Literally 6 Days

Post Reply
User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:19 pm

TruthInLove wrote:
dwight92070 wrote:God obviously knows our nature. He knows that we will take Genesis literally, unless Genesis itself gives us a reason not to.
I've already given you several aspects of Genesis that I believe give us such reasons.

Dwight: Your so-called reasons appear to me to be vague generalities. I don't remember you giving me any specific examples of any of them. 1. Literacy structure not typical of factual narrative 2. Numbers notable for their symbolic use elsewhere in the Bible and 3. Motifs of Genesis pop up in other Bible contexts that are non-literal. Examples please?

Consider the Law of the OT. When it was first given, there was never any obvious indication that it was temporary or that it was prophetic - pointing to something greater than itself. The Law was given as something perpetual that had to be adhered to rigidly to please God and avoid being cursed by Him. Circumcision, clean and unclean foods, temple ceremonies, etc.

Dwight: Sure, these things were types and shadows, they were symbolic, but they were also physical and literal events and objects It isn't until much, much later in other books of the Bible that we see clearly that these were in fact symbols of something greater and that ultimately, God was never really satisfied with the entire establishment! He even says He detested parts of it at times.

Dwight: Read Psalm 19 and Psalm 119. Does it sound like God or David detested the law?

Ultimately, we find that He never even intended the Law to fulfill the purpose for which most people naturally believed it would fulfill!

Dwight: It definitely fulfilled the purpose that He had for it. It doesn't matter what most people thought it's purpose was.


And the things He outright said He hated, like shellfish and swine flesh, He ended up embracing in the New Testament.

Dwight: I don't think so. Read Luke 11:11-12 We see that Jesus still appears to have a disgust for the possibility of eating a snake or a scorpion.

Human sacrifice was forbidden in the OT, yet ultimate redemption was found in the death of a human!

Dwight: Human sacrifice is still forbidden. It's called murder.

Worship of created things was forbidden in the Old Testament.

Dwight: Worship of created things is still forbidden. It's called idolatry.

Apparently, God sees fit to hide His real intentions for centuries on end, despite the confusion it can and does cause when He finally "comes clean".

Dwight: What, He was "dirty" before? You're actually blaming God for giving Israel the law and causing confusion?

Adhering to the assumptions you are making with regard to God's "Code of Conduct" in His composition of Genesis, wouldn't you have to concede that God was being more than a little misleading, if not deceptive in the expectations He set forth for Israel in the Law?
Dwight: Now you're accusing God of being misleading and deceptive? You must be describing a different God. That's not the God of the Bible. Jesus called His Father righteous.

TruthInLove
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:35 am

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TruthInLove » Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:31 am

dwight92070 wrote:Your so-called reasons appear to me to be vague generalities. I don't remember you giving me any specific examples of any of them.
If you're seriously willing to at least consider the viewpoint I'm presenting, please browse this thread again to find my references. They aren't hard to find if you're willing to see them and at least give them consideration. If you'd like clarification or elaboration on something I presented, please be specific about what that might be.
dwight92070 wrote:It definitely fulfilled the purpose that He had for it. It doesn't matter what most people thought it's purpose was.
My point is that God was not clear at the time He gave the Law that it wasn't in fact a means of pleasing Him or avoiding being cursed by Him, yet that's exactly what He said it was. (Deuteronomy 28) That was not the truth. It was a fiction.

In referring to the Bible, you said:
dwight92070 wrote:It starts out with unquestionable authority and seriousness, not even a hint that we are reading a fictional account.
With reference to Jesus' use of parables, you said:
dwight92070 wrote:"There is no such designation in Genesis that would tip us off that we are reading fiction."
Both of the above two statements are also true of the Law. Yet, it isn't until centuries later that God reveals the fact that not a single person will earn God's acceptance through keeping of the Law (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:11). In fact, "The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase." (Romans 5:20). And to top it off, the only true way to be justified before God is through the acceptance of the sacrifice of a human. (Hebrews 9:26,28; 10:10; Ephesians 5:2; Romans 3:25; 1 Corinthians 5:7). This was something the law outright forbade and this presents a major stumbling block for Jewish people even today.

Despite what you say in regards to the text of Genesis, God has in fact said many things that, when taken at face value in their plainest and most natural sense, did not even come close to corresponding with the reality of God's intent. The Law is a perfect example of this.
dwight92070 wrote:You're actually blaming God for giving Israel the law and causing confusion?
dwight92070 wrote:Now you're accusing God of being misleading and deceptive?
I'm doing no such thing. I'm trying to demonstrate to you that the restrictions you are trying to impose on God's use of language are not justified. Following your arguments, as I understand them, to their logical conclusion, how can you escape seeing the Law as a horrendous deception? If you can accept that the Law was not a deception, then how can you not at the very least allow for the possibility that the language of Genesis is not somehow in the same category as the language of the Law?

User avatar
jasonmodar
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by jasonmodar » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:55 am

Hi Dwight,
God obviously knows our nature. He knows that we will take Genesis literally
Yes he does know our nature. But how do you know that he knows we'll take Genesis literally? Many in this thread have attested otherwise.
unless Genesis itself gives us a reason not to
Again, many in this thread would say that Genesis does indeed give us a reason not to take it literally. You don't seem all that interested in hearing out their point of view. You seem mainly interested in refuting anything anyone says in opposition to a literal interpretation of the creation account.

TruthInLove said
And the things He outright said He hated, like shellfish and swine flesh, He ended up embracing in the New Testament.
You replied
I don't think so. Read Luke 11:11-12 We see that Jesus still appears to have a disgust for the possibility of eating a snake or a scorpion.
Mark 7:19 and Peter's vision in Acts 10 say essentially the exact opposite. I can't help but say it seems like you came to Luke 11:11-12 with an agenda because I have a hard time believing that outside of the context of this thread you, or anyone, would ever interpret Luke 11:11-12 the way you did.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:58 pm

jasonmodar wrote:Hi Dwight,
God obviously knows our nature. He knows that we will take Genesis literally
Yes he does know our nature. But how do you know that he knows we'll take Genesis literally? Many in this thread have attested otherwise.

Dwight: I have just read your post and I take everything you said literally. I don't think you were speaking in symbolic terms. You apparently have taken every post I have written literally. Speaking literally is the norm for conversations and social intercourse. In fact, if we did not take each other's words literally, we would not even be able to communicate with each other.

Dwight: I believe God has afforded us the same respect in His word, so that we can have the best chance of understanding Him. Obviously He uses many different tools of speech - metaphors, parables, hyperbole, poetry, etc. I am not an expert on all those tools but I have never thought of deception (that is, telling a story that appears to be true, but actually is not true) as being one of those tools that God would use in His word, nor have I ever heard a preacher or a teacher say that that is what God has done in His word - especially if there is not some type of indication that what you are about to hear may not be meant to be taken literally, such as the visions or dreams in Revelation or Ezekiel or Daniel. There is no such indicator, IMO, in Genesis. If there is, it is not obvious.

Again, many in this thread would say that Genesis does indeed give us a reason not to take it literally. You don't seem all that interested in hearing out their point of view.

Dwight: I wouldn't be continuing on with this thread if I wasn't interested in hearing their point of view. Just a couple of posts back, I asked TruthInLove to give me examples of any indicators in Genesis that we are not to take it literally. His response, basically, was that he already gave me some. So I looked back at his posts to see exactly what he was talking about. By the way, I still want to review his posts further back, but have not had the time yet, since I work full time. I did tell him that all I saw was vague generalities, nothing specific.

. You seem mainly interested in refuting anything anyone says in opposition to a literal interpretation of the creation account.

Dwight: I am simply stating my reasons as to why I believe what I do, and why I don't believe what they do. It's basically like a debate, only I am open to being convinced otherwise, if I see evidence of their viewpoint. If I see faults in their interpretation or conclusions, should I just keep quiet and not explain what I see? I acknowledge they have a different viewpoint. I'm fine with that. So do you want me to stop defending my viewpoint and basically just shut up? It looks like you are angry at me because I don't reach the same conclusion that they do.

TruthInLove said
And the things He outright said He hated, like shellfish and swine flesh, He ended up embracing in the New Testament.
You replied
I don't think so. Read Luke 11:11-12 We see that Jesus still appears to have a disgust for the possibility of eating a snake or a scorpion.
Mark 7:19 and Peter's vision in Acts 10 say essentially the exact opposite. I can't help but say it seems like you came to Luke 11:11-12 with an agenda because I have a hard time believing that outside of the context of this thread you, or anyone, would ever interpret Luke 11:11-12 the way you did.
Dwight: You are wrong. I have long believed what I stated about Luke 11. I would estimate that it's been 2 or 3 years ago that I came to that conclusion. Here again, you and I have a disagreement. I do not agree with you that Mark 7 and Acts 10 say the exact opposite and I would be happy to explain why, if you care to hear it. But you seem to be accusing me of coming up with that interpretation of Luke 11 just for this thread, so I could refute them. That is not correct. Why does it appear that you are so angry with me?

User avatar
jasonmodar
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by jasonmodar » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:35 pm

Hi Dwight,

Thanks for taking the time to interact.
Dwight: I believe God has afforded us the same respect in His word, so that we can have the best chance of understanding Him. Obviously He uses many different tools of speech - metaphors, parables, hyperbole, poetry, etc. I am not an expert on all those tools but I have never thought of deception (that is, telling a story that appears to be true, but actually is not true) as being one of those tools that God would use in His word, nor have I ever heard a preacher or a teacher say that that is what God has done in His word - especially if there is not some type of indication that what you are about to hear may not be meant to be taken literally, such as the visions or dreams in Revelation or Ezekiel or Daniel. There is no such indicator, IMO, in Genesis. If there is, it is not obvious.
I wouldn't classify Genesis 1 (or any bit of Scripture) as deception. I would put it under poetry or myth (and myth as Singalphile defined it on page 2 of this thread). I know you take issue with using myth but I truly mean no disrespect to God or the Biblical writers. I have a very high regard for Scripture as I teach it to high schoolers at our church and occasionally on Sunday mornings.
I acknowledge they have a different viewpoint. I'm fine with that.
It just didn't seem that way to me. I am more than willing to take you at your word here. It's nice to hear you say this.
So do you want me to stop defending my viewpoint and basically just shut up?
I have no plans on telling you to shut up nor do I think you should do so now.
It looks like you are angry at me because I don't reach the same conclusion that they do
Why does it appear that you are so angry with me?
I'm not angry with you and I don't see how I appear angry so I'm not sure how well I can speak to that question. I can say that it has been pointed out throughout the years on this forum that it's easy to assume ill intent or other wrong factors/emotions when engaging in written dialogue. I try to write as directly as I can while maintaining tactfulness and charity.
Dwight: You are wrong. I have long believed what I stated about Luke 11. I would estimate that it's been 2 or 3 years ago that I came to that conclusion. Here again, you and I have a disagreement. I do not agree with you that Mark 7 and Acts 10 say the exact opposite and I would be happy to explain why, if you care to hear it.
I do care to hear it. Thanks for offering. I understand there's much going on in this and other threads (not to mention your personal life I'm sure!) so no worries if you need to take time.
But you seem to be accusing me of coming up with that interpretation of Luke 11 just for this thread, so I could refute them. That is not correct.
Then I stand corrected. My initial thoughts were wrong.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:47 am

What did Peter say that God was telling him as a result of the vision he had in Acts 10? We see his conclusion in verse 28: "... You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean."

Peter did not say that God had shown him it is now okay for him to eat unclean animals. That was not the message that God was conveying to him. It was about people, specifically the Gentiles, not about what he was to eat in the future.

Mark 7:19 Here Mark says that Jesus declared all FOODS clean. It does not say He declared all animals clean. Foods are only those animals that were considered clean, plus fruit, vegetables, nuts, etc. Leviticus 11 tells us what animals were to be eaten and which ones were unclean and not to be eaten. IMO, this list is still valid. Under the old covenant it was actually a sin to eat unclean animals and, of course, the blood of any animal. Under the new covenant, we are not told that the designation of clean and unclean animals has changed. Apparently Jesus still considered a snake or a scorpion to be creatures that should not be eaten, in Luke 11:11-12.

Look at the parable of the good fish and the bad fish in Matthew 13:47-48. Why did they throw away the bad fish? Because they were unclean and not edible kinds of fish.

Is it okay today to eat the blood of an animal? IMO, I would be very uncomfortable doing that, knowing what God said about the blood of an animal. Is it a sin today to eat pork or lobster? Under the grace of Jesus and the new covenant, IMO, no. But I do believe that we will be much healthier if we follow Leviticus 11.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:06 am

Some might ask, why would Jesus have to declare all foods clean? If the term "foods" refers to just the clean animals, then they are already considered clean. IMO, there were some people, for whatever reason, who considered certain clean animals as unfit to eat. That happens even today. Some people refuse to eat meat altogether. Paul speaks of men who "forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods" in 1 Timothy 4:3. He tells them that all FOODS, (IMO) are okay to eat, if received with gratitude and prayer.

TruthInLove
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:35 am

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TruthInLove » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:35 am

Hi Dwight,

There are other people who certainly share your opinion about the passages regarding unclean foods. I can understand how doing things the Law prohibited would make a person uncomfortable. In that regard, what are your views on the following passages? Matthew 15:11; 1 Corinthians 10:25; Romans 14:14,17,20

I can certainly understand your time constraints too. Regarding my previous evidence for a possible non-literal view of the Creation Week and the early chapters of Genesis in general, to save you the effort of browsing this whole thread, please refer to my earlier post at this link. That was the primary evidence I presented. Much more can be given however. I'm more than happy to elaborate on anything you may have a genuine interest in exploring.

I appreciate the passion you have for God's Word and look forward to our further dialogue. We have that much in common at least. :)

User avatar
jasonmodar
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by jasonmodar » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:08 am

Hi Dwight,

I don't want to derail your topic but I feel we're headed in that direction with this talk about clean/unclean foods. If you'd rather I start another thread to discuss this (and you're interested in continuing the conversation) I'm happy to do so. Otherwise I'll keep responding here. We're veering away from "Literally 6 Days" so I just wanted to give you the option.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:23 pm

TruthInLove,

I will respond to you as soon as I can. Busy weekend. Thanks for your response and patience.

Dwight

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”