7-Day Creation- Figurative or Literal?

[SkyWriting]

So for me, asses the evidence and then make up your mind. Personally, I would go for the third option - and I am prepared to show the evidence which led me to this conclusion if anyone is interested.

I'd read this as part of the decision making process:

 

[NailsII]

I'd read this as part of the decision making process:

Are you going to briefly summerise it or do I have to buy it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did God create the world in 7 literal days,

Six

... is Genesis figurative language?

No.

Is it how we each interpret Genesis?

Is what how we each interpret Genesis?

Is Genesis a narrative to the Israelites by Moses, so they would understand God?

Genesis is written to us, that me might have hope.

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

It's an awesome controversial topic!
Thoughts and Opinions! =)

Nice to meet you ... welcome to CF!

 

[Guy1]

Are you going to briefly summerise it or do I have to buy it?

He probably wants you to buy it. As I recall, he's the one with a thing for Amazon.

 

[Elendur]

You'll find that all words are symbols for ideas.
There are none that are not.

And that was relevant how?

 

[RickG]

Six

So says the Genesis account, not the evidence that God left us.

BTW, nice to see you back AV.

 

[SkyWriting]

Are you going to briefly summerise it or do I have to buy it?

Here ya go:

What makes the Bible so special?
Hasn’t the New Testament changed?
How can anyone believe the New Testament?
Was Mark the first Gospel?
Why should I believe your interpretation of the Bible?
Isn’t the Bible full of contradictions?
Did Moses write the first five books?
How could Moses have written the Book of Deuteronomy when it contains the account of his death?
Does archaeological evidence prove the Bible? How do archaeological discoveries relate to events in Scripture?
What are the Dead Sea Scrolls?
How many Isaiahs were there?
Existence of the Jewish people today is objective evidence that the Bible is true. Why?
Why do Christians appeal to fulfilled prophecy to prove the Bible is God’s word?
What is the Apocrypha? Why aren’t these books found in Protestant Bibles?
Why should I become a Christian? The worst hypocrites are in church.
How do you know God exists?
How can miracles be possible?
Why does a good God allow evil to exist?
Don’t all religions basically teach the same thing?
Where do dinosaurs fit into the biblical story?
What hope does Christianity offer the world?
Where did God come from?
How do you explain contradictions in the resurrection story?
What are some differences between Christianity & Eastern religions?
Is Christianity a crutch?
Where did Cain get his wife?
If Christianity is so great, why are there so few Christians?
Don’t Genesis 1 and 2 contain contradictory accounts of creation?
What about alternatives to Christianity – agnosticism, atheism & humanism?
Can Christianity be proved?
Did Jesus claim to be God? Even if He did make the claim, why should I believe?
What are the Origins of Islam?
What is the Trinity? Do Christians worship three gods?
Are there legitimate objections to the virgin birth?
Aren’t the genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke contradictory?
Don’t my good works count for anything?
What are the beliefs of Islam?
Doesn’t Mark disagree with the other 3 Gospels about Peter’s denial of Jesus?
Is Islam compatible with Christianity?
What about those who have never heard about Jesus?
Why is Jesus the only way to get to God?
Were the biblical miracles magic tricks which fooled the simple, primitive people?
Are the two accounts of the death of Judas contradictory?
What makes Christian conversion valid?
Does it really matter what I believe?
Don’t the Gospels give contradictory reports as to the time Christ was crucified?
Isn’t the Old Testament a God of hate and the New Testament a God of love?
How do I become a Christian?

Answers to Skeptic’s Questions

 

[SkyWriting]

And that was relevant how?

Regarding literal or not.

 

[BobRyan]

Did God create the world in 7 literal days, is Genesis figurative language? Is it how we each interpret Genesis? Is Genesis a narrative to the Israelites by Moses, so they would understand God?

It's an awesome controversial topic!
Thoughts and Opinions! =)

According to God's Word - the Bible- it was done in 7 real days - the same kind of real day with one "evening and morning" ending with the 7th day - Gen 2:1-3 blessed, sanctified and set apart. "Made for mankind" Mark 2:27

The same kind of real day as "Six days you shall labor and do all your work...for in six DAYs the Lord MADE" Ex 20:8-11. -- legal code.


[FONT=&quot]Exod 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
8 ""[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Remember [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Six days you[/FONT][FONT=&quot] shall labor and do all your work,
10 but [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the seventh day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in it[/FONT][FONT=&quot] you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11 "" [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For in six days[/FONT][FONT=&quot] the LORD [/FONT][FONT=&quot]made[/FONT][FONT=&quot] the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]rested on the seventh day[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; therefore the LORD [/FONT][FONT=&quot]blessed the Sabbath day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and made it holy.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Gen 2 (NASB)

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He [/FONT][FONT=&quot]rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
3 Then [/FONT][FONT=&quot]God blessed the seventh day and sanctified[/FONT][FONT=&quot] it, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]because [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.[/FONT]

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Is Genesis a narrative to the Israelites by Moses, so they would understand God?

It's an awesome controversial topic!
Thoughts and Opinions! =)

"No scripture is a matter of one person's interpretation - holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from GOD" 2Peter 1:20-21

"ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine" 2Tim 3:16.

 

[BobRyan]

That's right. Whatever the light was, it defined the mornings and evenings.
We usually call mornings and evenings as the light on and light off.
And we usually experience it gradually.

Morning and evening - the first day - dictate that the earth was rotating - and that on one side there was a light source.

That is pretty much it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[pinkmatter]

I'm not asking in order to make my own opinion or decision or anything, I'm just asking for different peoples opinions on the topic. It will so help me with an essay, too! So really the only question is "do you think God created the world in 7 literal days?"

Thanks =) This has been interesting so far =)

 

[mark kennedy]

Did God create the world in 7 literal days, is Genesis figurative language? Is it how we each interpret Genesis? Is Genesis a narrative to the Israelites by Moses, so they would understand God?

It's an awesome controversial topic!
Thoughts and Opinions! =)

Creationists cannot effectively argue their position. Creationists know what their position is but Darwinism has replaced 'God' with 'natural law', evolution as a scientific definition is blended with a metaphysical one and will never admit it. The devil does not offer you a bottle of poison, he poisons a steak and invites you to dinner:

Karl Popper famously regarded the theory of natural selection as a ‘metaphysical research program’ (Philosophy Now, Jul/Aug 2012)​

Science is terrible at metaphysics because science as it has come to be defined is inductive. Inductive reasoning takes a small subset of a group and uses it to make inferences of the whole set. This causes major problems when you go from very small things in Physics to very large things in Cosmology. The result is something like String Theory that attempt to resolve the seeming contradictions, in an attempt at a unified theory. Einstein was working on a unified theory of physics on his death bed and the Stephen Hawking, the Lucasian professor of mathematics in the University of Cambridge attempted a unified theory of physics, both failed.

Here is how I know that Darwinism is metaphysics, 'the substantive element that transcends all reality:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Change, actually a synonym for evolution, being the result of natural law and not miraculous interposition. The scientific (inductive) definition of evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Darwin and Darwinism adds the cause as natural law as opposed to miraculous interposition. That is transcendence in no uncertain terms, Popper was right but he was beat down so bad by the predominantly atheistic and agnostic world that he had to recant. It reminds me of Galileo having to recant after the inquisition except Galileo's position can be confirmed through a telescope. There is no telescope that can look into history.

Danial Dennet calls Darwinism 'universal acid' that eats through everything. That is a apt description for a transcendent principle that is contrary to common understanding. Most people infer some kind of a Creator or Designer for the universe in general and life in particular, that is always been understood in Western thought to be God. The Darwinian replaces that inference with 'natural law' as an a priori (without prior) natural assumption. That is why all the evidence points to evolution, the transcendence of the a priori assumption comes before the empirical evidence so when the evidence is examined it's all organized around their naturalistic assumptions, aka natural selection. God as cause of anything, going all the way back to the Big Bang is categorically rejected.

There is a reason evolutionists are so hostile to Creationism, it's the same reason that the Nicene Creed begins with a confession of Creation as a definition of Christian profession. The concepts, naturalism and creationism, are transcendent, in that, they transcend all the substantive elements that follow. Why do you think evolutionists never want to discuss the incarnation, resurrection, messianic prophecy or the internal, external and bibliographical tests of the credibility of Scripture?

They need not bother, by defining transcendence as naturalistic all reality is permeated with this one inference. In liberal theology they even change the meaning of the word God, to the 'god above god' (Paul Tillich), effectively putting their philosophy into theological terms rendering Christianity atheistic.

I'm going to order the book today, looking forward to reading it. I realize that the guys that wrote the book have no doubt made a fundamental insight into what Darwinism really is. The problem is that they will never get past that first verse of the Bible 'In the beginning God...', as a matter of fact they will never get through Genesis 1:1. They won't get past this because that word 'God' has been redefined as 'natural law' and any other meaning regarded as the cause is considered foolish.

This is not a lament of despair, I'm proud of Creationists for not wasting time arguing against this a priori assumption evolutionists will never admit. These people know full well that there is a God, who created the heavens and the earth and they suppressed that truth in unrighteousness:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)​

My thought is there is a Christians only origins section of this site under theology where only Christians can post. There's even an entire forum where only creationists can post.

Atheists are allowed to post here. We don't believe in God, and think Genesis to be fiction.

Even in Origins Theology they don't stay long, they get a little tired of being talked to like they are fools. I don't really have a problem with evolutionists, especially atheistic materialists, who honestly admit that they don't believe in God so God is not even a possible explanation. It's the ones who pretend that they made that determination based on real world science that make these debates such a waste of time.

The Origins Theology forum is better moderated so the endless insults are simply no allowed. Maybe you could have a conversation with a creationist once in a while if you had the patience to ask them what they believe and why.

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW, nice to see you back AV.

Thank you, sir!

 

[RickG]

"ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine" 2Tim 3:16.

Two things to consider from that verse:

1. "Used for doctrine" does not necessarily translate into literal factual history.
2. Who decided what was and what was not scripture? Biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Biblical canon took centuries to reconcile and is still debated.

 

[mark kennedy]

Two things to consider from that verse:

1. "Used for doctrine" does not necessarily translate into literal factual history.
2. Who decided what was and what was not scripture?

Christi and the Apostles.

Biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Biblical canon took centuries to reconcile and is still debated.

What you have failed to realize, apart from the internal, external and bibliographical testing, is the Scriptures have been in the custody of the cultures that produced them their entire history. That is exactly what one would expect from a collection of books that testify to God's sovereign interaction throughout human history.

Have a nice day

 

[RickG]

Christi and the Apostles.

Biblical canon was debated for centuries after the death of Christ. Also, doctrine does not translate into factual history.

What you have failed to realize, apart from the internal, external and bibliographical testing, is the Scriptures have been in the custody of the cultures that produced them their entire history. That is exactly what one would expect from a collection of books that testify to God's sovereign interaction throughout human history.

Have a nice day

I understand, but surely you do recognize there are numerous "scriptures" that are not included in the bible, or some in some Christian denomination but not in others.

 

[Elendur]

Regarding literal or not.

The conversation so far:

Since the time of a day is defined with the help of the sun I think it's kind of ridiculous to think that the genesis would be taken literal.

Edit: Also see post #2.

Actually, it's defined by light and dark.
And you remember the moon is considered "a light" in the sky.
The "Sun" could have been indicated as the source of the light
but it wasn't. Jesus is also considered "The Light" of the world.

So the light and the dark are indicated as the sun, but not required.
Other lights could have been used in a pinch.

Ah, even better. So the fact that all was darkness should've made it even worse since there never would have been a second day, nor a first.

That's right. Whatever the light was, it defined the mornings and evenings.
We usually call mornings and evenings as the light on and light off.
And we usually experience it gradually.

And thus the genesis can't be literal.

You'll find that all words are symbols for ideas.
There are none that are not.

And that was relevant how?

I found a funny lingual problem, in Swedish "day" means both "dag" (the standard where the sun is up) and "dygn" (where it refers to the time between 00:00 and 24:00).

I fail to see the relevance to your post #20 because no matter the definition of day you use the light (/sun) is used in the definition of both. Also that it seems like an obvious statement without connection, could you explain what you meant?

 

[Dieselman]

Actually, it's defined by light and dark.
And you remember the moon is considered "a light" in the sky.
The "Sun" could have been indicated as the source of the light
but it wasn't. Jesus is also considered "The Light" of the world.

So the light and the dark are indicated as the sun, but not required.
Other lights could have been used in a pinch.

Remember, the sun, moon and stars were created on day four. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; meaning that it was in a gaseous state; and darkness was on the face of the deep. There was no light, only darkness. And God said "Let there be light," and then there was a source of light. He divided the light from the darkness, meaning that the earth solidified and was able to shade the side facing away from the light. The evening and the morning were the first day, which means the planet was in rotation. It doesn't specify the rate of speed, but given that the planet is slowing it was probably slightly less than a 24 hour day. Regardless, however long the days were the nights were the same length of time. There is no reason to believe that a day was much other than it is now; one rotation of the planet.

On day four from the single source of light, all of the universe formed. This is consistent with "Big Bang" theory, though that's more likely because cosmologists have not better explanation. The sun, being the closest source of light, now determined day and night. However, the planet was still in rotation so regardless of the source and location of light a day would still be a day.

 

[BobRyan]

The devil does not offer you a bottle of poison, he poisons a steak and invites you to dinner:

That is pretty good!!

Thanks for sharing that.

in Christ,

Bob