Handing the enemy a weapon

[juvenissun]

I have been editing post 93 to add to the list of reasons for a non literal interpretation of Genesis.

This is such an old topic, but continuous to surf up. Here is my 2 cents:

Psalm 93:1 The world is established; it shall never be moved. This is not just idiom. It appears to be a categorical statement describing the earth as fixed and unmoving. It certainly appeared literal to Calvin when he wrote his commentary on the passage.

The "literal" meaning of this verse should not be as simple as your interpretation only. There are a few key words here: World, Established, Never, Moved. Any one of them could have a number of meanings. Your version is only 1 in about 20.

Literal meaning does not mean only one meaning. One word could have 10 meaning in the dictionary. Use any one out of the ten would fit the definition of "literal interpretation". Any word has an essential meaning and many elaborated meanings. They are all literal. A meaning that could not be related to the essential meaning of the word would then be non-literal. For example, if interpret the word "day" by "million year(s)", then it is non-literal. If we say it means "one cycle of light up and light down", then it is literal, no matter what the light is and no matter how long it would take.

To me, I would read this verse this way: The earth is made. It will operate the same way constantly. This is a very literal interpretation, and it makes perfect sense, even OE or TE people would like it.

You quoted too many verses for me to do the same here. If you give me the hardest one, I will try.

 

[Servant222]

Could anyone give us a more precise comment here based on a reading of the original Hebrew or Greek text?

 

[Mallon]

The "literal" meaning of this verse should not be as simple as your interpretation only. There are a few key words here: World, Established, Never, Moved. Any one of them could have a number of meanings. Your version is only 1 in about 20.

Literal meaning does not mean only one meaning. One word could have 10 meaning in the dictionary. Use any one out of the ten would fit the definition of "literal interpretation". Any word has an essential meaning and many elaborated meanings. They are all literal. A meaning that could not be related to the essential meaning of the word would then be non-literal. For example, if interpret the word "day" by "million year(s)", then it is non-literal. If we say it means "one cycle of light up and light down", then it is literal, no matter what the light is and no matter how long it would take.

I read Nineteen Eighty-Four, too!

 

[gluadys]

To me, I would read this verse this way: The earth is made. It will operate the same way constantly. This is a very literal interpretation, and it makes perfect sense, even OE or TE people would like it.

I am not convinced. Can you show me the literal meanings of "never" and "moved" that would make "constantly orbiting the sun" and "constantly turning on its axis" be literal interpretations of "never be moved"?

 

[juvenissun]

I am not convinced. Can you show me the literal meanings of "never" and "moved" that would make "constantly orbiting the sun" and "constantly turning on its axis" be literal interpretations of "never be moved"?

This one is much easier than the mutation stuff. Ha ha ...

Both operations: orbiting and turning, will never be removed from the earth.

You may add mutation or plate tectonics or other things to it too.

 

[theFijian]

This one is much easier than the mutation stuff. Ha ha ...

Both operations: orbiting and turning, will never be removed from the earth.

Adding to scripture is something I see Creationists do quite a lot. The word used is 'moved' not 'removed'. If something is orbiting it is most definitely moving.

 

[Assyrian]

So 'it shall never be moved' really means 'it shall never stop moving'

The "literal" meaning of this verse should not be as simple as your interpretation only. There are a few key words here: World, Established, Never, Moved. Any one of them could have a number of meanings. Your version is only 1 in about 20.

Literal meaning does not mean only one meaning. One word could have 10 meaning in the dictionary. Use any one out of the ten would fit the definition of "literal interpretation". Any word has an essential meaning and many elaborated meanings. They are all literal. A meaning that could not be related to the essential meaning of the word would then be non-literal. For example, if interpret the word "day" by "million year(s)", then it is non-literal. If we say it means "one cycle of light up and light down", then it is literal, no matter what the light is and no matter how long it would take.

To me, I would read this verse this way: The earth is made. It will operate the same way constantly. This is a very literal interpretation, and it makes perfect sense, even OE or TE people would like it.

You quoted too many verses for me to do the same here. If you give me the hardest one, I will try.

A recurring criticism of TE here is that if we start to read the bible metaphorically then any meaning is possible. If any meaning I possible then the bible becomes unknowable. Yet here you take what seem to me a very simple statement and you can find 20 different meanings (allowing for hyperbole of course). On the one hand literalists claim their reading of Genesis is the plain, straightforward, obvious meaning of the text. But at the drop of a hat when their interpretation run into trouble the most obscure interpretations emerge to save literalism fro contradiction.

The question we have to as is, what is the plain meaning of this verse if it is read without any scientific presuppositions or without any wish to make the text conform to science?

 

[shernren]

Blowing my own horn:

There's a thread on geocentrism and doctrine going on in OT, and I'd love to hear some noise there.

 

[juvenissun]

Adding to scripture is something I see Creationists do quite a lot. The word used is 'moved' not 'removed'. If something is orbiting it is most definitely moving.

Move: positional change,
Remove: positional change, so it becomes outside of the system

Remove is a consequence of move. It belongs to the domain of literal interpretation.

 

[shernren]

Move: positional change,
Remove: positional change, so it becomes outside of the system

Remove is a consequence of move. It belongs to the domain of literal interpretation.

"And yet it moves." - Galileo Galilei (allegedly)

 

[juvenissun]

The question we have to as is, what is the plain meaning of this verse if it is read without any scientific presuppositions or without any wish to make the text conform to science?
[/SIZE]

This is an improper question. As the Holy Scripture is not written for just one, one group, or one level of people, different person would have different understanding to the same verse. While it is appropriate to let the Holy Spirite to guide a personal understanding, but when the person is trying to express it by speech or by document, there would be different versions of "explanation" depends on who is presenting. To use the last definition of a word in the explanation could be just as adequate as to use the first definition of the word. That is one reason different preacher could make different sermon on the same verse.

The problem is other people would listen to or read your interpretation. Then there will be agreement of disagreement.

So, to the meaning of "day", a 24-hr is one version of literal interpretation, and one cycle of light-dark would be another versionof interpretation. It depends on who is reading the verse and how would the person understand the verse. But the variation "should" be limited by the meaning of "literal interpretation". Any version of non-literal interpretation would be inappropriate.

 

[vossler]

You are referring to phrases like 'sunrise' and 'sunset' in our English language. But these are leftover from a time when people really did believe the sun went round the earth. Are you saying phrases like the sun rising in the bible are left over from a time when people were geocentrist? Who were these original geocentrists? Adam? Abraham?

No, I’m saying they are ‘left over’ from a time when people said what they saw. Isn’t funny how this ‘left over’ can’t seem to be put to rest and thrown out like all of life’s other ‘left overs’ when they start to stink up the place?

But the geocentrist passages go beyond simple idiom. The writers describe a geocentrist universe. Psalm 93:1 The world is established; it shall never be moved. This is not just idiom. It appears to be a categorical statement describing the earth as fixed and unmoving. It certainly appeared literal to Calvin when he wrote his commentary on the passage. The writer of Ecclesiastes says 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, Ok maybe that is just idiom, but them he goes on to say: and hastens to the place where it rises. He really does take the sun's movement literally. He thinks the sun has to hurry around behind the earth to get back to the place it rises from again. Josh 10:12At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon." 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. 14 There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD obeyed the voice of a man, for the LORD fought for Israel. Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and it stopped for a whole day and then hurried to set again. This is not just idiom, it reads as a literal description of an astronomical event, telling us what the sun and moon actually did and how their movements changed. To Luther this plain text clearly contradicted the foolish views of Copernicus.

This is obviously an important issue for you and so I’ll give you the last word, this issue truly has absolutely no importance for me.
The one thing I can’t seem to understand is this obsession of sorts with TEs continually looking for ways to prove the Bible wrong or make it teach things that is doesn’t. It’s not just geocentrism, it’s a flat earth, size of a mustard seed, six days, etc. Sometimes you guys sound a lot more like atheists than Christians.

I understand all that. I know you don't take everything absolutely literally, that you don't have one narrow method of reading every passage.

What you do have is an exegetical rule that claim to tell you how you should interpret different passages. It is a meta rule that claims to apply to the whole bible, not saying to take everything literally, but telling you when to take things literally.

This is the rule that tells you to interpret the days of Genesis literally, and it is the rule that simply does not work when dealing with the geocentrist passages.

This rule is the reason you demand absolute exegetical proof the days are non literal. You feel justified in demanding in demanding such proof because that is the way you should interpret all of the bible isn't it? Except you don't. The rule you use to demand a literal Genesis does not work with the geocentrist passages and you simply don't apply it there.

Yes I follow that meta rule and it serves me quite well but it implies that one always should know the context before anchoring down on an interpretation. It is precisely because of the context that it works with those passages with which you are having difficultly with.
Yes I do demand exegetical proof that days are non literal given that all exegetical and logical reasoning would lead one to believe that’s exactly what they are, literal days. Whereas the rule doesn’t demand the same from the passages you cite, it’s not even close.

I really don't see how you can come up with the idea that God's timetable is 'very specific and direct' but not the detailed descriptions of the movement of the earth and sun.

I have the same problem trying to understand how you can come up with the idea that six days really isn’t six days. Given that we both see each others position and the facts are pretty much known, let’s just leave it at that because we’re both pretty entrenched and I don’t see either of us gaining much from this exercise. Do you?

I can understand why you do, because you accept the heliocentric solar system as incontrovertible fact, but reject evolution and geological age. So you have a motivation from outside scripture for viewing one as 'specific and direct', but not the other. But I don't see anything in scripture that would make you distinguish between them. If anything the scriptural evidence is that the timetable is non literal one.

The thing is I’ve never seen an argument for geocentrism that would, even without our present knowledge, cause me to hold firm to it based solely on Scripture. I would hold onto it based upon my own observations and that those observations were not contradicted by the Bible. Evolution can’t say that. So yes there is motivation from outside Scripture to believe in a heliocentric solar system, especially given that Scripture itself doesn’t directly speak to it.

Do you have any to support heliocentrism?

Neither do you, so what? However, there is plenty of support for creationism.

Biblical reasons for a non literal interpretation of creation days:

That’s quite a list. Rather than address each one, I’ll address the ones that have the most value or of the most interest.

The words 'day' 'evening' 'morning' can be used figuratively in the bible.

Not when used with an ordinal number, not once.

'Day' is used three or four different ways in just the first two chapters of Genesis.

What does that substantiate? Lots of words are used different ways, that’s not the issue, the issue is how are they presented and what are they trying to tell us.

Moses told us in Psalm 90, immediately after looking at the creation and the fall that God's perspective of a day is very different to ours.

Psalm 90 tells us God isn’t constrained by time, if you wish to take that to mean He’s confused that’s up to you.

Peter repeats this in the NT, again in a discussion of God's timetable spanning the creation to the end of the world, and tell us 'do not forget this one thing'.

I find it fascinating how you will use this verse and Psalm 90 to justify a teaching entirely different than what the text actually says. To do this there would have to be contextual reasons for us to make such a wild change to the plain and simple text. No matter how hard you squeeze it they simply don’t exist.

From the early church, Christian writers have had difficulty with the idea of literal mornings and evenings before there was a sun in the firmament.

I’m not aware of the early church writers having difficulty with literal mornings and evenings before there was a sun, but if so it isn’t something easily understood because creation isn’t something any of us can truly grasp. That’s why He told us everything we needed to know and expects us to believe what He says; can you imagine that?

Genesis is a prophetic revelation from God of his creation rather than a history that comes from human witnesses, albeit inspired accounts of the history. Such prophetic revelations are often given in figurative language and use the word day non literally: 'the day of the Lord', 'the day of Vengeance'.

Figurative language doesn’t get specific with using numbers associated with days. I challenge you to show me one time that it does.

Instead of the Sabbath being a commemoration of the seventh day of creation, Paul say the Sabbath is a shadow of the reality to come but the substance belongs to Christ Col 2:17.

The Sabbath and creation week are unrelated except that the creation week was a model for us. The seventh day of creation wasn’t a Sabbath.

Adam means 'man' or 'mankind'.

In a few examples it does but not in the critical ones. Let’s turn to God’s Word and see what it has to say. These are but two of many passages that clearly demonstrate that Adam was a person and not a representation of man or mankind.
1 Corinthians 15:45

Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
​

Romans 5:14

Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
​

I couldn’t begin to make Adam ‘man’ or ‘mankind’ from those texts.

Gen 1:26 and 5:2 tell us Adam was actually God's name for the people he created rather than a single individual.

Neither verse refers to Adam, both refer to man in general, exactly as one would expect them to.

The completely different orders of creation in Genesis 1 (plants; birds; animals; man and woman) and Genesis 2 (man; plants; animals and birds; woman) tells us that one or both of the accounts are not meant as a literal history.

This is actually a good point. On the surface this could appear to be contradictory, thankfully there is a logical and easily understood answer. First of all, if this were a different creation why does it fail to address the heavens and the earth? Secondly, if you notice the type of plants and trees referred to in Genesis 2 are those that are of direct importance to Adam and Eve and not creation in general. So Genesis 2 is a more specific or detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve. Here’s a link that goes into much more detail concerning this supposed contradiction.

Allegory (or myth as some TEs like to describe it) was a common and well understood literary form from the earliest parts of the OT Gen 49:9-27, Judges 9:8-15. Note as well how the people telling these allegories would simply launch into them without any labels or any indication they were not speaking literally.

Allegory still is a common and well understood literary form. The problem is trying to make something allegorical when it clearly isn’t.

You do not apply Cooper's rule to the geocentrist passages, if you did you would be a geocentrist, but that contradicts your knowledge of science. But the only contradiction is with science. There is no paradox or contradiction with in scripture that even suggest taking the Geocentrist passages at anything other than face value.

All of my interpretations of the teachings of God come from the Bible and not science. Science never trumps God’s Word, it only plays a role where God hasn’t already authoritatively spoken. The sun and it’s relationship to the earth is one area where this is so.

We should reinterpret scripture if our interpretation is contradicted by science.

Therein lies the crux of our entirely disparate worldviews.

 

[laptoppop]

Great post, Vossler. I would interject a couple of points. In the creation week - the seventh day was not a literal Sabbath, but it was an example of one. God rested -- God does not need to rest, He was giving an example. While I believe that Christians are not bound to keep the Sabbath - spending quality relaxing time with family and God is a great thing.

In the very last part - you hit on a key point. Which is more authoritative? The revelation of a loving omnipotent God, or the theories of Man? If, as in this case, the physical evidence can easily be interpreted as matching the revelatory accounts, then why in the world would we not accept it?

 

[shernren]

I completely missed this post, thinking it hadn't been made. Isn't it annoying when the page turns over right after you make a reply?

I thought I’ve made that point by now, it's when conjecture and speculation are made to look like facts. If you just tell it like it is, presto, problem solved.

But what conjecture, and what speculation? Are these scientific conjectures and speculations? I am, again, not asking what you think is wrong in evolution. I am asking which bits of it are not scientific. For example:

The same bit I keep coming back to, man initially coming out of the soup and becoming...

But that bit of it is obviously scientific. Whether it is right or wrong, evolutionists claim that ultimately they will have scientific evidence to support such a view of life (not man's origins, mind you, nobody is claiming that a full-grown man climbed out of a vat of organic chemistry) origins, while creationists claim that they already have scientific evidence opposing such a view of life origins.

Whether such an origin for life is right or wrong, it is a scientific picture, and it can be either supported or disproved by science. Where are the bits of evolution that can't (note, not haven't, can't) be supported or disproved by scientific evidence? That's what I'm asking for. You see, it is precisely spiritual claims that cannot be supported or disproved by scientific evidence, but has to be settled by other means, namely by appeal to divine revelation.

It is only natural to state that the Bible only claims authority over things which man cannot learn about outside the Bible. The question is, what is there in evolution whose plausibility cannot be determined scientifically? It can only be in any such area that evolution conflicts with the Bible, because in any other area the Christian would acknowledge that science is a sufficient method of constructing knowledge.

I can't think of a single chapter in the Bible I either interpret only literally or only metaphorically, as far as I know all have multiple ways of being interpreted.

And yet you obviously interpret Psalm 139:13 and Job 36:32 "only metaphorically". So do you interpret the rest of those chapters in the same way that you interpret those verses in isolation?

 

[laptoppop]

The interesting thing is that we cannot "prove" history like we can repeatable observations or events or reactions, etc. Given that there are two competing explanations, shouldn't we prefer the one that lines up with the revelation of an omnipotent loving God? I do not believe that YEC is less probable given the evidence -- but even if you do, unless it is DISproven - it is the preferable explanation.

 

[gluadys]

In the very last part - you hit on a key point. Which is more authoritative? The revelation of a loving omnipotent God, or the theories of Man? If, as in this case, the physical evidence can easily be interpreted as matching the revelatory accounts, then why in the world would we not accept it?

This is the false dichotomy creationists always rely on. It is easily shown to be a false dichotomy by reversing the terms.

Which is more authoritative? The creative work of God's hands or the fallible hermeneutics of Man? If, as in this case, the scripture can easily be interpreted as matching the actual creative works of God, then why in the world would we not accept it?


The key question here is not whether God's revelation or man's interpretation is more authoritative. Obviously it is God's revelation.

But which of God's revelations is more authoritative: scripture or creation?

Which of man's interpretations is more fallible: that of creation or that of scripture?

 

[theFijian]

Which is more authoritative? The revelation of a loving omnipotent God, or the theories of Man?

This kind of reasoning is as stupid and as over-simplistic as Dawkin's 'Who made God?' argument.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Nature is the revelation of God is it not? But your theology, is that also a divine revelation? Are you willing to elevate your human theories on the bible to the same status as scripture? In principle, no. In practice, yes.

 

[Assyrian]

This is an improper question. As the Holy Scripture is not written for just one, one group, or one level of people, different person would have different understanding to the same verse. While it is appropriate to let the Holy Spirite to guide a personal understanding, but when the person is trying to express it by speech or by document, there would be different versions of "explanation" depends on who is presenting. To use the last definition of a word in the explanation could be just as adequate as to use the first definition of the word. That is one reason different preacher could make different sermon on the same verse.

Unfortunately I have heard a lot of bad exegesis from preachers misreading a verse and going for a run with it. But God word is living and active and the Spirit of God can speak to people through things the passage does into actually say. So can their own imaginations for that matter. But we must not lose sight of what the verse actually says. It does not mean 20 different things and nothing. If it can mean 20 different things them none of them has any authority, because if one reading causes problems it can be dumped for a less troublesome interpretation.

How do you give an answer when people say references to homosexuality in the epistles are talking about temple prostitution not stable faithful relationships? They are playing the same word games.

The problem is other people would listen to or read your interpretation. Then there will be agreement of disagreement.

So, to the meaning of "day", a 24-hr is one version of literal interpretation, and one cycle of light-dark would be another versionof interpretation. It depends on who is reading the verse and how would the person understand the verse. But the variation "should" be limited by the meaning of "literal interpretation". Any version of non-literal interpretation would be inappropriate.

Why do you limit your choice to just the literal meanings? That is a very artificial limit. There is a range of meanings of the word 'day', in scripture, literal and non literal. We even find the word day being used non literally in the first two chapters of Genesis. It is there in Gen 2:4, where the whole work of creation is described as occurring in a day. While in Gen 2:17 in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die, either the words 'day' or 'die' are not literal and the traditional interpretation has been to tie it in with the non literal day in God's sight of Psalm 90.

 

[Assyrian]

No, I’m saying they are ‘left over’ from a time when people said what they saw. Isn’t funny how this ‘left over’ can’t seem to be put to rest and thrown out like all of life’s other ‘left overs’ when they start to stink up the place?

So did they believe what they saw?

This is obviously an important issue for you and so I’ll give you the last word, this issue truly has absolutely no importance for me.

That can't be true because you still have David Cooper's quote as you sig. Is it really of 'absolutely no importance' to you that his advice falls apart in the one area where you do understand the science?

The one thing I can’t seem to understand is this obsession of sorts with TEs continually looking for ways to prove the Bible wrong or make it teach things that is doesn’t. It’s not just geocentrism, it’s a flat earth, size of a mustard seed, six days, etc. Sometimes you guys sound a lot more like atheists than Christians.

Yet the only place where it matters, YECs have the exact same interpretation of Genesis as the atheists.

Yes I follow that meta rule and it serves me quite well but it implies that one always should know the context before anchoring down on an interpretation. It is precisely because of the context that it works with those passages with which you are having difficultly with.

So far you have shown nothing from the context to justify abandonment of the plain meaning. There was certainly nothing in the context that suggested to anybody before the time of Copernicus that these passages anything but the plain straightforward statements they appear to be.

Yes I do demand exegetical proof that days are non literal given that all exegetical and logical reasoning would lead one to believe that’s exactly what they are, literal days. Whereas the rule doesn’t demand the same from the passages you cite, it’s not even close.

The rule says David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."
The rule doesn't talk about there being arguments for a literal interpretation. It doesn't say if there are exegetical arguments for a literal interpretation then they trump exegetical arguments for a non literal unless the the arguments of a non literal interpretation constitute exegetical proof. It talks about the plain meaning making common sense. It does with the geocentrist passage, unless you add modern scientific understanding to making common sense. But then you would have to apply that to Genesis too.

But I have looked at the 'exegetical and logical reasoning' YEC sites use to argue the Genesis days have to be literal. All I have ever found is bad exegetical 'rules' contradicted by scripture and flawed logic.

I have the same problem trying to understand how you can come up with the idea that six days really isn’t six days. Given that we both see each others position and the facts are pretty much known, let’s just leave it at that because we’re both pretty entrenched and I don’t see either of us gaining much from this exercise. Do you?

You are a man of integrity, though obviously deeply committed to defending YEC. I think the double standard of insisting on a literal Genesis while reinterpreting the geocentrist passages to accommodate science, is going to be too much for someone who has such a deep love and respect for the word of God.

And there are the lurkers. They need to see which arguments hold up against scripture and science.

The thing is I’ve never seen an argument for geocentrism that would, even without our present knowledge, cause me to hold firm to it based solely on Scripture. I would hold onto it based upon my own observations and that those observations were not contradicted by the Bible. Evolution can’t say that. So yes there is motivation from outside Scripture to believe in a heliocentric solar system, especially given that Scripture itself doesn’t directly speak to it.

Ignoring the passages that talk of the sun hurrying around to the place it rises... Luther called Copernicus a fool because he contradicted what was so plainly written in scripture, Joshua commanded the sun to stop.

There isn’t a single biblical source of support for evolution. Not one!

Do you have any to support heliocentrism?

Neither do you, so what? However, there is plenty of support for creationism.

A different issue, you argument was that there is no support for evolution in scripture, which clearly isn't an issue when you can reinterpret geocentrist passages with no scriptural support for heliocentrism.

Your 'plenty of support for creationism' is founded on a literal interpretation of the days and a literal interpretation of Adam being made out of clay. As I have shown there is abundant biblical reasons, 25 different points on my list, for interpreting these passages non literally.

That’s quite a list. Rather than address each one, I’ll address the ones that have the most value or of the most interest.

Understandable, it is a long list. But I should point out that even the least of these brethern is more reason than you have for reinterpreting the geocentrist passages.

The words 'day' 'evening' 'morning' can be used figuratively in the bible.

Not when used with an ordinal number, not once.

Hosea 6:2 After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. The Rabbis have interpreted this as three exiles, or three temple periods. Clearly they didn't see a problem with day being used with an ordinal number. Neither did Jesus, Luke 13:32 And he said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. I would prefer to take what he says over some YEC expositor trying to prove a point.

'Day' is used three or four different ways in just the first two chapters of Genesis.

What does that substantiate? Lots of words are used different ways, that’s not the issue, the issue is how are they presented and what are they trying to tell us.

It tells us how day is used in the context, and the flexibility of its meaning. It contradicts the YEC claims that the bible is going out of its way to specify a literal day.

Psalm 90 tells us God isn’t constrained by time, if you wish to take that to mean He’s confused that’s up to you.

No, we are the one who end up confused if we ignore what the bible tells us about the language God uses. Psalm 90 doesn't just tell us God isn't constrained by time, it gives us God's perspective on time. We really need to listen to that if we are to understand what God says to us, especially when the bible is full of phrases like the Day of the Lord which aren't literal days.

Peter repeats this in the NT, again in a discussion of God's timetable spanning the creation to the end of the world, and tell us 'do not forget this one thing'.

I find it fascinating how you will use this verse and Psalm 90 to justify a teaching entirely different than what the text actually says. To do this there would have to be contextual reasons for us to make such a wild change to the plain and simple text. No matter how hard you squeeze it they simply don’t exist.

The context is people puzzled by God's timetable and why Jesus did not come back when they thought he should. Peter goes and discusses the span of history from the creation to the end of the world, drawing in Moses statement about God's days, paraphrasing it 2Pet 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. He even end up discussing another of God's non literal days, the day of the Lord.

YECs make the same mistake as the people Peter is criticising. They try to tie God down to a human understanding of his timetable. Peter's answer takes Moses' statement, which was give in the context of the creation in Psalm 90 and applies it the endtimes, but Peter's context includes the creation too. The application to creation is as well established in the context as its application to the 'day' of the Lord.

I’m not aware of the early church writers having difficulty with literal mornings and evenings before there was a sun, but if so it isn’t something easily understood because creation isn’t something any of us can truly grasp. That’s why He told us everything we needed to know and expects us to believe what He says; can you imagine that?

Well if you are saying the creation isn't something we can easily understand I full agree with you. That is very different from claiming the passage is so plain and simple its meaning is obvious. But God expects us to try understand too, not just to treat our misunderstandings of a difficult passage as if they were 'gospel truth'. You will find the non literal mornings in Origen, Augustine and Aquinas.

 

[Assyrian]

Figurative language doesn’t get specific with using numbers associated with days. I challenge you to show me one time that it does.

There's Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11 & 31:17, Ezek 4:1-6, Hosea 6:1, Luke 13:32, Hebrews 3&4. Anyway if 'day' can be used figuratively there is absolutely no reason it can't be used with a number.

The Sabbath and creation week are unrelated except that the creation week was a model for us. The seventh day of creation wasn’t a Sabbath.

Obviously you don't take the account literally. Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
Exodus 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because was the day he rested on. That is why Jews were to observe the Sabbath, because God declared that day holy. Now Jesus did not take this literally, but it is important to know what the literal meaning is so we can realise it is the literal meaning we are not taking, well, literally.

Adam means 'man' or 'mankind'.

In a few examples it does but not in the critical ones. Let’s turn to God’s Word and see what it has to say. These are but two of many passages that clearly demonstrate that Adam was a person and not a representation of man or mankind.








1 Corinthians 15:45

Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. ​

Romans 5:14

Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.​

I couldn’t begin to make Adam ‘man’ or ‘mankind’ from those texts.

Interesting that you quote the verse which tells us Paul is interpreting Adam figuratively. I wouldn't try to convince you there wasn't a literal Adam, though it is an enjoyable discussion. What is really important for our discussion here is your realisation that there is a lot of figurative language in the creation of Adam, which raises the question of how God made Adam. Is it being described literally or figuratively? As I said, being made of dust or clay, and God being a potter, is a common metaphorical theme in scripture.

Neither verse refers to Adam, both refer to man in general, exactly as one would expect them to.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make Adam in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion...
Gen 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

The completely different orders of creation in Genesis 1 (plants; birds; animals; man and woman) and Genesis 2 (man; plants; animals and birds; woman) tells us that one or both of the accounts are not meant as a literal history.

This is actually a good point.

Thank you

On the surface this could appear to be contradictory, thankfully there is a logical and easily understood answer. First of all, if this were a different creation why does it fail to address the heavens and the earth?

It depend on which creation account the second half of Gen 2:4 belongs to in the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens. I don't know the answer to that one. But creation accounts are not exhaustive they don't cover everything. Gen 1 does not mention seaweed or mushrooms. Prov 8 says nothing about God creating plants fish or animals.

Secondly, if you notice the type of plants and trees referred to in Genesis 2 are those that are of direct importance to Adam and Eve and not creation in general.

Even though Gen 1:29 is quote by YECs as giving an exhaustive description of Adam's diet?

So Genesis 2 is a more specific or detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve. Here’s a link that goes into much more detail concerning this supposed contradiction.

Yeah I have seen the link before, I wasn't impressed. The creation account is really a beautiful simple story whose plain meaning is straightforward and clear. It should not need to be twisted into knots to make it fit chapter 1.

Allegory still is a common and well understood literary form. The problem is trying to make something allegorical when it clearly isn’t.

Well the talking snake was really Satan wasn't it? It doesn't say so in the story. Eve chats to a snake and it is the snake God punishes for deceiving her. That is allegory.

All of my interpretations of the teachings of God come from the Bible and not science. Science never trumps God’s Word, it only plays a role where God hasn’t already authoritatively spoken. The sun and it’s relationship to the earth is one area where this is so.

Yet you decide the descriptions of the sun moving around the earth aren't authoritative because you know the science. Of course you are allowing science to trump a literal plain meaning of God's word.

We should reinterpret scripture if our interpretation is contradicted by science.

Therein lies the crux of our entirely disparate worldviews.

I acknowledge it is the right thing to do because the world science studies is the world God created and cannot contradict a proper understanding of scripture.

You on the other hand you pretend, or convince yourself, you don't do that with the geocentrist passages, and then go to insist we should never do it with any other scripture either.