taking it equally literally would lead to a belief that God gets tired and needs to be refreshed from time to time. With Hebrews 4 as my guide, I take these references to God's rest as symbolic of a greater reality, both in duration and in what the rest entails. That's why I think the rest is more than a single day, and that's why I don't believe the rest is a time when God quits working and is "refreshed". God is still at work in the world now (John 5:17), even though in another sense, "His works were finished from the foundation of the world" (Hebrews 4:3).
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The fascinating thing here - is that we have so many other evolutionists on this board who avoid "making their case from the Bible" like the plague. In fact they repeatedly post text after text of "well certainly you can't really believe this is true".

    So Mercury - I have to give you credit for at least staying on the topic of scripture to make the argument. (Even if you do simply state equivocation after equivocation between chronologies and partial sequences and complete parables!).

    Ex 31 17"It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed."

    Ex 31:17 says nothing than can undermine Gen 1 or that if taken seriously would result in some false 7 day cycle or 40 day cycle.

    The "stretch" argument that you attempt is to say that God NOT ONLY can not be telling the truth about HIS Chronology He ALSO can not be telling the truth about what HE DID!!

    If you "great proof" that we can not really believe the text is that it says God rested - then you can start tossing scripture in Gen 2:3-4 and you can toss Exodus 20:8-11 long before you get to Ex 31.

    You have left exegesis entirely.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, do you believe God literally gets tired and needs to be refreshed?
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I believe that you can not use what you don't know about God as "an excuse" to avoid the objective, obvious, accepted methods of exegetical Bible study.

    Your approach swings between equivocation between parables and ACTUAL chronologies - or else arguing out of the void of what you do not know about God when HE claims to do something.

    Neither of those speculative methods are actually a part of accepted exegesis.

    Do you have any other alternatives in mind to simply embracing both the text and sound exegesis?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see you didn't answer the question, Bob.

    That's not what I'm doing. I'm using what I do know about God. I know that God, aside from when he was subject to human frailty, cannot become tired or in need of refreshment. So, when a verse says that God refreshed himself (Exodus 31:17), I take that as an anthropomorphism. Human language that we can relate to is being used to describe something beyond our comprehension. According to Hebrews 4, God's rest since the foundation of the world is ongoing, and according to John 5:17, God is still working during his rest. And yet, God's rest is still something real, something memorialized in the seventh day of creation using symbolic language for both its duration and scope.

    If you disagree, why not explain how you view God's rest, and how you harmonize your view with the passages I've brought up?
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I know to believe God when He says to follow HIS example. I know to BELIEVE God when HE lays out HIS Chronology for Creation week. I know to BELIEVE God when HE summarizes that SAME Chronology in Exodus 20:8-11.

    I know enough not to equivocate between a Chronology and a partial sequence that is NOT presented in the form of a Chronology.

    I Know enough not to equivocate between the "account" of Gen 1-2:4 and a parable in the NT.

    I know enough to actually believe God and trust that HE KNOWS what He is saying rather than try to "Second guess Him" and then use that "guesswork" as a basis for editing/diluting the clear and obvious chronology HE gives.

    I know that such methods as you have suggested so far - do not constitute valid exegesis, by any standard.

    I believe it is "obvious" that in the 6 evenings and mornings (literal days by any measure) God begins each one with "And God Said LET THERE BE" and so God CREATED... and then at the END of that day God sees that the work done "is Good".

    I know that GOD HIMSELF points to that work divine fiat creation work NOT taking place on the 7th day of that Week and that God declares that HE is the one that sanctifies that day AND declares it holy BASED on that fact.

    Your efforts to "pin God down" on EXACTLY how HE was resting - do not constitute "a kind of exegesis" NOR do they have an impact at all on the harmony of the text of Gen 1-2:4.

    I am only stating the obvious here - but so far you have offerred very little by way of "substance" to support your ideas of evolutionism.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
Loading...