Day in genesis 1?...was it 24hr?

[nebula]

This is fascinating. Whoever the author was, the Creation would have been the distant past to him/her. The question is how did God reveal this knowledge to the author. I imagine that it would have had to have either been revealed word-for-word (which, I agree, is difficult to accept) or it would have appeared like a vision (like the prophets who reveal things about the future via an allegorical and vague foresight). So the author's might have been an allegorical and vague hindsight--which might mean that the Creation story should be taken as no more literally than Revelations.

Bingo!

Whoever wrote Genesis 1-3 were not eyewitnesses.

Why wouldn't the Lord have revealed the past prophetically like the future?

[Iryssa]

And why wouldn't God have told Moses exactly what happened, for that matter? Moses and God did spend an awful lot of time together on Sinai, after all...personally, if I'd spent that much time (forty days and forty nights, Ex. 24:18) conversing with God on Mount Sinai, I would have asked

[Iryssa]

And it just occured to me that God DID mention creation in His talks with Moses, as is seen in Ex.31:17 "...for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested."

[Copper Scroll]

The whole problem with the allegorical view of creation week is, where do you draw the line? Where does allegory leave off and fact begin?

The question that should appear before this one is one I raised on another thread--to no response: Need the line be drawn at all? The Bible is not a textbook; it is a guide to life. It is not a book of facts; it is a book of wisdom. What is important is how the reader reacts to it.

Now, two people could read a piece of scripture and both take it literally--and still react differently to that same scripture they have both taken literally. (This is proven by various schisms and controversies that have happened in the history of the church.) Two people could read a piece of scripture and both take it figuratively--and still react differently to it. So if the figurative or literal status of a particular text does not determine how the reader will react, what difference does it make whether it is literal or figurative?

Were Adam and Eve real people, or merely representatons of some mystical concept? If not real, then is sin real? Or salvation? Or God? But if Adam and Eve, sin, etc. are real and literal, then why not the days of creation? If God had wanted to convey the idea that he took only six days to create, could he have made it any clearer? Also consider the later reference by Moses that the reason for the Sabbath was that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested the seventh. All NT references to creation week are to treat it as literal. Some claim that because marriage represents the relationship between Christ and the Church that Genesis can be taken as symbolic, but then we're back to the first question: where do you draw the line?

I'm wondering whether you think the words were given to the author verbatim or whether it came to the author like a prophetic vision.

This is what I'm thinking. Tell me if I where I'm wrong. (I'm sure you will.) : If God is holy and perfect, I would think, words wouldn't be good enough. Words are finite and transitory. Some words go completely out of use while the meanings of others are changed. This brings to mind the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. Perhaps the Absolute Truth--the WORD of God--is better transmitted in largely allegorical and symbolic "visions"--like those that prophets had. Perhaps "visions" is the way God inspired the Bible--each author received vague and allegorical inspiration. Now, some authors wrote about things that they witnessed first- or second-hand. Events that they were close to themselves--books like Kings and Joshua and Exodus and the Gospels-Acts of the NT. I would hold these texts to be more "factual" than others because they are more "empirical"--experienced by the author or people who the author communicates with. The author is able to interpret his divine inspiration in light of first- and second-hand experiences. But then there are other texts that speak on events that happened way before the author was born (Genesis) or at some point in the future (like Revelations and parts of the Prophets of the OT). The authors of Genesis and Revelations didn't have first-hand experience with the events that were revealed to them and that they wrote about. They only had the prophetic "vision" to rely on--God's means of communication. Whether the words used to describe the vision are taken literally or not, the reader is likely to react in a way that God intends. Most here will agree that at least much of Revelations is allegorical and symbolic, why can't the same be said for Genesis?

Edited February 17, 2006 by Copper Scroll

[Copper Scroll]

Most of the world believes there is no such thing as absolute truth, and you seem to be coming from this view. But does that mean there is no absolute truth?

Actually, I did say that I believe in Absolute Truth. I believe that the WORD lives, has always lived, and always will live.

What I implied is that I don't believe that this Truth can be captured in a finite string of words--because words are not absolute.

In the same way, if "most here agree" on something, does that make it true (even if there really is a majority here who believe Rev. is mostly allegorical)? No, the Bible says what it says and means what it means. Our job is to use standard methods of evaluating any text and apply them to the Bible.

And this doesn't mean that those methods can't fail us. Those methods are ours, not God's. They are tools that we made up and that we use. Like any tool that we use, these methods are not perfect.

To treat the Bible as a vague and loose story is to make it impossible to spread the Gospel and to insult the God who wrote it down for us. It really is a matter of life and death.

...as discussed on the "God is love" thread.

I'm interested in this debate over the means by which God revealed the content of the Bible to its authors. Any links or resources, anyone?

[Copper Scroll]

Butero:

Many of the scriptures in the Bible must be taken literally to even be a Christian. I believe one of those issues is that of the literal physical resurrection of Jesus. There are many others that are also vitally important such as the virgin birth. I realize someone may ask, why is that so important? The reason is that if Jesus was a natural descendant of Adam, his blood line wasn't pure. He was born in sin, like the rest of mankind, and therefore his sacrifice on the cross wouldn't have been acceptable. The reason it was is because God is his Father. I would ask Copper Scroll that question as well. Do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?

Yes,

but let's take a look at what just happened. You started a list of prerequisites for salvation. Other Christians' lists are longer than yours (probably) and some are shorter. What would be the common denominator among all of those lists?

Copper Scroll, you have said you consider yourself a "liberal Christian." What does being a Christian mean to you?

I suppose that Jesus was God in the flesh--that his teachings and actions were of God and that the things that happened to him happened to God. Could this be the common denominator?

You said you do not know what the term "born again" means. They never taught that doctrine in the church you grew up in. Are you saved? If so, how did you get saved? You may claim these questions have nothing to do with this subject, but they do have something to do with what you have turned this discussion into, that is, whether to take scriptures as literal or figurative.

I don't really see what one (my personal salvation) has to do with the other (our current discussion over the literal and figurative status of scripture). You seem to have restarted the irrelevant third degree you promised had come to an end. But I'll answer: Jesus saved me on the cross.

Whether you accept it or not, there are indeed certain basic doctrines in the Bible one must accept as absolute truth to be saved. ... the list.

What concerns me about you is that you don't seem to be a person of faith.

Am I asking the wrong questions?

Everything is pick and choose

A couple of posts ago, I laid out a fairly reasonable (non-arbitrary) method of determining what is factual in scripture (if this is what you're referring to). It got no response from you.

It is not enough to simply state that you consider yourself a "liberal Christian" like an assigned title, and to expect everyone to accept you as part of God's family

I don't expect you to accept me as a part of your idea of God's family. In order for this to be done I would need your list and I would need to conform to it. I have not interest in this.

I do not expect you or anyone else to agree with me on all areas of doctrine, nor do I believe it is necessary for you to agree with me on all points to be saved,

How could you consider someone "as part of God's family" if they don't conform to your list? If they don't satisfy your prerequisites, you don't believe they are saved. So they must agree with you in order for you to consider them saved.

but I do pray that you will come to understand and believe the basic principles of the faith.

So you pray that I come to understand your list, even though you've only provided part of it for me. If I will be tortured for eternity without conforming to your list, then it's your moral responsiblity to make sure that I accept it.

If you died tonight where would your soul be? Can you answer that question?

No, and I'm afraid you can't either.

The result, was that Jesus delivered his child from a demonic spirit. My advise to you, if you sincerely want to know the truth, is to get into a quiet place (your own personal prayer closet) and seek the Lord till you find him Thanks, but one piece of advice at a time. I'm still working on your advice about reading the whole Bible (for me, the second time). I started yesterday.

The Bible says God is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him.

Amen.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Copper Scroll

[Guest yod]

I believe it was a literal account...but that things were so different during creation that it's silly to force our current frame of reference. You are trying to force today's SCIENTIFIC measurements on a time that you can't possibly know anything about.

Yes, He did it in 7 Yom. No, those yom were not 24 hour periods.

It's shameful how some of you guys get ugly when your little box is rocked. What difference does it really make if it were not 24 hour days? Doesn't matter to me if it was...but that is not what the Bible LITERALLY says unless you force your own definitions upon it. That is a culturally christian interpretation based on tradition. Nothing sacred about it.

You are using science when you say that a day is 24 hours because it is science that gives you that measurement of the Earth's rotation. God never mentions it.

So again...how can you have a 24-hour "yom" when we are talking about three "yom" before the sun is even created?

Why would God have any reason to make the Earth look older than it really is? All this talk about "there is no scientific evidence" is exactly what they said when Capernicus told them the world was round. Gravity is also real, btw.

If it challenges your faith so much that you MUST believe that, go right ahead. Please stop the condescending towards people with another legitimate point of view.

[Iryssa]

I believe it was a literal account...but that things were so different during creation that it's silly to force our current frame of reference. You are trying to force today's SCIENTIFIC measurements on a time that you can't possibly know anything about.

Yes, He did it in 7 Yom. No, those yom were not 24 hour periods.

It's shameful how some of you guys get ugly when your little box is rocked. What difference does it really make if it were not 24 hour days? Doesn't matter to me if it was...but that is not what the Bible LITERALLY says unless you force your own definitions upon it. That is a culturally christian interpretation based on tradition. Nothing sacred about it.

You are using science when you say that a day is 24 hours because it is science that gives you that measurement of the Earth's rotation. God never mentions it.

So again...how can you have a 24-hour "yom" when we are talking about three "yom" before the sun is even created?

Why would God have any reason to make the Earth look older than it really is? All this talk about "there is no scientific evidence" is exactly what they said when Capernicus told them the world was round. Gravity is also real, btw.

Actually, they've been discovering some significant flaws in carbon dating, so many scientists are saying that the earth may not be as old as they thought it was...and personally, I don't believe it every time someone says "there is scientific evidence..." or "there is no scientific evidence..." The area of science is a tricky thing, always changing...And on that note, I find it interesting that you denounce "using SCIENTIFIC measurements" in one breath, and then appeal to it in the next.

No, God does not mention there being "24 hours," but he does use the phrase "and there was evening, and there was morning..." and, as we generally understand it, the cycle from evening to morning equals the transition of a day, and it would have meant the same to Moses as he was writing this down...to us a day means 24hours, but a day is 24 hours even without the scientific measurement. It's like saying "what was the highest mountain before Mt. Everest was discovered?" People's first impulse is usually to say "Mt. Fuji," but the answer is really still "Mt. Everest." Why? Because the mountain was still there before it was discovered. A day still lasted 24 hours before scientists set that standard. Now, you can argue, "well, technically, it was 23.453828..." or whathave you, but at that point we're really splitting hairs.

Now, if we're gonna talk science, how about we set out to explain how there was light and dark/day and night without the sun? *shrug* Science tells us that the sun provides our light and the light for the moon, and that stars provide other light. How was there light before the sun? I think God's powerful enough to have that one under control. Why would He not be powerful enough to create the world in only six 24-hour periods?

[Guest yod]

Actually, they've been discovering some significant flaws in carbon dating, so many scientists are saying that the earth may not be as old as they thought it was...and personally, I don't believe it every time someone says "there is scientific evidence..." or "there is no scientific evidence..." The area of science is a tricky thing, always changing...And on that note, I find it interesting that you denounce "using SCIENTIFIC measurements" in one breath, and then appeal to it in the next.

I seriously do not care whether carbon dating is perfectly accurate or not...nor did I not denounce scientific measurements. I'm not trying to prove nor disprove God with science.

This also has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. That is pure poppycock.

I made that statement to show the inconsistancies of those who think scientific methods can't be trusted yet put some amount of trust in science by saying that the Creation day is a 24 hour period...which is a scientific measurement of God's creation based on what can be observed

No, God does not mention there being "24 hours," but he does use the phrase "and there was evening, and there was morning..." and, as we generally understand it, the cycle from evening to morning equals the transition of a day, and it would have meant the same to Moses as he was writing this down...to us a day means 24hours, but a day is 24 hours even without the scientific measurement.

"as we generally understand it" thousands (or millions?) of year later.

It's like saying "what was the highest mountain before Mt. Everest was discovered?" People's first impulse is usually to say "Mt. Fuji," but the answer is really still "Mt. Everest." Why? Because the mountain was still there before it was discovered. A day still lasted 24 hours before scientists set that standard. Now, you can argue, "well, technically, it was 23.453828..." or whathave you, but at that point we're really splitting hairs.

No, it is a little different analogy

It would be closer to saying that Mt Everest is as tall as any mountain has ever been since creation. It does not seem unreasonable to me to allow for the possibility that the Earth may have been much different during Creation....and there might have been mountains that were taller in that day....or "yom".

Now, if we're gonna talk science, how about we set out to explain how there was light and dark/day and night without the sun? *shrug* Science tells us that the sun provides our light and the light for the moon, and that stars provide other light. How was there light before the sun? I think God's powerful enough to have that one under control. Why would He not be powerful enough to create the world in only six 24-hour periods?

He could have. I certainly don't mean to imply any impotence on His part.

But that's not how I read the Creation account based on what it literally says. It's a matter of interpretation but there is no reason why it necessarily has to contradict what we can measure and know.

Maybe He created the universe and the Earth and the Sun and the stars in seven 24-hour periods and make it look much older (for some strange reason)...but it doesn't have to contradict what can be observed in His Creation if one would only consider that there are other definitions of the word "yom"

Even the word used in Greek could be interpreted that way also.

Hebrews 4:4

For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

The word translated "day" in the Greek is: hemera

Tame, Gentle, a Day.

(Lit) space between dawn and dusk, or the whole 24 hours.

(figurative) a period.

[Iryssa]

Actually, they've been discovering some significant flaws in carbon dating, so many scientists are saying that the earth may not be as old as they thought it was...and personally, I don't believe it every time someone says "there is scientific evidence..." or "there is no scientific evidence..." The area of science is a tricky thing, always changing...And on that note, I find it interesting that you denounce "using SCIENTIFIC measurements" in one breath, and then appeal to it in the next.

I seriously do not care whether carbon dating is perfectly accurate or not...nor did I not denounce scientific measurements. I'm not trying to prove nor disprove God with science.

This also has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. That is pure poppycock.

I made that statement to show the inconsistancies of those who think scientific methods can't be trusted yet put some amount of trust in science by saying that the Creation day is a 24 hour period...which is a scientific measurement of God's creation based on what can be observed

Um...I don't think I mentioned evolution in there anywhere...but...thanks? What I was addressing was your assertion that the world appears much older than the literal day would account for...well, a lot of what they've used in their estimation of the age of the earth is carbon dating of fossils taken from deep layers of the earth.

No, God does not mention there being "24 hours," but he does use the phrase "and there was evening, and there was morning..." and, as we generally understand it, the cycle from evening to morning equals the transition of a day, and it would have meant the same to Moses as he was writing this down...to us a day means 24hours, but a day is 24 hours even without the scientific measurement.

"as we generally understand it" thousands (or millions?) of year later.

I said "to Moses" as well...they understood day to generally mean a cycle of the sun rising and setting...which we happen to know is 24 hours...whether or not they knew it was 24 hours exactly is completely beside the point.

It's like saying "what was the highest mountain before Mt. Everest was discovered?" People's first impulse is usually to say "Mt. Fuji," but the answer is really still "Mt. Everest." Why? Because the mountain was still there before it was discovered. A day still lasted 24 hours before scientists set that standard. Now, you can argue, "well, technically, it was 23.453828..." or whathave you, but at that point we're really splitting hairs.

No, it is a little different analogy

It would be closer to saying that Mt Everest is as tall as any mountain has ever been since creation. It does not seem unreasonable to me to allow for the possibility that the Earth may have been much different during Creation....and there might have been mountains that were taller in that day....or "yom".

And again, you missed my point...the point was not that the analogy was perfect, but to illustrate that them (the biblical writers) not knowing that a day is almost exactly twenty-four hours has nothing to do with it. The point was that you're nitpicking the twenty-four hours thing...now, what I'm seeing is that you're working from the point of view of the Dictation Theory (addressed earlier in this debate), so you'll probably need to understand that I'm working from the viewpoint of the Plenary Verbal Inspiration theory...see earlier posts in this discussion to see what that means. See my last reply for clairification on my point here addressed if you need it. I also never said that I was referring to Mount Everest at the time of creation...I just said "before it was discovered" which could mean comparatively recent history.

Now, if we're gonna talk science, how about we set out to explain how there was light and dark/day and night without the sun? *shrug* Science tells us that the sun provides our light and the light for the moon, and that stars provide other light. How was there light before the sun? I think God's powerful enough to have that one under control. Why would He not be powerful enough to create the world in only six 24-hour periods?

He could have. I certainly don't mean to imply any impotence on His part.

But that's not how I read the Creation account based on what it literally says. It's a matter of interpretation but there is no reason why it necessarily has to contradict what we can measure and know.

Maybe He created the universe and the Earth and the Sun and the stars in seven 24-hour periods and make it look much older (for some strange reason)...but it doesn't have to contradict what can be observed in His Creation if one would only consider that there are other definitions of the word "yom"

Even the word used in Greek could be interpreted that way also.

Hebrews 4:4

For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

The word translated "day" in the Greek is: hemera

Tame, Gentle, a Day.

(Lit) space between dawn and dusk, or the whole 24 hours.

(figurative) a period.

And I have said before that that is not what I see it literally saying, based on the textual context, the cultural context, and the theological context. Personally, I see more evidence in the text for literal seven days. And really, your argument that the word could also mean "a period" has no logical sway, since it could also just as easily mean "the space between dawn and dusk, or the whole 24 hours." In such scenarios, we must look to the context for the correct interpretation, and I see far more evidence in the text for a literal day.