Literally 6 Days

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by Paidion » Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:46 pm

TK wrote:I guess if we want to get super literal about it, man should work 24 hrs a day for 6 days and rest all day on the Sabbath.
I don't think this is necessarily so. Genesis 1:5 tells us that God called the LIGHT "day" and the darkness "night."

So "six days shall you labour" even in the super literal sense, may mean to labour during 6 periods of light, but not necessarily during the 6 periods of darkness.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by backwoodsman » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:56 pm

dwight92070 wrote:I would like to declare a truce. Can we all agree that none of us can prove our position? You can't prove an old earth and I can't prove a young earth. All we have is evidence of our side. You don't accept my evidence and I don't accept your evidence. So we are at a stalemate.
A truce? I wasn't aware we were fighting. And all the evidence I've seen so far, when one gets to the bottom of it, if it favors one or the other, turns out to support OEC, not YEC.

But I haven't been trying to prove anything; mostly I've simply responded to your boldly-stated challenges, like "Evolutionists and OEC's don't like this article, I'm sure, because it thoroughly debunks this so-called dating method," and "So what will you do with the following piece of general revelation discovered by Dr. Jeanson, since it does not agree with OEC beliefs?" Both referring to what turned out to be rather spectacular untruths perpetrated by those you apparently still trust. Wouldn't you agree that the Bible calls leaders (and, indeed, all Christians) to a much higher standard of truthfulness than they've demonstrated?

It seems there are at least two lessons there, which a wise man would consider very carefully.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:07 am

Jesus said in Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female." Even though they were created on Day 6, Jesus considered that to still be part of the beginning of creation, not thousands or millions of years later.

Luke gives us the last fews names of the genealogy going backwards from (apparently) Mary to Adam in Luke 3:38. But he doesn't stop with Adam. "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." Is there any gap of time or other humans or even other creatures between Adam and his being called the "son of God"? Luke knows of no such gap.

Paul speaks of 2 real people in Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam ..." He also speaks of Adam committing a willful (1 Timothy2:14) sin, literally described for us in Genesis 3.

Paul goes on in Romans 5:19 to tell us that through the literal disobedience of that man the many were made sinners, yet even so through the obedience of the One, Jesus, the many will be made righteous. The disobedience of Adam is just as literal as the obedience of Jesus Christ. So the eating of the forbidden fruit was a real event.

Paul calls Adam the first man in 1 Corinthians 15:45. There is not even a hint of men or creatures that evolved into men prior to Adam.

In 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Paul clearly tells us that Adam was created first, and then Eve, and that it was not Adam who was deceived by the serpent, but Eve was deceived by the serpent. The temptation initiated by the serpent and Eve's fall were literal and real, not symbolic. Paul gives us no indication of a non-literal interpretation here. In fact, because Eve was deceived and because she was created second, not first, Paul commands women even today to not "teach or exercise authority over a man."

In 1 John 3:11-12, the apostle John tells us that we are not to behave like "Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother's were righteous." John speaks of two literal men, Cain, and his brother Abel. He also speaks of their very different characters and why Cain killed Abel.

Jude, apparently one of the half-brothers of Jesus tells us in Jude 14 that Enoch was the seventh generation from Adam. So we know that Jude took the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 1 Chronicles 1 literally. They were not symbolic to him.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by Singalphile » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:23 am

dwight92070 wrote:Jesus said in Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female." Even though they were created on Day 6, Jesus considered that to still be part of the beginning of creation, not thousands or millions of years later.

Luke gives us the last fews names of the genealogy going backwards from (apparently) Mary to Adam in Luke 3:38. But he doesn't stop with Adam. "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." Is there any gap of time or other humans or even other creatures between Adam and his being called the "son of God"? Luke knows of no such gap.

Paul speaks of 2 real people in Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam ..." He also speaks of Adam committing a willful (1 Timothy2:14) sin, literally described for us in Genesis 3.

Paul goes on in Romans 5:19 to tell us that through the literal disobedience of that man the many were made sinners, yet even so through the obedience of the One, Jesus, the many will be made righteous. The disobedience of Adam is just as literal as the obedience of Jesus Christ. So the eating of the forbidden fruit was a real event.

Paul calls Adam the first man in 1 Corinthians 15:45. There is not even a hint of men or creatures that evolved into men prior to Adam.

In 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Paul clearly tells us that Adam was created first, and then Eve, and that it was not Adam who was deceived by the serpent, but Eve was deceived by the serpent. The temptation initiated by the serpent and Eve's fall were literal and real, not symbolic. Paul gives us no indication of a non-literal interpretation here. In fact, because Eve was deceived and because she was created second, not first, Paul commands women even today to not "teach or exercise authority over a man."

[Allusion to Abel/Cain removed, b/c that's not Genesis 1-3.]

Jude, apparently one of the half-brothers of Jesus tells us in Jude 14 that Enoch was the seventh generation from Adam. So we know that Jude took the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 1 Chronicles 1 literally. They were not symbolic to him.
Speaking for myself (obviously!), I responded to that objection. Here it is again:

"[That] does not logically mean that the events/elements are to be understood entirely literally. Symbolic narratives are supposed to be referenced to make a point. Of course we reference those accounts to make our points. That is the whole point! We don't stick the word "literally" or "figuratively" in front of everything we say about them. That's not important. An allusion doesn't necessarily prove anything one way or the other."

If you can specify in each of those references where the speaker or writer said that the events in question were entirely literal (contrary to my opinion that they are not entirely literal), then I can rethink my opinion about Gen 1-3.

Also, I am curious: When you first read Genesis 1-3, did you think that the serpent was the devil? If so, why? If not, who did you think the serpent was?

Thank you!
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:44 pm

I will not relitigate each of those references. The Word of God speaks for itself. Words mean things, so we should take them literally, unless there is a valid reason not to. You don't normally label your speech "literal", as if to say, "What I am about to say is literal." Rather it is the opposite. Most people, even Bible authors, spoke literally and when they wished to speak symbolically, they would give some indication or label to say that they were about to speak symbolically. Apparently Jesus, Luke, Paul, John, and Jude found no reason to take Genesis symbolically.

When I first read Genesis, I don't remember exactly what I thought about the serpent, except that I knew that that was the voice of the devil. My guess today would be that it puzzled me (i.e. an animal speaking) and I didn't fully understand what was happening, but I do know that I fully believed in a literal creation story. We went to church since I was a baby and I always had high regard for the truth of the Bible, even though I didn't always understand everything. However, today I know that there is no problem believing that Satan could speak through an animal. Balaam's donkey and the demons entering the swine, even though there is no record that they spoke through them, (but apparently, they could have), are 2 examples.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:21 pm

Numbers 12:6-8 tells us: "He (the Lord) said, Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. Not so, with My servant Moses, he is faithful in all My household; with him I speak mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings, and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?"

God spoke openly (some versions say "plainly") to Moses, the author of Genesis. He did not speak in dark sayings, meaning words that are symbolic. The words of Genesis are plain words; they are not dark sayings that require a non-literal interpretation.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:12 am

"Dark sayings" is used elsewhere in the Bible. Psalm 78:2 says "I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, ..." The same Hebrew word is used in Proverbs 1:6: "To understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles (same Hebrew word)."

So the Lord is saying that when he spoke to Moses, who is the author of Genesis (Luke 24:27), He did not speak figuratively or in a parable. The creation story is not a parable, not figurative, not a proverb and not a riddle. What you see is what you get. It was meant to be taken literally, not symbolically. The same could be said of all of Moses' writings, i.e. the Pentateuch.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by Singalphile » Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:26 am

I have no opinion about how Moses received Gen 1-3. Perhaps it was dictated by the "form of the Lord", "mouth to mouth", so to speak, or perhaps it was given in a dream or vision (though if you want to say that Num 12:6-8 means that God never spoke to Moses in non-corporeal form, then I guess you would reject this), or perhaps it was compiled by Moses from more ancient, preserved writings. The latter theory is common; it's Steve G's theory, for example.

However it was given to Moses (not in riddles, I'm sure), God's words to Miriam and Aaron in Num 12 do not address whether or not Gen 1-3 itself is entirely literal. To claim otherwise gets into proof-texting/eisegesis, I think.

My opinion, again, is based on the text itself. Of course, it is literature from 1,000s of years ago in an ancient culture and language, so who knows. Fortunately, it doesn't matter either way, as far I can tell, but it's interesting.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:47 pm

The other day Steve was with a caller who was dispensational in his beliefs. Steve mentioned that many dispensationals only look at scripture through a dispensational grid. Well, I think OEC's also have a grid through which they see Genesis. You might say that YEC's do the same thing. I don't think so. The literal meaning is the first, most obvious, and normal way to take any writing. Then, if it gives obvious indications that it is not literal, then we can consider something else. The problem here is applying a grid over Genesis, when no grid is needed. It is seeing something as symbolic, because one does not want to see it as literal. It is looking at a forest, but not seeing the trees.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TK » Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:47 pm

Dwight it has been pointed out that the very style of Gen 1, because it is so different from the rest of the book, is an indicator to some that something is different about this chapter. It reads like a poem, for lack of a better word.

When you get into the stories of Abraham and his sons it reads like history.

I am certainly not saying that because Gen 1 reads like it does then it can’t be literal. But lots of folks believe it reads like that because it is communicating huge truths in a non literal fashion. After all, how could you explain the creation of the space time continuum and quantum mechanics to a people who had no concept of the true nature of the universe?

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”