Literally 6 Days

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:06 am

Thinking about this issue again, I have a suspicion that the Bible came to be labeled a myth by some who denied the reality of miracles
and the supernatural. Everybody knows that it's impossible for a sea to be divided or for Adam to name all the animals in one day or for a serpent to talk, right? Also, since Darwin, we know that man evolved, so that 6-day creation story (in which God did many supernatural things) cannot be literally true, right?

Yet they didn't want to deny the benefit of teaching godly living, so they kept that part, i.e. they said the theological part was true, but the supernatural part was not true or not literal. I noticed in almost all of the dictionaries that I used to look up "myth" or "mythology" the reference was made to stories that had to do with the origin of man that included supernatural events or supernatural beings such as talking animals or animals acting like humans. It seems more than a coincidence that the definition of "mythology" would be directly associated with the origin of man.

So, we ended up with a new definition for "myth", i.e. a confusing, tangled web of truth and fiction that somehow relates to the origin of man.

What do you guys think?

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TruthInLove » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:52 am

Hi Dwight,

I too have had difficulty with the terms myth and mytho-historical when applied to passages in the Bible. I think these terms can send the wrong message although I suppose when properly explained, they are useful terms. I'm not sure any single term adequately captures what may have been going on in the language of Genesis. Genesis, like the entire Bible is unique, therefore, I would expect to have a hard time defining it in terms on par with non-inspired writings.

I think I would describe my view of Genesis as history portrayed through ancient themes and motifs with elements of satire, saracsm and polemic against ancient belief systems.

To me, it's very similar to the style I believe was used in Revelation. I'm not sure how you view Revelation but I and many others on this forum think there is a great deal of evidence to support that Revelation was describing actual historical events however, those events were being described in a highly symbolic way by borrowing images and motifs from other literature. Those images are simply reapplied in different ways to describe different historical events. I haven't sought after this view because I don't believe in miracles or think the universe and man could not have been brought about in exactly the way that Genesis describes it, down to the minutest detail. God certainly could have done that. I think there are indicators from the context of Genesis itself, God's linguistic tendencies in later passages of the Bible, and similarities to other ancient writings that suggest that the purpose of Genesis may not have been to give us a literal historical narrative of how God created the universe.

Yes, such a view does result in a tangled web of truth and fiction. However, I don't think God intended everything He said to be cut and dry. For example, just have a look at the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. If the most important figure in redeptive history is veiled in such convoluted terms and yet a single person truly has and/or will historically fulfill all those prophecies, how much more likely is it that the origin of the universe and man would be described in terms that are at least equally convoluted yet equally historical? The language that is symbolic and that which was literal can only be determined by research into how history actually played out.

In reference to 1 Timothy 1:3-4 which you quoted, would you then say that Paul's admonition against paying attention to genealogies from the same verse was a blanket statement against all genealogies, despite their obvious importance elsewhere in the Bible?

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 Mar 13, 2017 1:45 pm

dwight92070 wrote:So, we ended up with a new definition for "myth", i.e. a confusing, tangled web of truth and fiction that somehow relates to the origin of man.
I don't see any confusion, tangled web, or new definitions. What I see is a Greek word (muthos) with a broader meaning than the English word commonly used to translate it (myth or fable), the intended meaning of which in a particular instance would've been instantly recognized by a native speaker. The rest of us have to depend on language experts to tell us how a native speaker would've understood it, but with their help and just a bit of thought we can usually understand what the writer meant without too much trouble.

This is the second rather lengthy thread you've started on this topic. Clearly it's pretty important to you, but what I've missed seeing is why. Specifically, why you think it's important to choose one of the literal meanings of 'yom' (24 hours), and reject the explanations of those who believe one of the other literal meanings (an indeterminate long period) makes more sense. Of course it's perfectly OK for you to believe the 24-hour way if you like, but you've gone far beyond simply expressing and explaining a difference of opinion; you seem to feel free to ridicule those brothers with whom you disagree. Would you mind explaining why you think the issue is so important that that's justified? Hopefully that'll provide some common ground on which to engage in profitable discussion.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:20 pm

backwoodsman wrote:
dwight92070 wrote:So, we ended up with a new definition for "myth", i.e. a confusing, tangled web of truth and fiction that somehow relates to the origin of man.
I don't see any confusion, tangled web, or new definitions. What I see is a Greek word (muthos) with a broader meaning than the English word commonly used to translate it (myth or fable)

Dwight speaking: Then why did Paul use that word in only one way? In context, he is obviously speaking of false or fictitious stories and warns Christian to turn away from them. So, if Genesis one is a myth, then Paul would be telling us to reject it.

This is the second rather lengthy thread you've started on this topic. Clearly it's pretty important to you, but what I've missed seeing is why.

Dwight speaking: Isn't it important to you? I want to have a good understanding of all of scripture. Specifically this passage in Exodus 20 is important to me, because it is additional confirmation that the work week of man and the creation week of God are the same length. Why is that important? Well, for one thing, it also shows that the Genesis one account was 6 literal days, just as man works 6 literal days. Secondly, it strongly refutes the man-made idea of evolution, which requires millions of years to even be considered. Why is that important? Because if you can plant doubt in people about the Bible account of the creation of man, then it is a simple step to get them to doubt the whole Bible, and suffer the consequences of being lost.

Of course it's perfectly OK for you to believe the 24-hour way if you like, but you've gone far beyond simply expressing and explaining a difference of opinion; you seem to feel free to ridicule those brothers with whom you disagree.

Dwight speaking: As far as I know, I said 2 things that you might construe as ridicule: I used the word "dense" and the word "silly". Neither of those were meant to ridicule anyone. However, I am sorry if they were taken that way. I acknowledge now that "dense" was the wrong word to use, after just now looking it up. I was trying to convey the idea that some people don't seem to be very logical in their thinking, not that they are stupid. I admit that I have "crossed the line" in the past and I have apologized for that and don't want to go there again. As far as the word "silly", I was referring to the idea of plugging in "an indefinite period of time" into the text instead of the word "day", the result of which I do find to be silly, or maybe I could have said illogical.

Finally, I would like to put forward a question: If any of you disagree with my interpretation of Exodus 20:8-11, as it appears many of you do, would you please share with us your interpretation?

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TruthInLove » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:41 am

There is nothing about Exodus 20:8-11 that demands a literal 24-hour day for creation. Regardless, of how a dictionary defines words, those words can always be used figuratively at the discretion of the author. All the passage in Exodus may be saying is that we are to follow the same pattern in our work habits that God did in His account of His own work. This doesn't mean God presented HIs account in literal terms of the exact duration and sequence of events that He actually followed in creation. The critical issue in the comparison is the pattern of work followed by rest and their proper proportion, not the literal nature of a day in one instance versus the other.

Given that the Sabbath is connected with the number 7 and is seen by the NT writers as foreshadowing the ultimate rest we have in Christ, I could see how this framework of creation could be artificially staged by God as a symbol that would one day be fulfilled in Christ. "The Sabbath was made for man ..." (Mark 2:27) The Sabbath would serve as one piece of subtle yet powerful evidence that God's plan for spiritual redemption was arranged long before the advent of Christ. The advent of Christ was not simply the product of naive religious men desperately attempting to salvage the failed predictions of their nation's militaristic conquest of the world by spiritualizing them all. These prophecies didn't need to have spiritualization imposed on them because they can be demonstrated to have been largely spiritual in focus from the very beginning.

As an example to help illustrate my point from above, if I were to say "Columbus sailed the ocean just as Wynken, Blynken and Nod did", would people be obliged to understand that I was implying that Wynken, Blynken and Nod were real men who sailed one of the world's oceans? Would a person have to conclude that King Ferdinand furnished Columbus with a wooden shoe for his voyages? Of course not. Such a sentence is quite common in educated speech and there are no grammatical rules that state that such a construct need to imply anything in particular about the reality of the participants or their circumstances. The meaning is bounded largely by the intent of the author. God provides ample evidence that He Himself is not above expressing such intent using this sort of linguistic construct in His Word.

Again, when Jude quotes from the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch, was he implying that the events in those actually took place?

Does this help clarify the Old Earth Creationist view of Genesis and passages which reference it?

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:54 am

In my Strong's concordance, I count 62 times in the book of Genesis that the word "day" is used. Can you show me other places in Genesis, where the word "day" should or can be used symbolically rather than a literal 24 hour day? Of course we could extend this to the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy too, but let's just focus on Genesis for now.

I understand that "God called the light day, and the darkness He called night" in Genesis 1:5. So here is a use of the word "day" that apparently refers to 12 hours (IMO) rather than 24. Jesus said, "Are there not 12 hours in the day?" (John 11:9) He also said that the night comes when no man can work, so He is obviously separating day and night into 2 12-hour periods. But the last sentence of Genesis 1:5 says: "And there was evening and there was morning, one day." IMO this is a reference to a full 24 hour day.

So, in Genesis one, we see 2 meanings for the word "day", IMO, either the daytime of 12 hours, or the full 24 day. In fact, we use the word "day" today exactly in the same way.

But if you are correct that the word "day" in Genesis one is not limited to 12 hours or 24 hours, that it is symbolic, then wouldn't we see more symbolic uses of it in the rest of Genesis? I have looked at all 62 references and IMO they all refer to 24 or 12 hour (i.e. daylight hours) periods. None of them, when taken in context refer to anything else. So why would you single out just Genesis one to apply a symbolic meaning of "day" and not apply it that same way in the rest of Genesis? Or do you see symbolic uses of it elsewhere in Genesis?

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TruthInLove » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:20 am

dwight92070 wrote:So why would you single out just Genesis one to apply a symbolic meaning of "day" and not apply it that same way in the rest of Genesis? Or do you see symbolic uses of it elsewhere in Genesis?
Perhaps one might expect to see other symbolic uses of the word "day" in other parts of Genesis but this expectation depends largely upon your assumptions about the purpose of the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

However, the dispute about the non-literal meaning of Genesis is not based solely on the possible uses of the word "day". There's no question, the account of creation in Genesis is related to us in terms of normal days as we are familiar with them. I and probably most old earth creationists would agree with you about that. The debate however does not center on the meaning of the word "day". The debate is really about the intent God had for giving us the Genesis creation account. Young earth creationists appear to understand this intent as a desire to record an accurate description of God's role in physical history. Old earth creationists don't see evidence that God was particularly concerned with giving man a complete or even accurate account of the origin of the physical world. The overarching teaching of the Bible is that God's ultimate concern is about man's continual rebellion against him and God's persistent attempts to reconcile and repair the damage we caused and continue to cause. Genesis may have been partially as a practical means for God to bring man to a basic understanding of who He was, that sin had raised a barrier between man and Himself, and that God was ultimately going be the one who would need to remove that barrier. How that chain of events got started isn't nearly as important as putting a stop to it all. Perhaps the origin of all this madness is even beyond the grasp of fallen man steeped in his own selfish perceptions of the world. Why would God even try explaining the truth about origins to such people? Would that have even been possible given the resources and knowledge people had at the time?

Now does that mean God lies when the truth can't be efficiently conveyed and still achieve His purposes? No. As I said, when you look beyond the concept of a "day" and evaluate Genesis Chapters 1-11 in the greater context of the rest of Scripture, there are indicators that these passages were not intended to be understood as strictly or even primarily historical narrative. How much is literal and how much is fantasy is ultimately hard to say. I can explore this more with you if you are interested.

However, if the word "day" is still a nagging concern for you, I would say that limiting a search for the symbolic use of that word to Genesis seems somewhat arbitrarily restrictive. Many of the themes and images of Genesis recur throughout the Bible, particularly in Revelation and other Messianic prophecies. The "sun" and "day break" are common figures in predictions of the establishement of the Messianic kingdom. Given that the Creation week of Genesis is also associated with the number 7 which has obvious eschatological siginificance elsewhere in the Bible, it does not seem unlikely to me that the accounts early in Genesis are themselves eschatologically significant. If such is the case, we should not be surprised to find the same literary styles and themes used in Genesis.

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."
If there is any prophetic importance to Genesis, I don't think the early readers of it were expected to necessarily see it as such. Just as the actual meaning of explicit prophecies are often very unclear, even after the events they predicted are fulfilled, I see no reason why God would have been obliged to make the prophetic elements of Genesis any more obvious.

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.

Palistrophes in Genesis Flood Narrative

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by jasonmodar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:37 pm

Here's a video relevant to this discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FmO2XKMe6g

Lennox addresses many of the topics raised in this thread: Use of the Hebrew word Yom, old earth/young earth, literalness of the creation narrative, etc.

It's a bit lengthy but worth it and is incredibly edifying. This video is worth it alone for the anecdote about C.S. Lewis :D

Blessings,

Jason

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by TK » Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:03 pm

Secondly, it strongly refutes the man-made idea of evolution, which requires millions of years to even be considered. Why is that important? Because if you can plant doubt in people about the Bible account of the creation of man, then it is a simple step to get them to doubt the whole Bible, and suffer the consequences of being lost.
That is the reason most believers are afraid to admit the possibility of a billions of years old earth.

However, it is certainly arguable that macroevolution is not possible even with millions or billions of years. I certainly don't think so.

Just by coincidence I happened to catch the original 'Planet of the Apes" movie the other night. In that movie, Dr. Zaius was both the minister of science and Keeper of the Faith. He could not admit to certain scientific facts proven to him because to do so would weaken his position as Keeper of the Faith which he deemed more important.

I already believe there is pretty much overwhelming evidence in regard to the age of the earth and universe that requires some element of desperation to refute. I believe that someday there will be absolutely irrefutable evidence and if/when that happens I certainly hope the attitude of Christians is not the same as Dr. Zaius. Truth is truth, regardless of how inconvenient it may be.

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

Re: Literally 6 Days

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:26 pm

TruthInLove wrote:
dwight92070 wrote:So why would you single out just Genesis one to apply a symbolic meaning of "day" and not apply it that same way in the rest of Genesis? Or do you see symbolic uses of it elsewhere in Genesis?
Perhaps one might expect to see other symbolic uses of the word "day" in other parts of Genesis but this expectation depends largely upon your assumptions about the purpose of the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

Dwight speaking: The only assumption I make when I read Genesis 1-11, is the same assumption I make when I read the rest of scripture, which is that this is God's word and that He wants to teach me and edify me in the faith. Since the word Yom is used symbolically several times in Genesis one, then it follows naturally that with a total of 62 uses of the word throughout that book, that many of them would also be used symbolically. Since we do not find that to be the case, we can logically be assured that it is not used symbolically in Genesis one either.

However, the dispute about the non-literal meaning of Genesis is not based solely on the possible uses of the word "day".

Dwight speaking: Maybe not, but that certainly is one key word in the dispute, and therefore should not be ignored. Young earth creationists appear to understand this intent as a desire to record an accurate description of God's role in physical history. This understanding is not just for young earthers, it is for all serious students of the Bible. Old earth creationists don't see evidence that God was particularly concerned with giving man a complete or even accurate account of the origin of the physical world.

Dwight speaking: The details in Genesis are manifold. To even suggest that they are not particularly accurate is astounding. God would open Himself up to widespread mockery, if any of those details were untrue. Think of it, the God who tells us not to lie - He Himself lies to us in His word about the history of His creation and His people.

Perhaps the origin of all this madness is even beyond the grasp of fallen man steeped in his own selfish perceptions of the world.

Dwight speaking: Apparently God didn't think so or else He would not have given us His account.

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”