A Day is a Day by Any Other Name

[Planey]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

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.

---

How do you interpret the part about "Let us make man in our image"?

This scenario also has man becoming better and better, more and more "man-like" (more and more God-like?) whereas the Bible has the tendency going the other way, more and more degenerate.

Just a couple of thoughts (among many).

Graeme

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

...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.

---

No, not "somewhat"...Try very, very speculative.

Quote:

---

On the role of Adam and the Fall....

---

Yes...more of your speculation! Adam was created in God's image [Gen 1:26]. Are you now speculating that God evolved?

1 Cor 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness” ; 20 and again, “The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.” 21 So then let no one boast in men.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

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.

---

But that is not in harmony with what the Scripture says. Here is the verse:

" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

The words 'six days' are 'shesh yom'. The words for 'seventh day' are 'shebi'i yom'. IOW the seventh day is the same meaning, as for 'day' as the six days. they are the same words, same units of time. There is no textual authority for making a distinction between the six days and the seventh day. It is absolutely lacking. The days are the same units.

Quote:

---

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?

---

That contradicts the Scripture itself. The word is 'mut mut' (surely die) 'mut' means physical death, specifically to execute, to put somebody to death.

Quote:

---

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.

---

It absolutely does not fit the Biblical account of the Fall. It does violence to what Scripture says. Not only is it speculative, it is directly contrary to Scripture. Paul the apostle says very plainly that death came as a direct result of sin. There was no death prior to sin, as described in Gen. 3.

Once again, professor, it is critical to be faithful to the data, in order to develop an accurate understanding of what Scripture says. I invite your consideration of Paul's admonition, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a good workman who needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth."

I must very honestly use the word, 'appalled.' I simply have a difficult time believing what I am reading in your post. The basic picture which comes across, very honestly, is carelessness in handling the Word. It is impossible--repeat, impossible, to harmonize evolutionary science with the Bible. One must choose which he or she will believe and follow.

God is the Author of true science, and God is the Author of Scripture. He knows far better than anyone on this earth, exactly what happened. He has given us the information we need to know, about origins. It will be to our advantage to accept His authority, as Creator, master Scientist, and Redeemer.

David Koot

[Bravus]

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

This scenario also has man becoming better and better, more and more "man-like" (more and more God-like?) whereas the Bible has the tendency going the other way, more and more degenerate.

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

Actually no, that's a misunderstanding of evolution that I often hear. Man has not changed, in evolutionary terms, since the rise of homo sapiens, maybe 100,000 years ago. That's certainly a much greater span than recorded history, so there's no perfectibility or improvement, mentally or physically, being wrought in humans by evolution.

(Side note is that many people now think that technology has put humans in a sense 'post-evolution', since we adapt our environment using technology rather than adapt ourselves to our environment, but that's a different conversation.)

[Planey]

So the passing from non-thinking (in the spiritual sense) to "the first couple who were able to choose" did not constitute some kind of improvement?

Graeme

[Bravus]

Not in evolutionary terms... in fact it could be argued that intelligence might have decreased our overall chances of survival (see MAD)!

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

God is the Author of true science, and God is the Author of Scripture. He knows far better than anyone on this earth, exactly what happened. He has given us the information we need to know, about origins.

---

[Bravus]

This is one of EGW's quotes that always bugs me a bit: "True science agrees with the Bible". And how would she define true science? As science that agrees with the Bible - any that doesn't would be defined as false science. So the quote reduces to "Science that agrees with the Bible agrees with the Bible." True, but trivial.

[Robert]

Let's say the scientists figure this origin thing out tomorrow, what good will come from it? How will it impact our life on planet earth? What good is the knowledge that I came from a monkey or a fish, all started by a "big bang", do for me...for humanity? Please explain why it is so important!

Rob

[olger]

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. 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.

---

Dear Bravus: Of interest to me is the assumption that "science" is a neutral voice in this discussion of divine origin. It has been well documented that modern science often worships at two altars: pride & unbelief.

As to the week, there is no other phenomenon that could have caused a dividing of time into periods of 7-days other than the continuity of the creation week, punctuated by the sabbath.

rejoice always,

gcw

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

Let's say the scientists figure this origin thing out tomorrow, what good will come from it? How will it impact our life on planet earth? What good is the knowledge that I came from a monkey or a fish, all started by a "big bang", do for me...for humanity? Please explain why it is so important!

Rob

---

Further more...how can you believe in a God that you can't prove scientifically? Why even believe...isn't that a contradiction?

[Bravus]

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

Let's say the scientists figure this origin thing out tomorrow, what good will come from it? How will it impact our life on planet earth? What good is the knowledge that I came from a monkey or a fish, all started by a "big bang", do for me...for humanity? Please explain why it is so important!

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

Two things:

1. They have already figured it out, in broad outline and in quite a lot of detail, though of course there is always more work to be done and more to learn. So your hypothetical is not hypothetical.

2. The same question could be turned on your position, since you have this origin thing all figured out already: why is it so important? What does it do for you, for humanity? I believe it does plenty...

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

Further more...how can you believe in a God that you can't prove scientifically? Why even believe...isn't that a contradiction?

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

The nature of God is that his existence cannot be proved scientifically. I've said it repeatedly, so I'm not sure why people want to keep painting me as scientistic, and as considering anything that's not science as irrelevant: science is one small domain of knowledge and endeavour, and there is a huge swathe of the universe and our experience that science does not and cannot speak to. The supernatural is part of that swathe. I believe in God, and I believe that God is the Creator. My belief in God is probably based on very similar grounds to yours (with perhaps a different approach to the holy text), so I'm not sure why it would be incomprehensible to you. Science is not the measure of everything... but it's domain does include looking at the world around us and trying to understand it.

[Bravus]

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

Dear Bravus: Of interest to me is the assumption that "science" is a neutral voice in this discussion of divine origin. It has been well documented that modern science often worships at two altars: pride & unbelief.

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

Two things:

1. Who is making this assumption in this discussion. Bevin may be - you'd have to ask him - but I'm certainly not. Some scientists are unbelievers, true (I think 'worshipping at the altar of pride and unbelief' is a bit of a melodramatic way to put it), and that may influence their work and their approach to it. Many, many other scientists are believers.

2. Science is not a neutral voice because its domain does not include the supernatural. It cannot include the supernatural in its attempts to understand natural law, by definition. It's important to understand that about the way science approaches and addresses questions.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

2. The same question could be turned on your position, since you have this origin thing all figured out already: why is it so important? What does it do for you, for humanity?

I believe it does plenty

...

---

You first....

Rob

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

2. The same question could be turned on your position, since you have this origin thing all figured out already: why is it so important? What does it do for you, for humanity?

I believe it does plenty

...

---

You first....

Rob

---

Okay, beauty before age....

If you do away with "Adam" - the corporate head of the fallen human race - you do away with,

1] One's sinfulness

2] One's need of a Savior.

Your turn!

Rob

[David Koot]

Well, we seem to have strayed a little from the original purpose of this thread, which is the exegesis of Gen. 1, with particular reference to the Hebrew word 'day.' On that point, would it seem fair to say that we have reached agreement? That is, the word as used therein, 'yom' appears to mean, and was intended by the author to mean, a literal, 24-hr. day? If so, that is one level of analysis. Another level of analysis would be to identify any other Scripture passages which could bear on the question. Do other Scriptures bear out the literal 24-hr. day understanding, or do they suggest a symbolic or allegorical meaning?

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

1] One's sinfulness

---

Romans 5:12 “Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned….18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass [:"Red"]was condemnation for all men[/], so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many [i.e., the human race] were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man [Jesus, the 2nd Adam] the many [i.e., the human race] will be made righteous.

1 Cor 15:22 “For as in Adam all die….

Acts 17:26 “From one man he [God] made every nation of men….”

Quote:

---

2] One's need of a Savior.

---

Thus it is written, “The first man [Adam] became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit…..The first man [Adam] was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man [Jesus] is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood [i.e., what we receive from Adam] cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We [i.e., we believers] shall not all sleep [remain dead], but we shall all be changed, [how?] 52 [Through millions of years of evolution…NO!] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

Well, we seem to have strayed a little from the original purpose of this thread, which is the exegesis of Gen. 1, with particular reference to the Hebrew word 'day.'

---

It's better to go directly to the central issue involving evolution, namely...it attacks the gospel because our fallen humanity came from the 1st man, Adam.

Was Adam created sinless - in the image of God? Moses says, "yes". Did Adam fall? The whole of the Bible says, "yes"! Did Christ, the last Adam, undo our situation in the first Adam. The gospel says, "YES"! Do you need the last Adam? Yes, but evolution says, "No"...Adam is a myth! Naturally, the last Adam must also be a myth.

Rob

[David Koot]

Well, all of that may be fruitful grounds for discussion, but that is not the focus of this thread--speaking as the one who started the thread. You might want to start a new thread addressing the topic you mentioned. This thread is devoted to the EXEGESIS of Gen. 1, rather than to the interpretation and doctrines which may arise from such exegesis. I do ask that we stay on topic, on this thread.

[Robert]

Okay...let's make room for both:

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. [:"red"]In the day that God created man[/], in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, [:"red"]in the day[/] when they were created. 3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth....

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

[:"red"]In the day that God created man[/]

---

Clear, Bravus?

BTW, the Papacy agrees with you on evolution. They say that God created man through evolution, i.e., through vast years of time [as in 1 day = billions of years]. Funny, they have also perverted the gospel....The two go together.

Rob

[olger]

Dear David. The Hebrew word yom indicates a 24-hour period in Genesis 1. It's simple. Norman Gully has just completed a paper on the spiritual implications of the long-period-of-time compromise regarding creation. It is very good.

gcw

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

...why is it [origns] so important? What does it do for you - for humanity?

I believe it does plenty

...

---

How so?

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

BTW, the Papacy agrees with you on evolution. They say that God created man through evolution, i.e., through vast years of time [as in 1 day = billions of years].

---

And, that was a fairly recent pronouncement. On a public forum, I suggested, and believe, that the RC Church's volte face on this point, is consistent with her centuries-old quest for world domination--to draw all within the purview of the 'Mother Church.' If the Church can, by changing its position on the issue of evolution, win the support or at least the acquiescence of evolutionary scientists, then her influence in worldly terms, has been enhanced, and more people may be comfortable becoming Roman Catholics, whereas the fundamentalist Protestants would not endorse long-age evolution.