Guest shiloh357 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 1) So there is no point to the fact that God took 6 days to create and rested on the 7th? He could've have done it in 1, or 3, or 3,000,000. But he chose to do it in 6. That is all to be taken from the 6...pure fact, without significance. I didn't say that it didn't have theological significance. I am saying that no figurative devices are employed in the text. There are also no cultural idioms in the text either. It is a simply and plainly writen historical narrative. 2) the parallels found by scholars and archaeologists concerning the construction of pagan temples and their ceremonial dedications (prominent during the time at which Genesis is thought to have been written) are completely accidental, having no correlation? When exactly do you think Genesis was written? I believe the text stands on its own. I am curious though, does the interpretation I have advocated offend you? Or do you merely disagree with it? i.e. do you think it merely wrong, or do you think it blasphemous? The short dogmatic nature of your replies suggests the latter. I am not exactly clear on the nature of the interpretation you are advocating. Knowing when you think the Genesis was written might help me understand. I take the text of Genesis 1 literally as a hisortical narrative. I take God to mean exactly what He says in Genesis 1. Can you boil down the nature of your interpreation in a sentence or two? Just give me the bottom line of what you believe about the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 12, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2014 So the Earth was without form for how long? Before the first day, it could have been without form for billions of years (or not). This post is BRILLIANT because it is succinct and yet speaks volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 So the Earth was without form for how long? Before the first day, it could have been without form for billions of years (or not). This post is BRILLIANT because it is succinct and yet speaks volumes. Yes, it speaks to the baseless assumption of billions of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 12, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2014 So the Earth was without form for how long? Before the first day, it could have been without form for billions of years (or not). This post is BRILLIANT because it is succinct and yet speaks volumes. Yes, it speaks to the baseless assumption of billions of years. Go to the corner, Shiloh! Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 So the Earth was without form for how long? Before the first day, it could have been without form for billions of years (or not). This post is BRILLIANT because it is succinct and yet speaks volumes. Yes, it speaks to the baseless assumption of billions of years. Go to the corner, Shiloh! Lol Just sayin'.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted January 13, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2014 1) So there is no point to the fact that God took 6 days to create and rested on the 7th? He could've have done it in 1, or 3, or 3,000,000. But he chose to do it in 6. That is all to be taken from the 6...pure fact, without significance. I didn't say that it didn't have theological significance. I am saying that no figurative devices are employed in the text. There are also no cultural idioms in the text either. It is a simply and plainly writen historical narrative. 2) the parallels found by scholars and archaeologists concerning the construction of pagan temples and their ceremonial dedications (prominent during the time at which Genesis is thought to have been written) are completely accidental, having no correlation? When exactly do you think Genesis was written? I believe the text stands on its own. I am curious though, does the interpretation I have advocated offend you? Or do you merely disagree with it? i.e. do you think it merely wrong, or do you think it blasphemous? The short dogmatic nature of your replies suggests the latter. I am not exactly clear on the nature of the interpretation you are advocating. Knowing when you think the Genesis was written might help me understand. I take the text of Genesis 1 literally as a hisortical narrative. I take God to mean exactly what He says in Genesis 1. Can you boil down the nature of your interpreation in a sentence or two? Just give me the bottom line of what you believe about the text. Many scholars ascribe Genesis to Moses (so, 1440 or later). Thus, when reading Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch, I look for parallels in this period (give or take a good many years, assuming that major cultural changes would not take place so quickly as they do in our own). Thus when I read the 10 commandments and the Deuteronomic covenant, I see similarities between their literary structure and that of ancient near eastern treaties made between suzerain and vassal kingdoms. From this I make certain inferences (e.g. the 10 commandments were not divided over two tablets, but were rather written twice, one being the duplicate contract of the other). That is an example of my exegetical method. I have already given the bottom line: the author didn't care a bit about how long it took God to make the world. He (MOses?) was employing a common theme (temple ideology) to subvert common notions about gods. He took a simple belief (God created the world) and conveyed it through a cultural lens--temple ideology--in order to communicate a powerful corrective on contemporary beliefs (local gods don't own the world, I do). Your main point is that there is no hint of idiom, or figurative device. Technically, what I am proposing is not a a device but an allusion. But at this point I am not sure what you would regard as a figurative device at all. When the earth is described as having "pillars" or with "4 corners" are these "devices"? Or did the Israelites believe the earth was square and had pillars holding it up? When the psalmist (74:14) says that the Lord crushed the heads of Leviathan at creation, was there a literal sea-serpent which God created and then crushed? My contention is that the entire sweep of the narrative would've struck cultural roots in its 2nd mill hearers. Sure, if we didn't read the whole thing but looked at one word (Day) or even the sentence (and there was morning and there was light, the first day) we won't perceive an allusion. clb again, feel free to leave it be.....agree to disagree (I didn't intend the rhyme, to be honest). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Connor, I understand all of that, but none of that answers my question. I am simply wanting to know if you view the days of Genesis 1 as a literal historical event and if you believe the account as written, or if you, like others are trying fit 4.5 billion years into six days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 13, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2014 Connor, I understand all of that, but none of that answers my question. I am simply wanting to know if you view the days of Genesis 1 as a literal historical event and if you believe the account as written, or if you, like others are trying fit 4.5 billion years into six days. Time out- there are other alternatives too. For instance, what if the 4.5 billion years was how long it was before God did his creation thing starting in Genesis 1.3. Remember, in the beginning (dateless past) God created the heavens and the earth. THEN the earth was formless and void..... Why can't all this be 4.5 billion years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Connor, I understand all of that, but none of that answers my question. I am simply wanting to know if you view the days of Genesis 1 as a literal historical event and if you believe the account as written, or if you, like others are trying fit 4.5 billion years into six days. Time out- there are other alternatives too. For instance, what if the 4.5 billion years was how long it was before God did his creation thing starting in Genesis 1.3. Remember, in the beginning (dateless past) God created the heavens and the earth. THEN the earth was formless and void..... Why can't all this be 4.5 billion years? The Bible doesn't say that Genesis 1:1-2 occurred in the dateless past. That is YOUR baseless assumption. Verse 1 is nothing more than synopsis of the creative process. Verse 1 tells us that God created the heavens and earth. Verse 2 'till the end of the chapter is an elucidation or expanded explanation of verse one. That is what the Hebrew allows for, and I have chosen to believe the Bible and what it says. You can't simply brush the Heberw grammar aside. To do so means that you are not dealing honestly with the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARGOSY Posted January 13, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,695 Content Per Day: 0.45 Reputation: 583 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/03/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1968 Share Posted January 13, 2014 The Bible doesn't say that Genesis 1:1-2 occurred in the dateless past. That is YOUR baseless assumption. Verse 1 is nothing more than synopsis of the creative process. Verse 1 tells us that God created the heavens and earth. Verse 2 'till the end of the chapter is an elucidation or expanded explanation of verse one. That is what the Hebrew allows for, and I have chosen to believe the Bible and what it says. You can't simply brush the Heberw grammar aside. To do so means that you are not dealing honestly with the text. Many experts in Hebrew have translated the bible to mean that the earth existed in darkness before the first daylight. This is what a straightforward reading of the text says. You are choosing to believe what the Hebrew "allows for" above what is the most obvious interpretation. By doing so you are contradicting your own principle of accepting the bible at face value. Honestly the bible is not YEC, the earth existed for an unknown period before the first daylight, if we take the bible at its most literal and face value interpretation that you seem to be so committed to. The rest of the days are literal days, and so about 6000 years ago God created life, but I cannot be an honest bible literalist and believe YEC, I believe the YEC stance contradicts the face value understanding of the bible text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts