NT six literal days

That is the argument and why this was an important issue. Someone on this board thinks Genesis is poetry and not to be believed because it is prescientific or something like that. That's where my confusion came in. I ask that my previous comments be stricken from the record and I defer my time to the gentleman from Canada, for he speaks wisdom on this matter.

 

Nobody cares if anyone of you has a problem with poetry, nonpoetry blah blah blah. Since when do people need to report to anyone else about the possibility of Genesis 1 being poetic?

You guys are proving why I said in the beginning this is not worth the battle. Some are beginning to sound like fools.

Tragic_Pizza has never denied Scripture, Jesus, God, Truth, Creationism, or anything revolving around those issues.

Let it rest.

 

I would wholeheartedly agree that the literary style doesn't matter. That's why I keep asking what the big deal is. However, the hill to die on, which some would phrase it is what is Genesis 1 talking about. That is an area that is CRITICAL to understanding not only Genesis 1, but the rest of Scripture seeings that Gensis 1 is the foundation that the rest of Scripture is built on.

Bad foundation = bad finished product!

 

No one has to report to anyone. Rumor has it, this is a message board where people discuss such things.

Guilty as charged.

You were doing alright until you said this and joined the ranks of "those beginning to sound like fools".

 

Duh. Don't be a jerk, of course God is.

It isn;t a reford of history. It is a theological treatise.

 

demeaning language deleted

 

Stop. You're smarter than that.

 

Allow me to clarify, I do agree 110% that the understanding of Genesis 1 is crucial and extremely important.

I am talking about its literary style. I don't think the hill to die on is between a literal 24 hours versus day-age...as long as the fact that God created out of nothing is agreed upon. There is room for interpretation on the other issues. I get the impression that tragic is being misinterpretted into being heretical because he questions a literal 24 hours, yet has never doubted that God has created. Please someone correct me if he has doubted that God created...including Tragic....someone help me out here. This is why I'm saying the debate is useless because it is not a major issue and is doing nothing but dividing.

 

I guess I stated it wrong. It would appear that a prescientific people accepts the account but a postscientific does not. Is that more accurate?

 

How is that statement making me sound like a fool?

 

Because that is Tragic's schtick. Whatever the Bible says, he says it doesn't really say that and those that do hold to the Bible are "fundamentalists" or have no "evidence of minimal intelligence" and he takes pleasure in mocking them. To say that he's never denied scripture or truth either means you're not paying attention or you walk amongst the same errors. For he denies that a man should be a pastor/bishop and not a woman, he denies that sodomy is opposed to scripture and thinks people who speak against it are guilty of hate crimes and should be jailed, he denies that the RCC is antichrist even though he's "reformed" and says that those who are opposed to the RCC have "a hymnbook of hatred". Finally, it would appear that he denies a literal six day creation as he is amongst the postscientific peoples that think the Bible is theologically correct, but not historically or scientifically correct.

 

Well here is where we will disagree. I think distinguishing between a literal 24-hour and day-age is critical. The reason being is that Scripture is not open to interpretation. It is either 24 hours or it is day-age.

And it would be impossible from a scientific standpoint for it to be a day age. The reason being is that there would have to be and equal number of years of darkness as light. And the general theory is that the day-age is 1,000 years because of a verse in either II Peter. But there could not be 500 years of darkness because plant and animal life could not survive.

God said there was evening and morning, so it is important that we take Him at His word.

Whether or not it is poetry or not makes no difference. Whether or not it was 24 hours or day-age does make a difference.

PS - Just to add a side note I visited with someone that I consider to be a mentor spiritually and he is MUCH more learned than I will probably ever be and he said he had never heard of this section of Genesis being referred to as Hebrew poetry, which I found interesting.

I first heard of this back in the mid-90s while taking a philosophy class in which we have a visiting Jewish Rabbi as a guest speaker, which said it was.

But again I don't think it matters. Genesis 1 and 2 are true regardless :)

 

Since you have correctly said that God is big enough and smart enough to be scientifically and historically correct, then I'll just take His word for it as an accurate record of history. Since you fail to see the truth, I'll just leave you to believe whatever you want to believe. Have fun!

 

No. Read closer.

The account was written by and to persons in prescientific times.

I've said this before, Rufus. Pay attention.

 

Your dismissal of the day-age interpretation is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory.
Do you really think that anyone believes that there was a 500 year day/night cycle?
You really don't understand this do you?
You should read a few books about the different theories and why people believe them.
Read a few from each point of view and begin to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.

Each theory has weaknesses, even your favorite one (and mine too :laugh: ).

And it's absurd to think the Scriptures don't need interpreting.

Rob

 

That is a false statement. Genesis is a historical book; not a theological treatise. If you want an example of theological treatise take a good hard look at the Book of Romans, which thoroughly discusses the subject of soteriology. But Genesis is a historical book, giving the history of man from creation to the death of Joseph. That is history, not theology. It is the mistake of many to try and make history say something more than history says.

 

OK. So there is no theological value in Gensis?

OR, is Genesis a redaction of oral traditions which construct a kind of history which, steeped in myth, serves to build a cohesive theology?

Pick one.

 

Scripture is not open to man's interpretation. There is a right way to read Scripture and there are the rest of the ways to read Scripture and they are all wrong. Scripture is black and white, not a mix of grey.

Scripture interprets Scripture not man.

Doesn't matter whether they believe it or not. If the day in Genesis is an age (which is generally based on the 1,000-year equals a day and a day equals 1,000 years vers) there would have to be an equal amount of light and an equal amount of darkness.

Again it's moot whether people believe it or not, and more than likely they don't because it blows holes in the argument. But if they understood the matter, they wouldn't hold to the day-age theory, because it isn't possible.

Actually did a study on the various theories, although it has been some years ago.

And again there is one right answer despite what "man" thinks to be weaknesses in the answer, and then there are a number of wrong ideas :)

We must constantly be searching to make sure we are the holders of Truth and if we are found not to be then we must let Scripture change our views and not the other way around.

 

I'm actually going to have to side with Pizza on this one. Scripture itself refutes your statement:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

It seems that would include Genesis. And actually in Genesis you can find most if not all major NT doctrine in type.

 

It is primarily a historical book. You cannot take theology from history unless that portion within the history is specificallly teaching theological concepts, for example Moses and the Ten Commandments in the Book of Exodus. There in the history of the travels of the nation of Israel, they stop at Sinai. But while they are stopped they receive great theological revelation from God. There is a difference between history and theology.

I'll give you a practical example. Sometime ago we had some Oneness Pentecostals posting in this forum. Like Genesis, the Book of Acts is a historical book, not a doctrinal one. It is dangerous for one to extrapolate their doctrine from historical events. That is what the Oneness people do, and thus come to the conclusion that both tongues and baptism are necessary for salvation. I challenged them to give the plan of salvation without using the Book of Acts. They couldn't do it. They absolutely had to have the Book of Acts to explain the way of salvation, even though it is the book of Romans that explains salvation so well. Romans in combination with the Gospel of John and the epistle of 1John, wasn't good enough. They had to go back to a historical book--the book of Acts, from whence they twisted certain historical events, not applicable for today, and forced their theology into them. This is typical of a cult, and a good reason why one cannot take theology from history.