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 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:36 pm

Jasonmodar,

Thanks for your responses and understanding. It might be better to continue our discussion under a new thread, as you suggested. If you want to start it, I'll jump in when I get a chance. Thanks again.

Dwight

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:48 am

Matthew 15:11

Jesus is obviously speaking of a spiritual defilement, not a physical one, because He tells us of all the evil things that come out of the heart and defile the man. Mark 7:17-23 makes this very clear. Look at verse 18: "Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach ...?"

What is Jesus not saying? He is not saying that a person will be unharmed or unaffected PHYSICALLY by eating worms, mosquitoes, rats, bats, mice, vultures, etc. The Jews already knew this from Leviticus 11. He is only speaking of a spiritual defilement.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:02 pm

Many of the themes and images of Genesis recur throughout the Bible, particularly in Revelation and other Messianic prophecies.

Dwight: Some do. Paradise lost through the fall - paradise regained through the cross of Jesus. That is not an indicator of a non-literal narrative in Genesis 1.

The "sun" and "day break" are common figures in predictions of the establishement of the Messianic kingdom.

Dwight: Of course they are in the prophecies. That does not mean that the mention of the sun in Genesis 1 is symbolic of that. Even if it was, that would not necessitate a non-literal understanding of Genesis 1.

Given that the Creation week of Genesis is also associated with the number 7

Dwight: Of course it is! There were 7 days in the creation week, just as there are still 7 days in our week today. With that logic, we can also say that EVERY week must have some eschatological significance.

Here are some Messianic passages illustrating the symbolic references to elements of the "day":
  • Isaiah 19:18 - In that day five cities in Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the Lord Almighty. One of them will be called the City of the Sun.
  • Isaiah 30:26 - The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days, when the Lord binds up the bruises of his people and heals the wounds he inflicted.
  • Matthew 24:27 - For as lightning (lit. brightness, shining) that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
  • Malachi 4:2 - But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays.
  • Luke 1:78 - because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven
  • Revelation 1:12-16 - And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
  • Revelation 21:23 - The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp (cf. Revelation 1:12-16 above).
  • Revelation 22:16 - "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
Dwight: I have already acknowledged that the word day can be used symbolically, but that does not mean that every use of it or of daylight or stars, etc. is symbolic. Again, this gives us no indication that Genesis 1 is symbolic.

I see no reason why God would have been obliged to make the prophetic elements of Genesis any more obvious.

Dwight: As far as Genesis 1 goes, they are so unobvious, that IMO they aren't even there.

I would also say there are some peculiar literary devices called palistrophes (i.e. large chiasms) used in Genesis that at least demonstrate that the author was more than a little concerned about literary style.

Dwight: I looked at the supposed chiasms. What a HUGE stretch! The one about Noah's flood!!?? Obviously, if there was a certain order for them going into the ark, that order will be reversed coming out of the ark. So what does that prove? Not a whole lot. If you get into your car, drive to the store, buy groceries, then go home, guess what? You're pretty much going to do everything in reverse order going home. This does not mean that the author of Genesis was concerned about literary style. It means that God is a God of order and that the author was simply and literally "reporting" His actions.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TruthInLove » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:10 am

Hi Dwight,

Yes, the 7 day range is the aspect of the creation week that I was referring to. The question is, is 7 significant because it's the number of days it took God to finish the creation or is 7 significant for other reasons? 7 is obviously used many, many other times in Scripture. Many of those in Genesis itself. Would you say that all of those occurences somehow allude to the Creation Week? If there are many cases where 7 does not seem to allude to the Creation Week, then we might ask ourselves what the use of 7 does allude to? In my opinion, 7 would seem to be a means of alluding to perfection and finality - not necessarily the perfection and finality of the original creation. If the original creation had been either perfect or final, why isn't it still in the state it was created in? Further, eschatological prophecy seems to me to indicate more than a mere restoration of the original creation. Whereas the original creation was corruptible, the new heavens and new earth will endure forever in an incorruptible state.

Therefore, since the standard for describing the heavens and earth that are better than the originals is non-literal language, how much less should we expect the picture of a "lesser" paradise to be described using a stricter standard of literalness?

Beyond the number 7, other numbers that appear to have symbolic use in the Bible also appear in Genesis.
  • The number 8 pops up several times in connection with rebirth, particularly the account of Noah (1 Peter 3:20). 8, being the number after 7, the symbol of perfection and finality, is a number that symbolizes extreme blessing.
  • There are 10 generations prior to Noah and beyond Noah until the time of Abraham. Further, names very similar to if not identical to nearly all the pre-flood patriarchs from the line of Seth appear in the line of Cain as well. Is that just by chance or is it deliberate and artificial?
  • Every person before the flood fails to attain an age greater than 1,000 years. Yet, at the recreation of all things, Christ, the last Adam, finally achieves a reign of 1,000 years. Won't Christ's reign last forever, not just a literal 1,000 years? Further, the calendar used to reckon the age of Noah when the world was reborn after the flood (Genesis 8:13) serves as a basis for God's establishment of the distinction between the liturgical and civil calendar of Exodus (Exodus 12:2; 13:4). This distinction, which results in a difference of 7 months between the two calendars, serves as the basis for the Feast of Trumpets/Jewish New Year/Rosh Hashanah. Again, this day is eschatologically significant.
And regarding your comments on the chiasms and palistrophes of Genesis 1-11, as you said, there may be some elements of them which seem to be natural in the mere reversal of events that happened earlier. However, there are others that are not so natural.

For example:
  • Why should the 40 days it took for the flood to arrive (7:17a) be paired with a mention of different 40 day period (8:6a) within the 150 days that it took for the waters to abate (7:21-24).
  • Why should the two mentions of Noah's 7-day wait for the flood after entering the ark be paired with another two 7-day periods of waiting before coming out of the Ark (7:7-10 vs. 8:10-11, 7:4-5 vs. 8:12-13)?
  • Why should the convenant with Noah that is mentioned before the flood be paired with the covenant with all flesh after the flood (6:18-20 vs. 8:8-10)?
  • Why is the command for the flood to arrive paired with the promise to never flood the earth with water again (6:17 vs. 9:11-17)?
None of these aspects seem to simply be the natural reversal of earlier events.

And, there are other chiasms in Genesis that don't seem to me to be natural. For example, the chiastic arrangement of the scenes of Chapters 2-3 and that of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-9. Much literature has been written on this and I'm not going to repeat it all here. If you are interested, a short book on this topic that I've found helpful is "Rethinking Genesis 1-11" by Gordon Wenham.

Further, there are the ancient cultural epics of Atrahasis, Gilgamesh, Enuma Elish; the Sumerian Flood story and Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta to consider. To me, they sound an awful lot like the Biblical accounts of the Creation, Noah's Flood, and the Tower of Babel. It seems possible then, that the corresponding Biblical accounts may have been written as rival accounts which challenged the perception of God and the spiritual realm that these other accounts put forth at the time. God has certainly done this sort of thing on more than one occassion in the Bible.

Does any of this prove that Genesis isn't to be taken literally? No, there's no such thing as absolute proof. Do these constitute compelling evidence that Genesis 1-11 may not be literal? In my opinion, yes. How much does this matter with regards to one's relationship with Christ? In my opinion, not at all. I don't think He will hold a misunderstanding of Genesis or even the vast majority of the Bible for that matter against anyone on the day of judgement.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:54 pm

[quote="TruthInLove"]Hi Dwight,

Yes, the 7 day range is the aspect of the creation week that I was referring to. The question is, is 7 significant because it's the number of days it took God to finish the creation or is 7 significant for other reasons? 7 is obviously used many, many other times in Scripture. Many of those in Genesis itself. Would you say that all of those occurences somehow allude to the Creation Week? If there are many cases where 7 does not seem to allude to the Creation Week, then we might ask ourselves what the use of 7 does allude to?
Dwight: You are looking for something that IMO, does not exist. You are looking for symbolism where there is none. But even if there were symbolism, fine. It still does not negate the literal truths in Genesis.

In my opinion, 7 would seem to be a means of alluding to perfection and finality - not necessarily the perfection and finality of the original creation. If the original creation had been either perfect or final, why isn't it still in the state it was created in?

Dwight: The literal truth of Genesis gives you that answer. It's because Adam and Eve sinned!

Further, eschatological prophecy seems to me to indicate more than a mere restoration of the original creation.
Whereas the original creation was corruptible, the new heavens and new earth will endure forever in an incorruptible state.

Dwight: There is no indication that the original creation was corruptible. God said that it was GOOD! The corruption only came when Adam and Eve sinned. The fact that they even had the freedom to choose to sin, does not mean that the original creation was inferior (or lesser) in any way to the new heavens and the new earth. If that were true, then God would not have said: "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was VERY GOOD."

Dwight: The literal words of Genesis, in and of themselves, refute your very argument.

Therefore, since the standard for describing the heavens and earth that are better than the originals ...

Dwight: A totally false premise. Nowhere is scripture are we told that the new heavens and earth are better than the original creation, which God called VERY GOOD.

is non-literal language, how much less should we expect the picture of a "lesser" paradise

Dwight: an oxymoron. There's no such thing as a "lesser" paradise, except in your mythological interpretation. The garden of Eden (and all of creation) was VERY GOOD then and the new heavens and the new earth will be VERY GOOD in the future.

to be described using a stricter standard of literalness?

Dwight: Your whole argument crumbles, having been based on a false premise.



Beyond the number 7, other numbers that appear to have symbolic use in the Bible also appear in Genesis.
  • The number 8 pops up several times in connection with rebirth, particularly the account of Noah (1 Peter 3:20).

    Dwight: Circumcision on the 8th day is a literal event, even as it is today. Sure there might be symbolism attached to it, but that doesn't mean it didn't literally happen.
  • There are 10 generations prior to Noah and beyond Noah until the time of Abraham.

    Dwight: I think I know why. Because that's how many there actually were. Imagine that.

    Further, names very similar to if not identical to nearly all the pre-flood patriarchs from the line of Seth appear in the line of Cain as well.

    Dwight: There are 8 men's names listed in the line of Cain and 7 names listed in the line of Seth. Two are identical: Enoch and Lamech. Three are similar: Enosh is similar to Enoch, Mahalalel is similar to Mehujael, and Methuselah is similar to Methushael.

    Is that just by chance or is it deliberate and artificial?

    Dwight: So you're asking if this is just a coincidence or is it consciously and intentionally false? I choose the former because I do not suspect the author is lying. Why would the author lie?
  • Every person before the flood fails to attain an age greater than 1,000 years.

    Dwight: Once again, Adam and Eve sinned. they were not going to live forever.

    Yet, at the recreation of all things, Christ, the last Adam, finally achieves a reign of 1,000 years.

    Dwight: Now you are switching books. The 1000 years reign is only mentioned in the book of Revelation, which is saturated with symbolism, because it is identified clearly as a vision given to the apostle John. So you're comparing what appears to be the literal language of Genesis with the obviously symbolic language of Revelation.
    You cannot accurately compare apples and oranges.

    Won't Christ's reign last forever, not just a literal 1,000 years?

    Dwight: Of course His reign will last forever. I never said that I believed that His reign would be a literal 1000 years nor have I said that it would not be that long. That has not been our topic. Our topic is the book of Genesis and specifically the creation story, although we have extended it to the first eleven chapters, which is reasonable, because there we can compare apples to apples.


    Further, the calendar used to reckon the age of Noah when the world was reborn after the flood (Genesis 8:13) serves as a basis for God's establishment of the distinction between the liturgical and civil calendar of Exodus (Exodus 12:2; 13:4). This distinction, which results in a difference of 7 months between the two calendars

    Dwight: Genesis 8:13 would be 1657 years after Adam was created and the year in Exodus 12:2 is said to be 1446 BC. There is much speculation about the number of years between those 2 dates. Some of the problem is the question about whether Terah had triplets, Abram, Nahor and Aaron, (Genesis 11:26) or were they born separately? So if there are 2 calendars (I'll take your word for that, I don't know), I would be surprised that they were only 7 months apart. I would expect that they would be years apart, with no way of knowing which one is accurate, if either. Bottom line here - I don't get your point here at all.


    For example:
    • Why should the 40 days it took for the flood to arrive (7:17a) be paired with a mention of different 40 day period (8:6a) within the 150 days that it took for the waters to abate (7:21-24).

      Dwight: There is no reason to pair those two 40-day periods at all, since the Bible itself doesn't.
    • Why should the two mentions of Noah's 7-day wait for the flood after entering the ark be paired with another two 7-day periods of waiting before coming out of the Ark (7:7-10 vs. 8:10-11, 7:4-5 vs. 8:12-13)?

      Dwight: Again, the Bible doesn't pair the two 7-day periods, so why do you?
    • Why should the convenant with Noah that is mentioned before the flood be paired with the covenant with all flesh after the flood (6:18-20 vs. 8:8-10)?

      Dwight: I think you meant 9:8-10 for your 2nd reference. Once again, the Bible does not compare these 2 references.
    • Why is the command for the flood to arrive paired with the promise to never flood the earth with water again (6:17 vs. 9:11-17)?
None of these aspects seem to simply be the natural reversal of earlier events.

Dwight: The only one pairing two references is you. The Bible doesn't do it. I'm not doing it. Why are you? At the very least, if the Bible was pairing anything, I would think the 2 things would be mentioned in the same verse or the next verse. But that's not the case for all the things you have claimed are "paired".

And, there are other chiasms in Genesis that don't seem to me to be natural. For example, the chiastic arrangement of the scenes of Chapters 2-3 and that of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-9. Much literature has been written on this and I'm not going to repeat it all here. If you are interested, a short book on this topic that I've found helpful is "Rethinking Genesis 1-11" by Gordon Wenham.

Dwight: No disrespect meant here, but why would I be interested in a book that apparently does the same thing that you are doing? That is, looking for evidence of mythology in Genesis when there is none.

Further, there are the ancient cultural epics of Atrahasis, Gilgamesh, Enuma Elish; the Sumerian Flood story and Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta to consider. To me, they sound an awful lot like the Biblical accounts of the Creation, Noah's Flood, and the Tower of Babel. It seems possible then, that the corresponding Biblical accounts may have been written as rival accounts which challenged the perception of God and the spiritual realm that these other accounts put forth at the time. God has certainly done this sort of thing on more than one occassion in the Bible.

Dwight: If you want to, IMO, waste your time reading mythology, that's up to you. I would rather read the truth in the Word of God, the Bible.

Do these constitute compelling evidence that Genesis 1-11 may not be literal? In my opinion, yes.

Dwight: IMO, there's no way.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TK » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:50 pm

Dwight wrote:
Dwight: If you want to, IMO, waste your time reading mythology, that's up to you. I would rather read the truth in the Word of God, the Bible.
Dwight I don't mind telling you that comment is a tad irritating. When you say something like this you are ridiculing those who DO feel it is worthwhile to read ancient literature like The Epic of Gilgamesh. Don't you find it somewhat interesting that non-biblical sources seem to parallel Biblical stories? Many people do- even serious Christians- so why would you accuse them of wasting their time?

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TruthInLove » Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:52 pm

dwight92070 wrote:There is no indication that the original creation was corruptible. God said that it was GOOD!
dwight92070 wrote:It's because Adam and Eve Sinned
dwight92070 wrote:There's no such thing as a "lesser" paradise
I can't see how you think the original creation was not corruptible. If it were not corruptible, Adam and Eve could not have sinned and corrupted it.

Will it be possible for us to sin in the New Heaven's and New Earth? Will the New Heaven's and New Earth ever be corrupted? If not, that seems like a better creation to me.

Notice also, He said "good" and "very good", not something to the effect of "I could not and will never make anything better".

dwight92070 wrote:So you're asking if this is just a coincidence or is it consciously and intentionally false? I choose the former because I do not suspect the author is lying. Why would the author lie.
That is a barrier to our understanding each other that I can't seem to circumvent. As I've said, you are of course entitled to your opinion. You appear to consider veiled truth or the mere appearance of truth to be lying. I do not.

I don't think a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 resolves this difficulty either. If the universe is really only several thousand years old, does that make God a liar just because the universe appears to have an age of billions of years? It seems either way you slice it, somehow God wasn't exactly truthful in some aspect of His creation, at least according to the standard to which you are holding Him.
dwight92070 wrote:[the book of Revelation] is saturated with symbolism, because it is clearly identified as a vision.
Are visions the only vehicles of symbolic language that God uses? How do you understand Matthew 24? Was Christ describing a vision? Did He say He was speaking in a parable or some non-literal sense?
Further, can visions not be entirely literal? What makes you believe Revelation is non-literal? Where does God layout the criteria for determining when He's speaking literally and when he's not? There are many Christians who try to take Revelation quite literally.
And arguably, Genesis 1 was identified as a vision too. Only, there was noone around to see it besides God. Didn't God "see" that everything was good? Incidentally, how many times did He "see" that it was good?
dwight92070 wrote:The 1000 year reign is only mentioned in the book of Revelation.
It would seem Genesis had hints that man was intended for such a 1,000 year reign but the fall prevented men from even attaining the dominion for which they were designed (Genesis 1:26-28). The oldest man was Methuselah 969 years. Doesn't that seem the slightest bit suspicious to you?

I'm simply stating that every major aspect of the early chapters of Genesis seems to have a corresponding eschatological event that has or will fulfill it:
  • Creation
  • Creation of a "helper" suitable for Adam from his side
  • Undoing of the Fall
  • Destruction of the Serpent (crushing of the Serpent's head, Golgotha, etc.)
  • Divine Vengeance for Murdering of the Saints
  • The Millenial Reign of Christ (Ages of Pre-flood Patriarchs approaching but never reaching 1,000, Millenial Reign of Christ)
  • Lamech's 70x7-fold Vengeance (Daniel's 70 weeks util the Messiah, Christ's example of forgiveness)
  • Enoch (Elijah, Christ)
  • The Destruction of the Destroyer/Sea (Removal of the Sea from dry land, Noah's Flood, the Absense of the Sea in the New Revelation)
  • Feast of Trumpets (the day Noah the covering was removed from the Ark)
  • Undoing of the Tower of Babel (Pentecost, The Fall of Babylon, Jacob's Stairway to Heaven)
  • Limiting of man's life to 120 years (actually foreshadowed eternal life, dedication of Solomon's temple, Pentecost, etc.)
If the above are true, it would seem that Genesis itself may have been largely predictive of these events. Does that mean it's not literal? Maybe. Maybe not. All I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be and intelligent, godly people can and do see it both ways.

I don't expect you to understand why I see all of the above as fulfillments of Genesis and I certainly can't explain them all in one thread. Some of the connections are somewhat obscure but I, and many others believe they are very real and intentional. Further, I don't believe that they were undetectable or went unnoticed by the ancients.
TruthInLove wrote:Further, the calendar used to reckon the age of Noah when the world was reborn after the flood (Genesis 8:13) serves as a basis for God's establishment of the distinction between the liturgical and civil calendar of Exodus (Exodus 12:2; 13:4)
dwight92070 wrote:I don't get your point here at all
I'm talking about the apparent reason's God had for establishing a different way of reckoning the years for Israel than other cultures did. According to Genesis, the covering was removed from the Ark on Noah's birthday which happended to be New Year's day on the Canaanite calendar. Arguably, this was the day the Earth was reborn. When God adjusted the calendar for Israel after the Exodus, New Year's Day according to the former Canaanite Calendar was really the first Day of the 7th month according to the new way of reckoning. This was later to become the Feast of Trumpets (Numbers 29:1). This was also thought to have been the corronation day or day which marked the start of the observed regnal years for many of the kings of Israel. Even today, the Jewish people see this day as commemorating both the 1st day of original creation and regeneration after the flood. The similarities between this and 7-fold trumpets of Revelation and the crowning of Christ are striking (yes, I'm referring to a different book again). Further, there is compelling evidence from astronomy and history that Jesus was actually born on at sundown on this very day in 3 B.C.
The point is, this aspect of the flood seems like predictive prophecy to me.
dwight92070 wrote:The only one pairing references is you.
Are you suggesting chiasms aren't used in the Bible either? If not, how would you identify one?
dwight92070 wrote:No disrespect meant here, but why would I be interested in a book that apparently does the same thing that you are doing?
I don't know. I just assumed you were telling the truth when you said:
dwight92070 wrote:I wouldn't be continuing on with this thread if I wasn't interested in hearing their point of view.
I think perhaps that's the strongest evidence you've presented for the negative consequences of my view.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:42 pm

TK wrote:Dwight wrote:
Dwight: If you want to, IMO, waste your time reading mythology, that's up to you. I would rather read the truth in the Word of God, the Bible.
Dwight I don't mind telling you that comment is a tad irritating. When you say something like this you are ridiculing those who DO feel it is worthwhile to read ancient literature like The Epic of Gilgamesh. Don't you find it somewhat interesting that non-biblical sources seem to parallel Biblical stories? Many people do- even serious Christians- so why would you accuse them of wasting their time?
Dwight: Okay, I guess I wasn't clear enough. Again, I have no intention of ridiculing anyone. Maybe I should have said: "IMO, it would be a waste of my time to read literature that claims that Genesis is mythology, since I already do not accept that, and have read many contrary opinions, along with their "evidence", which I do not find persuasive." No, non-Biblical sources that seem to parallel Bible stories do not interest me, at least not in the sense that I desire to read or study them, since, obviously, they do not carry the authority or the weight of the Bible, which has withstood the test of time, and is the #1 bestselling book of all time.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:54 pm

TruthInLove,

I was not lying when I said I was interested in your point of view. But we have gone back and forth for several days now. I have literally spent hours reading and responding to your posts. It would be an unwise use of my time to continue on. We are to be good stewards of our time, so I cannot continue.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TK » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:02 pm

Fair enough- to be honest I certainly haven't studied the Epic of Gilgamesh. I think I saw something about it on the history channel and what may be really interesting is that it's writing predated the writing of Genesis which I find intriguing. I am not saying it holds the same authority as scripture but if a piece of ancient literature describes a flood with some of the elements found in Genesis and it predates Genesis, I think it deserves at least some degree of attention.

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”