A Day is a Day by Any Other Name

[David Koot]

This thread has a specific purpose: to give careful study to the word "day" as it appears in Genesis 1, as in "the evening and the morning were the first day." Three questions arise:

1) what is meant by the word "day"?

2) what is meant by the word "evening"?

3) what is meant by the word "morning"?

Hypothesis:

The word "day" as used in Gen. 1, means a literal, 24-hr. day. The word "evening" means a literal evening. The word "morning" means a literal morning.

Exegesis is invited.

[Bravus]

http://spindleworks.com/library/ward/framework.htm

I know some dislike just links. But I dislike massive cut-and-pastes! (this is made even more challenging in this situation, where good exegesis often requires following long chains of argument) I've copied some from the above link, but you really need to read it all.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

1) The first verse reminds us that God’s relation to time is different from ours: time and space are themselves part of the created order, as Augustine noted 1,600 years ago.

2) The series of days is viewed from God’s perspective beginning with day one, not from a human perspective. Hence Psalm 90:4, also written by Moses, is relevant. Creation is in six days but the temporal duration of those days is not the concern of Scripture.

3) The first day is more correctly translated ‘day one;’ the next four days lack a definite article, contrary to many translations, and thus should read, ‘a second day’ etc.), whereas days 6 and 7 have the definite article. Such features are not found in a series of ordinary days (e.g.. Numbers 29:17ff).

4) Time during the first three days moves from evening to morning even in the absence of the sun. As far as creation is concerned a day is defined by the end of darkness through the onset of light, not by the rotation of the earth around the sun, and not by morning followed by evening as might seem more appropriate for us.

5) On day 7 all is reviewed. The formless and empty original condition with the deep shrouded in darkness has been replaced by a formed (days 1-3) and filled (days 4-6) world. But day 7 is not closed for the goal of creation is still to be realized - and we know that there will be no night there but only the radiance of the light of the glory of God. (Rev 21:22ff)

6) Day 4 (the middle day of 7) has structural and theological significance in the narrative. (a) It gives a further perspective on the related work of day 1 and puts the heavenly bodies worshipped by the ancients in their true place. ( It anticipates day 7 and marks the weekly day of rest and worship of the God who made sun, moon and stars.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

. . . good exegesis often requires following long chains of argument) I've copied some from the above link, but you really need to read it all.

---

I did read it all. It is a commentary on Gen. 1 & 2, rather than exegesis. As for 'argument,' that is a later step. The first step is to exegete the passage. THEN, the 'arguments' are presented.

Exegesis would look at the word for day, which is 'yom1.' Exegesis would examine the etymology of the word, comparing similar words in ANE cultures. Exegesis would catalog the occurrences of the word in the book, in other books by the same author, and perhaps beyond that. Then, EACH OCCURRENCE of the word in the book of Genesis, would need to be studied. Complete footnotes are required, so that any student, anywhere in the world, may look up the footnotes and, following the conventions of sound exegesis, reach a conclusion. The foregoing are basic, initial steps which must be taken and recorded.

Now, a couple of points of clarification. The author of the commentary which you excerpted, said that there is no definite article with the word 'yom1' for days 2 through 5. In fact, there is no definite article for days 1 through 5. He seems to find significance in the lack of the article.

However, looking at a sample of yom1 in the book of Genesis, consider ch. 8:4: "and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."

Here, also, there is no article. It should read: "And on seventeenth day of the seventh month . . ." But, surely, the distinguished gentleman would not suggest that the seventeenth day here, meant eons??? This is an example of the danger of 'origenating.' (Ha! I coined a word! 'Exegesis' a la Origen, that is, footloose and wandering far afield.)

Now, then, back to square one. How about some real exegesis, (including complete footnotes) not commentary?

[David Koot]

Let's take a leisurely stroll through the first few chapters of Genesis now, and see how 'yom1' is used:

In ch. 1, of course, the focus of this inquiry, 'the evening and the morning were the . . . day."

ch. 2, "on the seventh day," 'be-yom'

v. 4, "in the day the Lord God made . . ." 'be-yom'

v. 17, "in the day you eat of it . . ." 'be-yom' ('surely die' is 'mut mut' in this verse)

3:5, "For God knows that in the day you eat of it" 'be-yom'

3:8, "He was walking in the garden in the cool [of] the day, 'ha-yom'

3:14, "all [the] days of your life" 'yom'

3:17, "all [the] days of your life" 'yom'

4:3, "in the course of days" 'yom'

4:14, "today you are driving me from the land," 'ha-yom'

5:1, "On the day God created man," 'be-yom'

5:2, "And on the day they were created, He called them 'man'" 'be-yom'

5:4, "Adam lived 800 years" 'hayah yom'

(and simililarly in vv. 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 27, 31)

6:3, "his days will be a hundred and twenty years" 'yom'

6:4, "the Nephilim were on the earth in those days" 'yom'

6:5, "every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the days" 'yom'

7:4, "seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights" 'yom' (both occurrences)

7:10, "and after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth" 'ha-shebayom'

7:11, "on seventeenth day of the second month--on that day" 'yom' (both occurrences) (no article with first occurrence)

7:12, "and rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights" 'yom'

7:13, "on that very day Noah and his sons" be-'etsem yom'

Well, the hour grows late. I have done all I can do for tonight on this project. I welcome anyone else to continue. Thus far, the picture seems clear enough. A day is a day is a day.

Any thoughts?

[Bravus]

I've been trying to think of a good parallel example in modern English, but I really can't. My case here is going to seem weak or as though I'm dodging, and I can live with that.

Maybe it's that 'exegesis' wasn't the term I was seeking in this discussion: I'm much more interested in trying to figure out what the passage means than what an individual word means, because the meaning of the passage sets the meaning of the word.

I'm quite happy to accept that the specific word 'day' used here means a 24 hour period as it is generally used. So the argument is not at all 'this word means months, years or millenia'. Instead, the argument is 'the word is used in a symbolic way', so that a day represents some other time period. Do you see the distinction? (I really wish I could think of a good example.)

So, if your method of choice is this kind of reductive, close analysis of particular words, I agree, and am happy to stipulate, that 'yom' means 24 hours.

But the argument I'm making is about the kind of commentary I posted (so if my use of the word 'exegesis' was misleading I apologise - I'm no theologian). That is, if the text is intended as a poetic (not structurally necessarily) account of creation, then the word 'day' is used as a symbol for a phase in creation.

I've made the point numerous times that the text was never intended scientifically, so looking at specific units is a mis-reading. On that I imagine we'll have to continue to disagree.

This is why I'm inclined to bow out: as long as you keep redefining the methods of the discussion into methods that will yield results with which you agree, we will never reach agreement. And I'm comfortable with that situation, and will think as well of you as someone who disagrees with me as I would if you agreed.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

Maybe it's that 'exegesis' wasn't the term I was seeking in this discussion: I'm much more interested in trying to figure out what the passage means than what an individual word means, because the meaning of the passage sets the meaning of the word.

---

But the passage is made up of words. Words are the units of sentence structure and communication. One cannot change the meaning of the words because of views about the meaning of the passage. An accurate understanding of the words is critical to an accurate understanding of the passage.

Quote:

---

I'm quite happy to accept that the specific word 'day' used here means a 24 hour period as it is generally used. So the argument is not at all 'this word means months, years or millenia'. Instead, the argument is 'the word is used in a symbolic way', so that a day represents some other time period.

---

Really, a form of allegorization. That strays far from the passage as it reads. It becomes open season for whomever has some idea about what he or she thinks the 'passage' means.

Quote:

---

But the argument I'm making is about the kind of commentary I posted (so if my use of the word 'exegesis' was misleading I apologise - I'm no theologian). That is, if the text is intended as a poetic (not structurally necessarily) account of creation, then the word 'day' is used as a symbol for a phase in creation.

---

That would be quite speculative, as it is not grounded in the passage as it reads. Origen was one who did a lot of that.

Quote:

---

I've made the point numerous times that the text was never intended scientifically, so looking at specific units is a mis-reading.

---

You may have stated that position, but you have not provided Scriptural authority for that position. How would you know if Moses, inspired by God, did not in fact intend to give an accurate account of what happened--on each day of Creation week? Can you dispute that?

Quote:

---

This is why I'm inclined to bow out: as long as you keep redefining the methods of the discussion

---

Who is redefining the methods of the discussion? The initial post which opened this thread stated:

"Exegesis is invited."

I have not redefined that, or anything. Have you?

Quote:

---

into methods that will yield results with which you agree, we will never reach agreement.

---

That is an incredible put-down and quite demeaning. For you to make such a statement does not speak well of you. I would have expected better.

[Bravus]

I'm sorry if it felt that way, it absolutely was not intended as a put-down, and I apologise unreservedly. I simply meant that I will absolutely yield the point to you if these are the methods to be used. Using these methods, I absolutely agree, and stated, that 'yom' means 24 hours. Is there anything left to discuss at that point?

You're right, this thread was set up that way. That does mean that this thread was not responsive to the argument I was making (complicated by my misuse of 'exegesis'). It also means I have nothing to contribute to the thread, and no reason to participate.

No put-down intended, at all.

[Planey]

DG, is there anything in the Bible which would lead you to believe this passage in Genesis is anything other than literal? I believe that is what DK is getting at. I believe (and I could most definitely be wrong) that many people who want to put the word "allegory" against the first part of Genesis do it for reasons other than what they may read in either the account itself or elsewhere in Scriptures. I perceive they are looking for "wiggle room" to insert a much longer time frame than the Bible allows by a literal reading. In other words their interpretation of God's word is dictated by their picture of science rather than the other way around.

I find the problems in the Bible just multiply and multiply once you start making the creation account or the flood into allegories or in the case of the flood, multiplication of a little local event into a worldwide event. For instance, the promise of God not to destroy the world again by a flood is pretty pathetic if there was only a local event in the firat place. In fact, any local flood which killed people anywhere on the planet after that could be said to be a breaking of this particular promise.

I cannot speak to what you have said regarding death in your blog as I have not read it - sorry - but in my view there is nothing good about death at all. There may be times when it is viewed as the lesser of two evils where someone may be sick but it is still an evil. I don't believe God ever intended death to have any place in His creation. Matthew 10:29 indicates that He is concerned over the deaths of (relatively insignificant) creatures such as sparrows - I am sure death is anathema to Him I do not believe He originally intended any creature to live by the predation of another creature.

We should be careful not to look for a meaning in the Bible that agrees with some perception we may already have from some other source. The Bible may not be a science text book (as it rarely gives a mechanism for anything "scientific" it relates) but that does not mean that the events it describes are not real. Which other parts of the Bible (at least those parts which purport to be historical and not poetic or prophetic) do you believe to be allegorical? And why?

Graeme

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

DG, is there anything in the Bible which would lead you to believe this passage in Genesis is anything other than literal? I believe that is what DK is getting at. I believe (and I could most definitely be wrong) that many people who want to put the word "allegory" against the first part of Genesis do it for reasons other than what they may read in either the account itself or elsewhere in Scriptures. I perceive they are looking for "wiggle room" to insert a much longer time frame than the Bible allows by a literal reading. In other words their interpretation of God's word is dictated by their picture of science rather than the other way around.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I think a better way of saying it is that one of the things I'm seeking is a better synthesis between science (which is really to say, the world I observe around me, and the world those who have more time and knowledge to observe than I do observe) and what I read in the Bible. I don't believe it's inevitable that the two be in conflict, and therefore I don't believe we're forced into a 'chose the Bible then you must discard science' or vice versa choice.

I've tried to say as clearly as I can that my best understanding is that the 'clear literal reading' of this Scripture is an over-interpretation in terms of the minds of the author. That is, we are reading 3000 year old texts with modern minds, and therefore not as they were understood by those who wrote them. I don't believe it's any sort of dishonest or inappropriate search for 'wiggle room' to try to think about how a person 3000 years ago would have understood this context.

On the contrary, I believe it is being somewhat dishonest - or at the very least wilfully ignorant (not intended as an insult but as a description of an action) - to claim that this 21st century reading of an 800-1000 BC text (very roughly, I'm no historian either) is the only possible reading.

But you see, the problem I have with your and David's demand for evidence from 'within the Bible' is that your first step is to define the Bible text in precisely that way - as something that can be simply and literally read as though it was written by a modern author. Any methodological steps that have that basic assumption underlying them with (surprise) likely lead to convincing literalistic readings. That's why I've suggested to David that it's necessary to go back a step to explore these underlying assumptions. Without that step - i.e. in a context in which literalism is assumed already - I am completely happy to concede that literalism will be supported.

[Planey]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

That is, we are reading 3000 year old texts with modern minds, and therefore not as they were understood by those who wrote them.

---

With this in mind, how do we read any of the Old Testament? (or the New for that matter.) For instance, is any part of Genesis literal? How do you know?

If you believe that the Creation story is not literal, what exactly is the point of the story? What lessons is it telling us? What should we (much more knowledgable) modern persons take from it?

Where does inspiration fit into this paradigm of understanding? Either inspiration of the original authors or inspiration in more modern times (say by EGW or have I blasphemed).

How about the account of the beginning of the plan of redemption at the time of the (apocryphal) Fall? Where does that go now? (and with it all references to the Fall and Adam and Eve in the NT)

These are all questions I have wrestled with for a lot of years. I have had people tell me all sorts of wonderful interpretations of Genesis and why we couldn't possibly take it literally (I mean who could possibly determine what somebody who lived 3000 years ago was thinking, even if he was directly inspired by the Spirit of Truth - or was he?) but no-one has as yet come even close to tackling these questions. On the other hand, a direct literal interpretation of the Genesis Creation and Flood narratives causes no dissonance with any other part of the Scriptures.

Graeme

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

I think a better way of saying it is that one of the things I'm seeking is a better synthesis between science (which is really to say, the world I observe around me, and the world those who have more time and knowledge to observe than I do observe) and what I read in the Bible. I don't believe it's inevitable that the two be in conflict, and therefore I don't believe we're forced into a 'chose the Bible then you must discard science' or vice versa choice.

---

That leads to a fundamental question about the place of the Bible. We are talking about the distant past here. And, we are talking about beliefs about the distant past held by a large segment of the scientific community. (I use the word 'beliefs' because none of us was actually present in the distant past. And, because to hold those beliefs requires some choices to be made as to how one interprets data. The recent Creationist observes the data, and find them in harmony with the Biblical account. The evolutionist observes the data, and does not find them in harmony with the Biblical account.)

If we come to the Bible with a pre-existing belief about something, and then attempt to harmonize the Bible with that belief, then what place do we assign the Bible in our belief system? Isn't it fundamental to a correct understanding of God's Word, to SET ASIDE our pre-existing beliefs, and accept the Bible as it reads? To accept the Bible as our authority, and to harmonize, or modify our beliefs, according to the statements of the Word of God?

Quote:

---

I've tried to say as clearly as I can that my best understanding is that the 'clear literal reading' of this Scripture is an over-interpretation in terms of the minds of the author.

---

What are the fundamental principles of Biblical understanding? Two which come to mind are, firstly, as noted above, to set aside our pre-existing ideas, and claim the promise that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. Secondly, then, having done so, we take the Bible as it reads.

Quote:

---

But you see, the problem I have with your and David's demand for evidence from 'within the Bible' is that your first step is to define the Bible text in precisely that way - as something that can be simply and literally read as though it was written by a modern author.

---

Wasn't it indeed written by a modern Author? According to your understanding, who is the author of the book of Genesis? Permit me to clarify that question: who is the author of the Bible? If you agree with me that God was the Author of the Bible ("all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine . . ." then do you also agree with me when I say that God "Who was, Who is, and is to come, the Almighty" is present in the past, the present and the future? And that God knew, at the time He inspired Genesis 1, what human society and understanding would be like, at the time He did so?

What is your understanding of the nature of inspiration? The Greek word, 'theopneustos' means 'God-breathed.' My understanding is that 'inspiration' means that Scripture transcends time and place. It is for all time, for every culture. That is part and parcel of being inspired, in contrast with other writings (such as some of Paul's letters) which were only for local applications.

David Koot

[Bravus]

To Graeme:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

If you believe that the Creation story is not literal, what exactly is the point of the story? What lessons is it telling us? What should we (much more knowledgable) modern persons take from it?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

The Creation story is telling us that God is the Creator of the earth and all living things, of time and space, and of humans in particular. The Genesis account serves all those purposes very clearly without freighting it with other purposes that are foreign to its goals.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Where does inspiration fit into this paradigm of understanding? Either inspiration of the original authors or inspiration in more modern times (say by EGW or have I blasphemed).

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

As the case of EGW clearly shows, inspiration in not the same as inerrancy. So innerancy is a different claim. Inspiration is about ensuring that the text serves it's spiritual and practical purposes, but it is not (in my opinion) about giving science lessons to the authors that take their mindset completely out of their time and place.

Think about it a moment. Moses wrote before Aristotle and the theory of the four elements. His concerns were not scientific and his mind was not a scientific mind. He also wrote 3000 or so years after the events he talks about, such as the Flood - 3000 years of oral history being passed down. I'm *not* (unlike Bevin, who has a different perspective on this issue) writing this in order to cast doubt on the accuracy of the Bible. I'm saying that the account is perfectly accurate *for the purposes for which it was written*.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

His concerns were not scientific and his mind was not a scientific mind.

---

How would you know that?

Quote:

---

He also wrote 3000 or so years after the events he talks about, such as the Flood - 3000 years of oral history being passed down.

---

If the Exodus was around 1300 B.C., and the Flood around 2348 B.C., that is not quite as bad. but, the greater issue: if God preserved His written Word for all these centuries, then couldn't also have preserved His Word orally, through the patriarchs, before the advent of written language. And, couldn't God have given visions to Moses about early events, as He did to the other prophets? Peter tells us that "holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

The 'higher criticism' model, of course discounts that. But, as fundamentalist Christians, (when it comes to the Bible) we do not endorse such. Or, perhaps I should say that I do not endorse such.

[Bravus]

How would I know that his mind was not a scientific mind? Because science didn't even really exist until the 1600s AD or so! What I mean is that his ways of thinking and seeing the world were profoundly qualitatively different compared to ours.

If your contention is verbal inspiration, then that argument is over too. And that seems to be close to what you're saying. (I'm just trying to get my head around the idea of God giving Moses a vision of a creation that happened over thousands or millions of years, but that's just a side thought.) The discussion, I guess, is about how much of the human authors made its way into Scripture. We can read a distinctly different voice and personality in the writings of Paul, John and Ringo - um, I mean Peter! - for example.

That's still another front in this discussion - the nature of inspiration - but I'm not sure that inspiration turns the Bible into some kind of ubertext that can be decoded identically by everyone in all places and times. In fact, lots of different people do interpret it differently, which challenges that claim. I guess you can claim that your particular interpretation is the One True One and everyone who disagrees is determinedly refusing to read what's there in plain sight and also turning their back on the Holy Spirit, but that way lies hubris, IMO.

That's a discussion we can still continue with, but let me take it in another direction. David wrote:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

And, because to hold those beliefs requires some choices to be made as to how one interprets data. The recent Creationist observes the data, and find them in harmony with the Biblical account. The evolutionist observes the data, and does not find them in harmony with the Biblical account.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Do you both (I'm including Graeme) *really* believe that every piece of the evidence we see in the world around us can be interpreted to support recent creation? Or are there significant pieces of the evidence that you need to ignore? Are there any pieces of the evidence of the natural world that are at least puzzling to you?

I've tried for a very long time to bolster belief in recent creation, in myself and others, and have played all sorts of rhetorical, scientific and logical games with myself and others, trying to make the pieces fit. As far as I can understand, they just don't, and I do find myself, and others, getting into games and twisting and strange logics (and personal attacks) in trying to make it work.

God absolutely has the right to say to me 'sit down, shut up, you weren't there, you don't know'. He doesn't even have to make the physical world and Scripture compatible, and certainly not for my sake. But I believe that He is the Creator, and that therefore there is evidence of who He is in the natural world as well as in the Bible. Hence my attempt to find an appoach that allows me to treat both of these revelations of God with appropriate respect and honesty.

(In this context I reject the idea that I have a fixed, solid view of science and origins and am trying to bend the Bible to fit that. I am swimming in the space between the natural world and the Bible, trying to understand both with honesty and humility.)

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

How would I know that his mind was not a scientific mind? Because science didn't even really exist until the 1600s AD or so! What I mean is that his ways of thinking and seeing the world were profoundly qualitatively different compared to ours.

---

Just commenting in passing . . . you doubtless are referring to the 'renaissance,' and the 'enlightenment,' perhaps? Permit me to suggest that the Renaissance was exactly that--a revival of classical learning and methodology. I seem to recall that Aristotle lived somewhere around the 6th c. B.C.??? Going back farther than that, who are we to say that the Egyptians did not have a knowledge of the sciences? I seem to recall that archaeologists have found evidence suggesting otherwise.

As for a knowledge of Origins . . . why, most ancient cultures address origins. Some of those cultural stories sound similar to the Biblical account (although, as NIDOTTE points out, the Genesis account pointedly differs in key aspects--which, alone, suggests a clear understanding of what happened, as well as Divine inspiration. Indeed, the ANE peoples were much closer to the event than we are! Due to the longevity of the race back then, they were only a few generations removed from eyewitness accounts. And, undoubtedly they were, intellectually and physically, superior to us today.

Now, as for Moses, he was schooled in the knowledge of Egypt, being prepared for the throne. One would expect that he would have a knowledge of the sciences. The Egyptians were architects, engineers, physicians and, yes, scientists. Quite beyond that, Scripture clearly states that the Bible writers received their knowledge of events directly from God, Who is the Master Scientist and Who created the world.

Quote:

---

If your contention is verbal inspiration, then that argument is over too.

---

I said nothing like that. I quoted 2 Pt. 1, about how holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The medium of communication seems to have been dreams and visions, typically but not always. I believe that the prophet described what he saw using his own words, BTW (thought inspiration).

Quote:

---

(I'm just trying to get my head around the idea of God giving Moses a vision of a creation that happened over thousands or millions of years, but that's just a side thought.)

---

But that is not what the Bible teaches, that is not what Genesis 1 teaches.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure that inspiration turns the Bible into some kind of ubertext that can be decoded identically by everyone in all places and times.

---

Well, one might think that BHS is the ubertext for the OT. As for the NT . . . Hmmmm, is it TR or Nestle-Aland? Or other? Nevertheless, the Bible does present truth. And, God promises to send the Spirit of truth, to guide His people into all truth. There are many areas which may be less than crystal clear. Origins is not one of them, according to the plain statements of Scripture.

Quote:

---

In fact, lots of different people do interpret it differently, which challenges that claim.

---

Therefore, what is truth for the Remnant Church? Since people claim to interpret differently, the SAbbath issue, the STate of the Dead, Hell, the IJ, the Remnant Church, the Law of God, etc., etc., differently, is there no truth for these last days? Only a matter of interpretation? Is that what you are suggesting?

Quote:

---

Do you both (I'm including Graeme) *really* believe that every piece of the evidence we see in the world around us can be interpreted to support recent creation? Or are there significant pieces of the evidence that you need to ignore? Are there any pieces of the evidence of the natural world that are at least puzzling to you?

---

A couple of general examples: the DNA tree. I see that as evidence of a Master Designer/Creator, building different species on a common platform. The evolutionist sees it as evidence of long-age evolution. The fossil record. I see it as evidence of a GRGF. The evolutionist sees it as evidence against a GRGF.

Quote:

---

I've tried for a very long time to bolster belief in recent creation, in myself and others, and have played all sorts of rhetorical, scientific and logical games with myself and others, trying to make the pieces fit. As far as I can understand, they just don't, and I do find myself, and others, getting into games and twisting and strange logics (and personal attacks) in trying to make it work.

---

But there is no need for that. I suggest that one does need to recognize the limitations of science. And, I think it depends on what one holds as axiomatic, and the assumptions a person makes. It would be interesting to me, to read what your axioms and assumptions are, in this regard.

Quote:

---

But I believe that He is the Creator, and that therefore there is evidence of who He is in the natural world as well as in the Bible. Hence my attempt to find an appoach that allows me to treat both of these revelations of God with appropriate respect and honesty.

---

But, in this as in other areas of life and understanding, the Bible trumps personal ideas and observation. If the Bible is in its rightful place, so much is resolved. I, too, have wondered and given some study to these matters. I have not found a conflict, so far.

A question which may be worth exploring, then, might be, what place do you assign to the Bible, and what are your axioms and assumptions in regard to this specific issue?

[Bravus]

Simple question: is it ever possible in any circumstance that we'll look at the world, look at our interpretation of the Bible, and decide that we've interpreted the Bible incorrectly?

[Planey]

Given that the Creation account was just to show that God is the Creator etc, why not just leave it at Genesis 1:1? What is the purpose of the story of the Fall? Was Adam a real person? If not, what was the purpose of the story? What is it designed to teach us?

I see some significant problems if this part of the story is not literal. And if the Creation story is not true as it stands, what is this part all about?

If the Flood is not literal and world-wide, what is the significance (if any) of the promise not to destroy the world again by means of water?

In reply to your question, yes I do see things in this world that I cannot explain. I am willing to say "I do not know why this is so. Yet I still believe in a literal Creation a short time ago and a literal worldwide Flood. Sometime I will understand these seeming contradictions but it is not important now." I believe that the internal problems created in the Bible by not accepting these stories as literal are far more substantial and impact salvation theology in a vital way.

Graeme

[Robert]

Romans 5:12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned....18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

Bravus,

If Adam is not our literal father, at what point did sin enter the human race?

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

Simple question: is it ever possible in any circumstance that we'll look at the world, look at our interpretation of the Bible, and decide that we've interpreted the Bible incorrectly?

---

We are not discussing here possibilities in some unknown circumstance. We are talking about Genesis 1. As you acknowledge, ch. 1 is clear, it is specific. It could not be more clear, taken as it reads. And, it is corroborated by Ex. 20:11: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth . . . and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day. Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." According to this verse, we rest on the Sabbath day because that is THE day on which God rested from created the world in six days. The 'days' were the same units of time as the seventh day. "The evening and morning were the . . . day.'

There are doubtless areas of study in the Bible which are not so clear. However, this is not one of those areas. I will not get into possible scenarios. We have the facts as plainly stated in this passage.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

I am swimming in the space between the natural world and the Bible, trying to understand both with honesty and humility.)

---

Treacherous waters, Bravus, treacherous waters. Your statement seems to be indicative. Either a person accepts the Bible as it reads, as the final authority for one's life and understanding, as the standard by which all else is measured, or . . . Anything short of that results in the alternative, which is that something else--whether the Book of Mormon, Mary Baker Eddy, or the theories of evolutionists are on the same level or even above the Bible. If we, as Christians, adhere to the First Fundamental Belief of Seventh-day Adventists, in regard to the Word of God, then on that we take our stand. If we consider ANY other source of information as equally authoritative, then, by doing so, we are rejecting the supremacy of the Word. One would do well to get off the fence.

Dave

[Bravus]

You didn't answer my simple question, David, but your second post above suggests strongly that your answer would be 'No'. OK then, so the Bible clearly teaches that the sun revolves around the earth, rather than vice versa (Joshua 10). And the Bible *always* trumps science and our observations of the world, right? It's not tenable for you to make these huge sweeping statements like "Either a person accepts the Bible as it reads, as the final authority for one's life and understanding, as the standard by which all else is measured, or . . . ", and then try to limit the discussion to Genesis 1!

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

You didn't answer my simple question, David, but your second post above suggests strongly that your answer would be 'No'.

---

I did respond that your question goes beyond the scope of this thread. This thread specifically, and exclusively, addresses the exegesis of Gen. 1. If you wish to explore broader issues, then I encourage you to start a new thread, and I for one would be glad to participate.

Quote:

---

OK then, so the Bible clearly teaches that the sun revolves around the earth, rather than vice versa (Joshua 10).

---

I do not understand that passage to teach such a thing, but at the same time am not going to get sidetracked. I suggest you start a thread which addresses that question.

Quote:

---

It's not tenable for you to make these huge sweeping statements like "Either a person accepts the Bible as it reads, as the final authority for one's life and understanding, as the standard by which all else is measured, or . . . ", and then try to limit the discussion to Genesis 1!

---

The principle is as stated above. The specific application of that principle, on this thread, is to Gen. 1. Merely stating a general principle does not, by itself, expand the scope of a limited inquiry. Were that the case, then EVERY thread, and every discussion, would have no boundaries and would potentially consist of a rehash of the same stuff, again and again. If you wish to challenge the principle which you have quoted above, in regard to the inspiration and the role of Scripture, then by all means start a thread, and I would look forward to participating.

Dave

[Bravus]

OK, fair enough I'll do that. That will end my participation in this thread, though, since as we've discovered in the discussion above (i.e. the last couple of pages, not the last couple of posts), a reductive exegesis of Genesis 1 doesn't really address my concerns at all, and assumes things I'm not ready to assume. Doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile and important project, just means I recognise I have nothing to contribute to it.

[Bravus]

One more quick clarification on the way out:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

(I'm just trying to get my head around the idea of God giving Moses a vision of a creation that happened over thousands or millions of years, but that's just a side thought.)

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

But that is not what the Bible teaches, that is not what Genesis 1 teaches.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Oh, I totally get that, and I was unclear. What I meant was 'if you're seeing something in a vision, how does it look different if the timescale of the events is long or short?' Unless maybe the vision has a little clock readout in the bottom corner. Anyway, not a serious point at all, a piece of frivolity on my part.

[Bravus]

...and Graeme, I know you've been politely, thoughtfully asking the question about 'what about all the other references to creation in other parts of the Bible', and the implications for doctrines, and I haven't answered it. I apologise - I didn't mean to ignore it.

One part of the reason I haven't answered it is because I acknowledge it is a difficult one, and tough to come up with a satisfactory answer for... so I acknowledge that what follows is likely not too satisfying.

Take the example of the Sabbath and the 10 commandments. We are told to keep the Sabbath because God is the creator and it is a memorial of creation. Yes, it does repeat the 6 days description from Genesis, but my response has been 'God is the Creator, the Genesis account is primarily about that, not about mechanisms' (i.e. it is meant to address the 'who' and 'why' questions about creation, not the 'how' and 'when' ones), and under that understanding God has all the authority to establish a weekly memorial of creation. As I said elsewhere, a weekly memorial reminds us in a way a memorial every seventh age wouldn't.

On the role of Adam and the Fall, I'm not sure that that requires a strict 6 day recent creation. Sure, death of the body would exist prior to the events of Eden if life arose through evolution (and I'm not necessarily saying it did, remember). But what if the Fall is about eternal death, not physical death? In other words, it was only possible for humans to make the choice between good and evil, between God and Satan, represented by the decision at the apple tree, once they had become conscious. many evolutionary theorists and historians think consciousness may have arisen in that 6-10,000 years ago period, coinciding with the rise of civilisation. The story of Adam and Eve could be the quite specific story of the first couple who were able to choose, and the choice they made, with its consequences of separation from God. That's somewhat speculative, but it does have the advantage of fitting both the Biblical account of the fall and the world we see around us.

(OK, I'm really gone this time, promise!)