What do 6 days really mean?

[shernren]

Found on Creationist:

One can always make the metaphor argument. It has such infite flexibility. It gets annoying that way. So what then is it a metaphor for? The TE posts have never given a satisfactory metaphorical significance for "six" as in "six" days. If it is a metaphor, then for what? I just can see how it would mean anything metaphorically. As just a pattern for the week? That's pretty lame. What does the very specific sequence mean? Why light on one day and dry land on another?

You could have asked! I'll get the ball rolling, but I'm looking forward to other TE inputs to enrich the discussion.

Genesis 1, to me, depicts the majesty of God in the context of the Order-Chaos tradition extant in the contemporary ANE. When you look at the first chapter in that light, many elements of the text make much more sense than when it is taken simply and literally. For example, what is a big ball of water doing at the beginning of creation, and where has it gone? It makes much more sense when you realize that water and the great water monster is an important symbol of chaos (which, by the way, also illuminates the study of Job, which busterdog also complained about in the same post) in contemporary mythology, and it is not surprising that creation begins with water.

But there are vital differences between the monotheistic tale of Genesis 1 and the polytheistic tales of the surrounding nations. In contemporary mythology creation is a god-on-god struggle, with a god of order overcoming a god of chaos and making the creation out of that body. In Genesis 1 chaos is still there in the symbol of the abyss, but it is not personified, nor can it fight back. Furthermore, God is not identified with anything of His creation except at the very end with humanity: that shows that God cannot be adequately worshiped in the form of images, but only as the I Am Who I Am.

But why six days? Or more accurately, why the pattern of creation in six days? The key to this is in verse 2 where the earth is "formless" and "void". That is the state of chaos, before God imposes order on it; it is the problem, and creation is the solution. What happens next? On the first day, God creates day and night. (Why is light called day, and darkness called night, and how can they be separated - unless the creation story is written from the perspective that the earth is all that is central, i.e. a geocentric perspective?) On the second day, God creates sea and air. On the third day, God creates land. Note that little or none of this makes sense within a modern literalist perspective. For example, why are there waters above the firmament, and why are the creation of sun and moon and stars later related to the firmament, since they have nothing to do with the atmosphere?

The first problem was that the abyss was "formless" - with day and night, sea and air, land and sea, God has given form to creation. The second problem is that it is "void", and the problem still remains. So on the fourth day (filling the creation of the first day, day and night) God creates the sun, moon, and stars to govern His creation of the first day. On the fifth day, God creates the fish and the birds to govern His creation of the second day. On the sixth day, God creates the beasts and man to govern His creation of the third day. Two complementary sets of three days complete the picture of creation and on the seventh day God rests.

So that is one particular meaning of the metaphor of Genesis 1. But in the first place, the fact that a metaphor has many meanings does not invalidate it, does it? I might as well say that of any of the parables or images of the Bible. To parody busterdog's complaint:

When Jesus says "You are the salt of the earth", that can't be a metaphor. If it is a metaphor, then for what exactly? I can just see how it would mean anything metaphorically. As just a picture for how distinctive Christians are? That's pretty lame (not that I need to present any evidence: if I say it, that settles it!). What does the specific spice mean? Why salt, and not pepper or cinnamon or star anise or poppy?

There are so many rich and multifaceted metaphors in the Bible. The Body, the Temple, the Messianic Wedding, Jerusalem - all these are the rich and powerful images of the Bible precisely because they mean so many things, and precisely because they tie all those wonderful and powerful meanings together into one incendiary whole setting us alight for God's service. A metaphor is rich precisely when it reveals something new every time you turn it, where the literal meaning would be doggedly simple in most cases and plain wrong in quite a few (for we are not actually salt, to continue the previous example).

God never promised that the Bible would have a solitary, simple, and easy meaning!

 

[gluadys]

So that is one particular meaning of the metaphor of Genesis 1. But in the first place, the fact that a metaphor has many meanings does not invalidate it, does it? I might as well say that of any of the parables or images of the Bible.

To some extent I can sympathize with busterdog. I often bite my tongue as people throw around terms like metaphor, allegory, myth, etc. because I realize that few people on this board, whether TE, OEC, YEC or whatever, have much background in literature. In general they pick up on a term they remember from high school dealing with figurative language and use it to mean "not-literal" rather than in the specific sense it is used by students of literature. Busterdog, as I recall, is one of the few that does have a stronger grounding in literature.

"Metaphor" is not just any and all figurative language. It is specifically a comparison of one thing to another. So, it is pertinent to ask, if the 6 days are a metaphor, what is the metaphor, what are they being compared to? And, as far as I am aware, the only position in which it can be said that the 6 days are a genuine metaphor is the Day-Age thesis which holds that each day is actually an age of indeterminate length. Some TEs hold that position, but not all. Some OECs hold that position, but not all. Some IDists hold that position, but not all.

I don't quarrel with your presentation. It is the one I would advance myself. But that presentation is not, strictly speaking, metaphor. The days are not compared to anything. So, strictly speaking, that interpretation is more myth than metaphor. It plays off of the common ANE mythology, offering an alternative, monotheistic mythology. It is in that sense that C.S. Lewis refers to this type of biblical literature as "true myth".

To parody busterdog's complaint:

When Jesus says "You are the salt of the earth", that can't be a metaphor. If it is a metaphor, then for what exactly? I can just see how it would mean anything metaphorically. As just a picture for how distinctive Christians are? That's pretty lame (not that I need to present any evidence: if I say it, that settles it!). What does the specific spice mean? Why salt, and not pepper or cinnamon or star anise or poppy?

There are so many rich and multifaceted metaphors in the Bible.

This, on the other hand, is a genuine metaphor. And as you say, it is a rich, powerful and multifacted metaphor. Think of all the things salt was used for: to add taste to bland foods and enhance the taste of many foods; as a preservative to keep foods from spoiling, and as a cleanser, especially of wounds, so as a medicinal aid. (Before the invention of toothpaste, salt was also used to clean teeth and freshen breath.) Furthermore, although our problem today tends to be too much sodium in our diet, it is still the case that some salt is necessary to good health. To be the salt of the earth implies all of these things in some sense.

A metaphor is rich precisely when it reveals something new every time you turn it, where the literal meaning would be doggedly simple in most cases and plain wrong in quite a few (for we are not actually salt, to continue the previous example).

God never promised that the Bible would have a solitary, simple, and easy meaning!

 

[Willtor]

After reading some of its main "competitors" I'd say it was designed to combat them in their own form. So, although I'm not an expert in literature, I also think it's a myth. And to be precise, not the kind of myth like in Mythbusters, but the type of narrative.

I think the sovereignty aspect cannot be under-stressed. As Shernren pointed out, the most striking difference between the Hebrew story and the Babylonian one is that God has but to command a thing and it is done to His satisfaction.

Also, as an important distinction from some types of gnosticism that argue for a "good" god and an "evil" god, in Genesis, God is seen as the Lord of both the chaos and the order.

 

[Deamiter]

gluadys, I fully agree "true myth" is one of the best labels for Genesis. I always thought metaphor would compare the creation in the days to the competing gods (particularly Assyrian). Of course, now that I write it down, even God's creation of each realm and set doesn't really compare metaphorically to other gods' creation of the different bits of the universe. There's a comparison, but yeah, it's really not a metaphor.

 

[jeffweeder]

Does God need time to create the heavens and the earth?

From times perspective down here it was evening and morning=1 day.

Days pass ,years go by in the same way and people are born.
From these people, geneologies are established.
History was then created.

The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah
1 The record[1][Lit book ] of the genealogy of Jesus the[3][Gr Christos (Christ), Gr for Messiah, which means Anointed One ] Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was[4][Lit fathered, and throughout the genealogy] the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers.
3 Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram.
4 Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon.
5 Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse.
6 Jesse was the father of David the king. David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah.
7 Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa.
8 Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah.
9 Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah.
10 Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah.
11 Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
12 After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel.
13 Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor.
14 Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud.
15 Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob.
16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the[16][Gr Christos (Christ)] Messiah.

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the[17][Gr Christos (Christ)] Messiah, fourteen generations.

 

[gluadys]

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the[17][Gr Christos (Christ)] Messiah, fourteen generations.

Except, of course, when we look at the genealogies in the Old Testament which do not give the same number of generations from David to the deportation to Babylon. Nor, for that matter, does Luke.

 

[jeffweeder]

luke?

Where do you think MATTHEW got his infomation from then, if it wasnt from these records.?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

luke?

Where do you think MATTHEW got his infomation from then, if it wasnt from these records.?

Interesting question, since Matthew contradicts both Luke and the OT, where did he get the information, and why would he purposely contradict two well known books?

I have my ideas, but it would be interesting to hear yours.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The six days are a literary framework, with the realms created on the first three days and the creature-kings created on the next three.

It is simply designed to addresses issues pertinant to Israel- that God alone is creator, that creatures aren't divine, that the universe was created on pursue, that the universe is ordered- issues far more pertinant to ancient Israelites than any cosmology.

 

[metherion]

Also, isn't 6 the most imperfect number, while 7 is the perfect one? So that would make the 6 days symbolic that the earth is where evil is, but it isn't truly evil as God says it is good. Also, God resting on the 7th day would bring an element of perfection to the Earth, because it now has 7 days concerning its creation instead of 6.

Metherion

 

[jeffweeder]

Interesting question, since Matthew contradicts both Luke and the OT, where did he get the information, and why would he purposely contradict two well known books?

I have my ideas, but it would be interesting to hear yours

Dont think he did contradict. He wrote to a Jewish audience mainly. Surely he got it right--did become a best seller....
Can you show me the contradiction/s?

 

[shernren]

Also, isn't 6 the most imperfect number, while 7 is the perfect one? So that would make the 6 days symbolic that the earth is where evil is, but it isn't truly evil as God says it is good. Also, God resting on the 7th day would bring an element of perfection to the Earth, because it now has 7 days concerning its creation instead of 6.

Metherion

I'd agree, with the small quibble that 6 isn't really a number of "evil". It seems to me to be more the number of man - 12 (2 x 6) tribes, 12 apostles, etc. Or by extension, the number of imperfect creation, one less than the divine number.

It could also simply be a dramatic technique:

"Blessed is the man whom God corrects;
so do not despise the discipline of the Almighty.
For he wounds, but he also binds up;
he injures, but his hands also heal.
From six calamities he will rescue you;
in seven no harm will befall you.
(Job 5:17-19 NIV)

There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
(Proverbs 6:16-19 NIV)

(emphases added)

Nobody who reads these verses thinks that God will only rescue from six or seven calamities, and no more; or that God only hates six or seven expressions of sin, and no more!

This is probably nothing more than an interesting tidbit to add to our discussion of Genesis 1, but it does illustrate that in the literature of the Bible a number is not always just a number ...

 

[Assyrian]

In Exodus the six days are party of an extended metaphor describing God as a labourer who works for six days and is refreshed after resting on the seventh day. Genesis 1 is an expansion of this anthropomorphic metaphor.

 

[busterdog]

After reading some of its main "competitors" I'd say it was designed to combat them in their own form. So, although I'm not an expert in literature, I also think it's a myth. And to be precise, not the kind of myth like in Mythbusters, but the type of narrative.

I think the sovereignty aspect cannot be under-stressed. As Shernren pointed out, the most striking difference between the Hebrew story and the Babylonian one is that God has but to command a thing and it is done to His satisfaction.

Also, as an important distinction from some types of gnosticism that argue for a "good" god and an "evil" god, in Genesis, God is seen as the Lord of both the chaos and the order.

Excellent point. It is important to stress that the somewhat later Old Testament is explicitly a counterpoint to the prevailing culture. Witness Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Witness the required distinction between Israel and Egytian culture.

Most of the idioms of the Bible have a very literal fulfillment. The serpent is lifted up in the wilderenss. Jesus is lifted up on the Cross. The tree of life is present in Genesis, proverbs, the crucifixion (somehwhat differently) and in Revelation. Tree of life isn't just a metaphor for "good" or "nice". It has a specific place in our reality, part of which is mysterious.

Idioms for the Word of God are consistent. It is a sword and a lamp. To some degree, the specificity is unclear. Anything that is a "lamp" is generally "good", except where Mrs. O'Leary's cow is concerned. Word as sword, however, is a very specific reality.

Mat 8:32
And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


The idioms of sunrise are clearly linked with the appearance of the sun in the sky. (Acknowledging the dispute about whether appearance is the same as an ultimate cosmological perspective.)

The "seed of the woman" has a specific fulfillment.

Not all idioms of Gen. 1-6 are particularly clear.

The pattern of a week is found not just in Exod. 20, but in Ezekiel as well:

Eze 46:1 Thus saith the Lord GOD; The gate of the inner court that looketh toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the sabbath it shall be opened, and in the day of the new moon it shall be opened.

Eze 46:4 And the burnt offering that the prince shall offer unto the LORD in the sabbath day [shall be] six lambs without blemish, and a ram without blemish.

Eze 46:12 Now when the prince shall prepare a voluntary burnt offering or peace offerings voluntarily unto the LORD, [one] shall then open him the gate that looketh toward the east, and he shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offerings, as he did on the sabbath day: then he shall go forth; and after his going forth [one] shall shut the gate.

One must start to dispense with a good deal of prophecy to limit Exod. 20 and the weekly pattern to a regional, cultural definition.

The 70th week of Daniel suggests a rather specific reality for the same pattern -- assuming that it is the same pattern as Gen. 1.

There is probably some type of metaphorical reality to the six days, in addition to a literal reality. However, it is not all that clear exactly how this lines up. However, there is evidence that it is more than culture and more than mere symbol.

One reality that is clear appears in the idiom of speech. "And God said." Maybe we get too hung up on the counting part and forget the awesome significance of the decree itself. In the Gospels, Jesus (God) days to Legion "go." Legion did not evolve out of the demoniac, but was tossed summarily.

As Paul said, God calls into being those things that are not as if they were.

 

[Assyrian]

For the writer of Hebrews (ch 3&4) the Sabbath was a shadow of the Gospel itself and the call to enter into a rest from our own works. God's Seventh Day rest was not a day off God took thousands of years ago at the beginning of creation but a reality that exists for us to enter into 'Today'.

 

[shernren]

Idioms for the Word of God are consistent. It is a sword and a lamp. To some degree, the specificity is unclear. Anything that is a "lamp" is generally "good", except where Mrs. O'Leary's cow is concerned. Word as sword, however, is a very specific reality.

And of course the writers of the Bible had access to each others' work, as well as being steeped in roughly the same cultural milieu. Nine out of ten Australians would call something "dodgy"; does that mean that the particular object has a mystical existence out there dodging things?

 

[stumpjumper]

gluadys, I fully agree "true myth" is one of the best labels for Genesis. I always thought metaphor would compare the creation in the days to the competing gods (particularly Assyrian). Of course, now that I write it down, even God's creation of each realm and set doesn't really compare metaphorically to other gods' creation of the different bits of the universe. There's a comparison, but yeah, it's really not a metaphor.

I agree but I think one of the problems is the way in which the word "myth" is viewed today among speakers or readers of english...

Myths are meant to point us towards a deeper truth but the term is so derided anymore as to be defined or viewed as "lies" by many...

 

[Servant222]

Once again, the debate erupts. It always gets very passionate, but the question really should be kept in perspective- Jesus said so much when He was asked in Acts 1 about when the restoration of the kingdom to Israel would occur:

7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority."

Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that we shouldn't get too excited about a question that really has nothing to do with salvation.

 

[busterdog]

And of course the writers of the Bible had access to each others' work, as well as being steeped in roughly the same cultural milieu. Nine out of ten Australians would call something "dodgy"; does that mean that the particular object has a mystical existence out there dodging things?

If the dodge is a devilsh car that descends upon the earth to consume nations in the end times, then I would say yes.

Your comparison just doesn't work.

 

[busterdog]

Once again, the debate erupts. It always gets very passionate, but the question really should be kept in perspective- Jesus said so much when He was asked in Acts 1 about when the restoration of the kingdom to Israel would occur:

Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that we shouldn't get too excited about a question that really has nothing to do with salvation.

Because the answer does not lie within our own genius, we shouldn't push it too much. But, error is error. We have the job of correcting it, among many others, such as avoiding division in the body.