While I, by default, have always taken the numbers literally, I agree with Matt that, if there is evidence that they were intended to be taken non-literally, there is no sacrilege in finding this out and believing it.
What I am about to observe proves nothing, but I find it fascinating that numerous chronologers (including but not restricted to Ussher) have calculated the numbers of the Old Testament as placing the creation in the year 4004 BC. This was worked out even before it became, more modernly, apparent that Christ cannot have been born before 4 BC, and may, in fact, have been born that very year. That would make the birth of Christ exactly 4000 years after creation—without any artificial rounding off. That seems more than coincidental—though its significance is not obvious. There are a few thousand other possible numbers that were less round that it might have been, if chance alone was determining things. Also, Abraham's life (2000 BC) cuts that 4000 years right in half. And David's life (1000 BC) cuts the second half in half. Interesting coincidences—or by design? I have no insights.
Days of Creation/24 Hour Periods, Age of Earth/6000 Years
Re: Days of Creation/24 Hour Periods, Age of Earth/6000 Year
Dwight,
You wrote:
You wrote:
If all words and numbers are strictly literal what need have we of the Holy Spirit in interpreting them? All who post here can read them. And what are we to make of Jesus being in the tomb for three days and nights? Three days and three nights, if literal, constitutes a period of 72 hours which would place the crucifixion early Wednesday morning if He rose early Sunday morning. Something doesn't fit.We were given the Holy Spirit to help us and guide us in properly interpreting the actual words and numbers of scripture.
-
dwight92070
- Posts: 1550
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am
Re: Days of Creation/24 Hour Periods, Age of Earth/6000 Year
Homer,
So then are you saying that there probably weren't 12 apostles, that really there were 14 or maybe 10? Because if there are actually 12, as the Bible says, then we wouldn't need the Holy Spirit to help us interpret the true message behind the number of apostles? So whenever the Bible gives us an exact number, we can't take it to mean an exact number, because if it is, then we don't need the Holy Spirit? I can't believe you're actually saying that.
Were there really 12 tribes of Israel as the Bible says? Were there really just 7 days of creation as the Bible says? Are there just 3 persons in the godhead as the Bible says? Did it rain 40 days and 40 nights at the flood as the Bible tells us? Are there just 7 churches mentioned in Revelation as it tells us? Well, we can't take all of those numbers literally, because if we do, then we don't need the Holy Spirit to help us interpret what it is actually saying.
I am sorry but that is unbelieveably bad reasoning. Believe it or not, the Holy Spirit can speak to us, even when we are given exact numbers. The Holy Spirit does not invalidate common sense, i.e. using our brains. Also, I don't believe Gpd lies to us. If God tells us that Methuselah lived to be 969, but he really lived to be 169, wouldn't that be lieing?
I don't have the answer to the 3 days and 3 nights question, but I am confident that, like so many other issues, it appears to be a contradiction, but we may not understand it until we are with Him.
So then are you saying that there probably weren't 12 apostles, that really there were 14 or maybe 10? Because if there are actually 12, as the Bible says, then we wouldn't need the Holy Spirit to help us interpret the true message behind the number of apostles? So whenever the Bible gives us an exact number, we can't take it to mean an exact number, because if it is, then we don't need the Holy Spirit? I can't believe you're actually saying that.
Were there really 12 tribes of Israel as the Bible says? Were there really just 7 days of creation as the Bible says? Are there just 3 persons in the godhead as the Bible says? Did it rain 40 days and 40 nights at the flood as the Bible tells us? Are there just 7 churches mentioned in Revelation as it tells us? Well, we can't take all of those numbers literally, because if we do, then we don't need the Holy Spirit to help us interpret what it is actually saying.
I am sorry but that is unbelieveably bad reasoning. Believe it or not, the Holy Spirit can speak to us, even when we are given exact numbers. The Holy Spirit does not invalidate common sense, i.e. using our brains. Also, I don't believe Gpd lies to us. If God tells us that Methuselah lived to be 969, but he really lived to be 169, wouldn't that be lieing?
I don't have the answer to the 3 days and 3 nights question, but I am confident that, like so many other issues, it appears to be a contradiction, but we may not understand it until we are with Him.
-
dwight92070
- Posts: 1550
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am
Re: Days of Creation/24 Hour Periods, Age of Earth/6000 Year
Mattrose,
So were there 7 days of creation, or was that symbolic? Did it rain exactly 40 days and 40 nights at the flood, or was that symbolic? Were there exactly 12 tribes of Israel or was that symbolic? Was Noah exactly 600 when the rain of the flood began, or was that symbolic? Were there 7 pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals on the ark or was that symbolic? Were there just 8 persons on the ark or was that symbolic?
Do you take all of the above numbers in a concrete/literal sense, as I do? If you don't, then I daresay that you are greatly mistaken. If you do, then why is it that when the same author, Moses, presents numbers in a genealogy in the same book, Genesis, written to the same audience, Israel, that, all of a sudden, now we can't assume that these numbers are literal and concrete? Now we have to look for some symbolic meaning here and determine the literary genre. Maybe Moses meant for the genealogical numbers to be symbolic, even though all of the other aforementioned numbers in Genesis were meant in a literal and concrete sense.
So were there 7 days of creation, or was that symbolic? Did it rain exactly 40 days and 40 nights at the flood, or was that symbolic? Were there exactly 12 tribes of Israel or was that symbolic? Was Noah exactly 600 when the rain of the flood began, or was that symbolic? Were there 7 pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals on the ark or was that symbolic? Were there just 8 persons on the ark or was that symbolic?
Do you take all of the above numbers in a concrete/literal sense, as I do? If you don't, then I daresay that you are greatly mistaken. If you do, then why is it that when the same author, Moses, presents numbers in a genealogy in the same book, Genesis, written to the same audience, Israel, that, all of a sudden, now we can't assume that these numbers are literal and concrete? Now we have to look for some symbolic meaning here and determine the literary genre. Maybe Moses meant for the genealogical numbers to be symbolic, even though all of the other aforementioned numbers in Genesis were meant in a literal and concrete sense.
Re: Days of Creation/24 Hour Periods, Age of Earth/6000 Year
How could Moses have meant anything? He didn't write Genesis.dwight92070 wrote:Maybe Moses meant for the genealogical numbers to be symbolic, even though all of the other aforementioned numbers in Genesis were meant in a literal and concrete sense.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen
Re: Days of Creation/24 Hour Periods, Age of Earth/6000 Year
Put me in the old earth creation bunch.
I believe the Big Bang is exactly what happened. If you are science et al trying to explain how nothing existed and in 10−32 seconds later the universe was here, how else would you explain it?
I believe Hubble is seeing backwards in time and Science, if anything, is proving creationism not disproving it.
I do not believe in evolution. Where is the "missing link" that would prove it?
If I look through a telescope and see an image that has been traveling millions of years, where did it come from if the universe is only 6,000 years old? Are you telling me that image is an illusion?
I believe the Big Bang is exactly what happened. If you are science et al trying to explain how nothing existed and in 10−32 seconds later the universe was here, how else would you explain it?
I believe Hubble is seeing backwards in time and Science, if anything, is proving creationism not disproving it.
I do not believe in evolution. Where is the "missing link" that would prove it?
If I look through a telescope and see an image that has been traveling millions of years, where did it come from if the universe is only 6,000 years old? Are you telling me that image is an illusion?
Last edited by MMathis on Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MMathis
Las Vegas NV
Las Vegas NV
-
dwight92070
- Posts: 1550
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am
Re: Days of Creation/24 Hour Periods, Age of Earth/6000 Year
Jesus said that Moses wrote about Him in John 5. So where would that writing be? But of course that requires that you believe the gospel of John. Also in John 1, Philip said that Moses wrote the law.
Re: Days of Creation/24 Hour Periods, Age of Earth/6000 Year
I think we have to do the hard work of taking each passage on a case-by-case basis paying close attention to genre and authorial intent and any other evidence we may find to help us interpret. Additionally, I did not say we 'have to look for some symbolic meaning'... I said that we should be open to the possibility that the author may have meant the numbers symbolically.dwight92070 wrote:Mattrose,
So were there 7 days of creation, or was that symbolic? Did it rain exactly 40 days and 40 nights at the flood, or was that symbolic? Were there exactly 12 tribes of Israel or was that symbolic? Was Noah exactly 600 when the rain of the flood began, or was that symbolic? Were there 7 pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals on the ark or was that symbolic? Were there just 8 persons on the ark or was that symbolic?
Do you take all of the above numbers in a concrete/literal sense, as I do? If you don't, then I daresay that you are greatly mistaken. If you do, then why is it that when the same author, Moses, presents numbers in a genealogy in the same book, Genesis, written to the same audience, Israel, that, all of a sudden, now we can't assume that these numbers are literal and concrete? Now we have to look for some symbolic meaning here and determine the literary genre. Maybe Moses meant for the genealogical numbers to be symbolic, even though all of the other aforementioned numbers in Genesis were meant in a literal and concrete sense.
Re: Days of Creation/24 Hour Periods, Age of Earth/6000 Year
Hi Dwight, and all,
Thoughts on symbolism:
As Matt has indicated, to say that something is symbolic is not to show disrespect to the author or to the material itself. It may be a mistaken judgment (or not), but it is simply an honest attempt to understand what the author intended his readers to draw from his words. To say that biblical authors always spoke in literal terms is to claim for them a practice that is followed by no other human beings. It is important for us, as much as possible, to put ourselves in the shoes of the author and his readers, and to recognize the genre and literary conventions with which they were familiar and which they took for granted when reading or hearing stories. We may not be able to do this perfectly, if we are lacking cultural information about the author's times—and we may naively assume that we are doing so, when, in fact, we are simply applying our own default interpretive conventions.
Many people say they wish to take Revelation literally, but a moment's reflection makes it plain that no one can do this consistently—and no one really tries to do so. Someone who aimed heroically at this goal in his commentary was Henry Morris ("The Revelation Record"). In his introduction, he stated that he intended to write what was "probably the most literal" commentary on Revelation ever written. Why anyone would think this a worthy aim, I cannot say. However, even he could not do it. In commenting on the four horsemen, he said that they "represent" certain earthly events, because "of course, there are no horses in heaven."
I cited this instance in an early draft of my own commentary. When dispensationalist Wayne House read my manuscript, he sent it back with his own comment written in the margin: "Who says there are no horses in heaven?" Yet even Dr. House would not pretend that Jesus is literally a lamb with seven eyes and seven horns (Rev.5:6), or that the world will be ruled by an actual carnivorous animal that will emerge from the sea (Rev.13). Charles Ryrie's commentary also endeavored to take a "literal" approach to Revelation, but he ended up saying, of the locusts from the bottomless pit, that "they appear to be some kind of war machine or UFO."
To attempt a consistently literal approach to Revelation is a fool's errand, because it was written in a genre that defies literal interpretation—and which does not intend it. What is true of Revelation is also true, in many respects, of poetry (biblical and otherwise), of wisdom literature and of parabolic passages (e.g., the parables of Jesus).
There are many genres employed by writers of scripture, some of which may not be entirely familiar to us, and each requiring its own canons of interpretation. This does not reduce the Bible to a muddle of hopelessly confusing verbiage. It simply means that, while the main story is told plainly enough, the writers also use figures of speech and literary conventions common to their times—with which we can hope to become as familiar as were their original readers.
To say that certain things are "symbolic" (as, I think, the term is being used in this discussion) does not mean that deep mysteries are hidden behind them, but simply that the words have an intended significance that goes beyond their literal meaning. When we find, in Proverbs 24:16, the words, "for though they fall seven times, they will rise again." we might say that the number "seven" is not literal, but represents completeness—thus, it is saying that, in the total number of times that a righteous man may fall (or however many times a righteous man may fall), God will restore him. We could say "seven," in this case (and many others) is used symbolically. It does not throw the whole proverb into the realm of obscurity and deep mysterious meanings.
There is no reason to take offense at someone else's sincere effort to understand the Bible, simply because he or she does not make all the same assumptions about literalness, or other literary considerations, as we ourselves are making.
Thoughts on Moses writing Genesis:
Many places in scripture confirm that Moses wrote the law. Jesus and the apostles all repeatedly say so (e.g., Luke 24:44; John 1:17; 5:46; 7:19; Acts 3:22; Romans 10:5). The question, then, would be, "Did they include Genesis in what they called the Law?" Since the Jews considered the first five books to be called "the Law" (Torah), it seems probable that this collection was intended in most of the references to "the Law" in scripture. However, sometimes the term may simply refer to the collection of "laws" which are found in Exodus through Deuteronomy.
There is no good reason to doubt that Moses wrote these latter books, as they are all concerning events of his own lifetime. But no internal evidence would make it probable that Moses wrote Genesis (he was not yet born when any of its events occurred)—and it is never claimed in scripture that he did write it. There is external evidence, in the form of Jewish tradition, that Moses wrote Genesis, but not all count such traditions to be authoritative. In His teaching, Jesus referenced verses from Exodus (Mark 7:10), Leviticus (Matt.8:4) and Deuteronomy (Matt.19:8) and identified Moses as having written them. Jesus also cited, or alluded to, much of the material in Genesis—but without referring to the authorship of that material.
It seems probable, to many evangelical scholars, that Moses had access to the earlier genealogical records and written stories preserved and passed along by patriarchs like Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph (and possibly even Ishmael and Esau)—which he compiled into what we now know as Genesis (this is one way to interpret the toledoths, or the passages marked off by the words, "the generations of..."). If so, then, in one sense, Moses did, and in another sense, Moses did not write Genesis. He may have served more as a compiler and editor of material he received from earlier generations.
Thoughts on symbolism:
As Matt has indicated, to say that something is symbolic is not to show disrespect to the author or to the material itself. It may be a mistaken judgment (or not), but it is simply an honest attempt to understand what the author intended his readers to draw from his words. To say that biblical authors always spoke in literal terms is to claim for them a practice that is followed by no other human beings. It is important for us, as much as possible, to put ourselves in the shoes of the author and his readers, and to recognize the genre and literary conventions with which they were familiar and which they took for granted when reading or hearing stories. We may not be able to do this perfectly, if we are lacking cultural information about the author's times—and we may naively assume that we are doing so, when, in fact, we are simply applying our own default interpretive conventions.
Many people say they wish to take Revelation literally, but a moment's reflection makes it plain that no one can do this consistently—and no one really tries to do so. Someone who aimed heroically at this goal in his commentary was Henry Morris ("The Revelation Record"). In his introduction, he stated that he intended to write what was "probably the most literal" commentary on Revelation ever written. Why anyone would think this a worthy aim, I cannot say. However, even he could not do it. In commenting on the four horsemen, he said that they "represent" certain earthly events, because "of course, there are no horses in heaven."
I cited this instance in an early draft of my own commentary. When dispensationalist Wayne House read my manuscript, he sent it back with his own comment written in the margin: "Who says there are no horses in heaven?" Yet even Dr. House would not pretend that Jesus is literally a lamb with seven eyes and seven horns (Rev.5:6), or that the world will be ruled by an actual carnivorous animal that will emerge from the sea (Rev.13). Charles Ryrie's commentary also endeavored to take a "literal" approach to Revelation, but he ended up saying, of the locusts from the bottomless pit, that "they appear to be some kind of war machine or UFO."
To attempt a consistently literal approach to Revelation is a fool's errand, because it was written in a genre that defies literal interpretation—and which does not intend it. What is true of Revelation is also true, in many respects, of poetry (biblical and otherwise), of wisdom literature and of parabolic passages (e.g., the parables of Jesus).
There are many genres employed by writers of scripture, some of which may not be entirely familiar to us, and each requiring its own canons of interpretation. This does not reduce the Bible to a muddle of hopelessly confusing verbiage. It simply means that, while the main story is told plainly enough, the writers also use figures of speech and literary conventions common to their times—with which we can hope to become as familiar as were their original readers.
To say that certain things are "symbolic" (as, I think, the term is being used in this discussion) does not mean that deep mysteries are hidden behind them, but simply that the words have an intended significance that goes beyond their literal meaning. When we find, in Proverbs 24:16, the words, "for though they fall seven times, they will rise again." we might say that the number "seven" is not literal, but represents completeness—thus, it is saying that, in the total number of times that a righteous man may fall (or however many times a righteous man may fall), God will restore him. We could say "seven," in this case (and many others) is used symbolically. It does not throw the whole proverb into the realm of obscurity and deep mysterious meanings.
There is no reason to take offense at someone else's sincere effort to understand the Bible, simply because he or she does not make all the same assumptions about literalness, or other literary considerations, as we ourselves are making.
Thoughts on Moses writing Genesis:
Many places in scripture confirm that Moses wrote the law. Jesus and the apostles all repeatedly say so (e.g., Luke 24:44; John 1:17; 5:46; 7:19; Acts 3:22; Romans 10:5). The question, then, would be, "Did they include Genesis in what they called the Law?" Since the Jews considered the first five books to be called "the Law" (Torah), it seems probable that this collection was intended in most of the references to "the Law" in scripture. However, sometimes the term may simply refer to the collection of "laws" which are found in Exodus through Deuteronomy.
There is no good reason to doubt that Moses wrote these latter books, as they are all concerning events of his own lifetime. But no internal evidence would make it probable that Moses wrote Genesis (he was not yet born when any of its events occurred)—and it is never claimed in scripture that he did write it. There is external evidence, in the form of Jewish tradition, that Moses wrote Genesis, but not all count such traditions to be authoritative. In His teaching, Jesus referenced verses from Exodus (Mark 7:10), Leviticus (Matt.8:4) and Deuteronomy (Matt.19:8) and identified Moses as having written them. Jesus also cited, or alluded to, much of the material in Genesis—but without referring to the authorship of that material.
It seems probable, to many evangelical scholars, that Moses had access to the earlier genealogical records and written stories preserved and passed along by patriarchs like Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph (and possibly even Ishmael and Esau)—which he compiled into what we now know as Genesis (this is one way to interpret the toledoths, or the passages marked off by the words, "the generations of..."). If so, then, in one sense, Moses did, and in another sense, Moses did not write Genesis. He may have served more as a compiler and editor of material he received from earlier generations.
-
dwight92070
- Posts: 1550
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am
Re: Days of Creation/24 Hour Periods, Age of Earth/6000 Year
Steve,
I have no problem with anything you said. Thanks for that info. If I understood you correctly, even if Moses just collected and compiled the information in Genesis, and did not write it, it still appears that very often, Genesis was included, in the Jews mind, as being part of the Law. as I think it is today. Also, in their mind, he, Moses, "wrote it". You said yourself, in one sense, Moses wrote it, in another sense, he did not. But even if he just collected and compiled the Genesis information, wouldn't that be like his stamp of approval and belief of authencity of that information? Otherwise, why would he waste his time?
I think Genesis is meant to be part of the word of God. Which brings me back to my questions in my previous posts. What is there about the "genre or literary conventions" of the genealogies in Genesis that would preclude our taking the numbers literally? I agree with you that we all speak and write using symbolism at times. But what is there about the genealogies and their context to give us any indication that we should not take the numbers literally? Because it is also true that we all speak and write literally, in fact, I would say more often than we do those things symbolically.
Also, I would say that there is internal evidence that the numbers and names are literal. You have said it yourself. "The cattle on a thousand hills" is not meant to mean literally 1000 hills. But why does it not say, "the cattle on 969 hills"? Because that would not make sense for the author who wishes to convey a symbolic meaning. If he uses an exact number, or should we say a number that is not rounded-off, he now appears to be giving us literal information.
Methuselah lived to be 969 years old. If that is not a literal statement, then God or Moses or whoever wrote it, is misleading us. For some reason, the same author thought it was important for us to know that the flood started when Noah was 600 and ended during his 601st year, that there were 7 days of creation (no matter how long you think they were), that Adam was 130 when Seth was born and died at 930, during Lamech's lifetime, who himself died at the age of 777.
There is no reason that I can see to not take these numbers literally. Of course, we all know what group of people do not want us to take them literally - the evolutionists. And of course, there are some Christians who want to meld together the Bible and evolution, but it doesn't "fit". You can't mix truth with lies, at least not legitimately. Obviously, evolution won't "work", if the earth is just 6000 years old. Of course, we know it doesn't work, even if the earth was millions of years old.
I have no problem with anything you said. Thanks for that info. If I understood you correctly, even if Moses just collected and compiled the information in Genesis, and did not write it, it still appears that very often, Genesis was included, in the Jews mind, as being part of the Law. as I think it is today. Also, in their mind, he, Moses, "wrote it". You said yourself, in one sense, Moses wrote it, in another sense, he did not. But even if he just collected and compiled the Genesis information, wouldn't that be like his stamp of approval and belief of authencity of that information? Otherwise, why would he waste his time?
I think Genesis is meant to be part of the word of God. Which brings me back to my questions in my previous posts. What is there about the "genre or literary conventions" of the genealogies in Genesis that would preclude our taking the numbers literally? I agree with you that we all speak and write using symbolism at times. But what is there about the genealogies and their context to give us any indication that we should not take the numbers literally? Because it is also true that we all speak and write literally, in fact, I would say more often than we do those things symbolically.
Also, I would say that there is internal evidence that the numbers and names are literal. You have said it yourself. "The cattle on a thousand hills" is not meant to mean literally 1000 hills. But why does it not say, "the cattle on 969 hills"? Because that would not make sense for the author who wishes to convey a symbolic meaning. If he uses an exact number, or should we say a number that is not rounded-off, he now appears to be giving us literal information.
Methuselah lived to be 969 years old. If that is not a literal statement, then God or Moses or whoever wrote it, is misleading us. For some reason, the same author thought it was important for us to know that the flood started when Noah was 600 and ended during his 601st year, that there were 7 days of creation (no matter how long you think they were), that Adam was 130 when Seth was born and died at 930, during Lamech's lifetime, who himself died at the age of 777.
There is no reason that I can see to not take these numbers literally. Of course, we all know what group of people do not want us to take them literally - the evolutionists. And of course, there are some Christians who want to meld together the Bible and evolution, but it doesn't "fit". You can't mix truth with lies, at least not legitimately. Obviously, evolution won't "work", if the earth is just 6000 years old. Of course, we know it doesn't work, even if the earth was millions of years old.