Is the Bible reliable?

[MKJ]

Simply in that Enlightenment thinkers still had a fairly difficult time explaining the origins of complex life and thought without a complex living and thinking deity.

I guess I don't really see this as something that evolution has really changed one way or the other in a meaningful way. But, it's always easy to take for granted things that have always been known to you as obvious.

I don't see the existence of complex creatures as harder to explain than the existence of a complex universe and increasing order more generally, and in the end even evolution still depends on the principles of physics, and ultimately being itself.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I guess I don't really see this as something that evolution has really changed one way or the other in a meaningful way. But, it's always easy to take for granted things that have always been known to you as obvious.

I don't see the existence of complex creatures as harder to explain than the existence of a complex universe and increasing order more generally, and in the end even evolution still depends on the principles of physics, and ultimately being itself.

True. Philosophically speaking, it doesn't really get us beyond deism. But then, one of the criticisms of Enlightenment deism was it's inability to account for life; deists had to come up with schemes that look strangely like young earth teachings on a "mature creation" with a special creation of humanity right from the beginning. Evolution, I think, allowed people to push the question of an Ultimate Creator/Necessary Being far, far back to the very beginning of the cosmos (which, I think, has allowed us to clarify the cosmological argument for the existence of God). But it also means that arguments for God are now fairly confined to the questions of philosophy of religion/natural theology, so they are at the very least easier to ignore.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not at all. Jesus said that Moses was writing the "Word of God" in Mark 7:6-13 -- and I believe Him.

The NT writers state clearly that the OT is to be accepted as scripture for NT saints - and Christ even says it is the "Word of God".

When in John 6 he says that He is the bread that CAME down out of heaven - when did he fall from heaven as bread -- in your thinking/

That's not my thinking. The Church has the authority to interpret Scripture, and has. You carry no such authority.

In Matt 16 Christ condemned the Disciples for taking too literally the statement "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" and the too-literal disciple "thought he was talking about bread" --

So what?

I was hoping to meet someone who may have been in orbit around the earth back then and could give us that bit of certainty. And now by your post --- apparently I have ... How old are you??

I guess you have no way of reading...We do, though have people who were in orbit on the earth back then, and they provide us with context to interpret Scripture authoritatively. Nice try, though.

Genesis 1 does not say "There were no Angels before the Sun was created" and it does not say "There was no source of light before the sun was created" as you seem to imagine.

By the same token, the Gospels do not say Mary had other children, and yet you believe she did. There's something wrong, somewhere. Thanks, I'll believe the Church that carries the weight of authority.

Rather it says that there WAS light before our sun.

I choose to believe the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

On the third day, God formed the land out of the seas. There is no time frame given for the formation of the land and seas. Some time after the land was formed, God created the plants:


Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:11)
And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:12)

The text clearly states that the earth "sprouted" the plants (the Hebrew word deshe, usually refers to grasses). The Hebrew word dasha, indicates that the plants grew from either seeds or small seedlings in order to have "sprouted." In addition, these plants produced seeds. The Hebrew word here is zera, which is most often translated "descendants." This makes matters very difficult for the 24-hour interpretation. Not only do the plants sprout and grow to maturity, but produce seed or descendants. There are no plants capable of doing this within a 24-hour period of time. Things actually get worse for this interpretation. Genesis 1:12 clearly states that God allowed the earth to bring forth trees that bore fruit. The process by which the earth brings forth trees to the point of bearing fruit takes several years, at minimum. God did not create the trees already bearing fruit. The text states clearly that He allowed the earth to accomplish the process of fruit bearing through natural means. Because the process of the third day requires a minimum period of time of more than 24 hours, the Genesis text for the third day clearly falsifies the interpretation that the days of Genesis one are 24-hour periods of time.

Day 6 is also a problem for the 24-hour interpretation. During this day, God planted a garden in Eden, and caused the garden to sprout and grow. Then God brought all the birds, cattle and wild animals to Adam to name. God put Adam to sleep, took a part of him and formed Eve (Genesis 2:21-22). Adam's response to Eve's creation was "at last," indicating that he thought the day was very long indeed.

Lastly, I'm sure you realize that the Catholic Church allows us to believe any interpretation (almost) that we want, as long as we get the point-that God created the universe. So, down off your high horse, mate.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Genesis is again the foundation, the literal.

How can one then speak of figurative days, lest there be literal days to begin with?

How can Jesus be symbolically called the Lamb of God, if there were not literal lambs, even from the foundation of the world, first?

John 6, Jesus Himself specifically says:

John 6:63 - It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jesus spake of his Words, thus teachings.

Jesus contrasted the literal manna, or bread, that fell from Heaven in the days of Moses, with Himself, the Spiritual Bread. The Words of God, is the Bread.

The Gospel of John is especially important to study carefully, since the major sections wherein Jesus is speaking, most often is understood, by the Jews thinking He is speaking literally/physically, when in fact He was speaking Spiritually.

Jesus speaks to the Pharisees in John 2, about destroying the Temple and its rebuilding. They misunderstood Jesus to be speaking about the physical temple in Jerusalem, yet Jesus spake of His spiritual body, being the spiritual Church.

Jesus speaks to Nicodemus in John 3 about being 'born again/from above' and Nicodemus, immediately misunderstands and replies with speech about a literal womb of a woman. Jesus corrects him.

And yet, in John 6, there was no attempt to correct anyone about some misunderstanding...

Jesus speaks to the woman at the well in John 4, about water, and she misunderstands Jesus to be speaking about physical water from a well, and Jesus was referring to the Spiritual Waters, even the Holy Spirit.

When Jesus was speaking fact, not metaphor, He always said "Amen, amen, I tell you...", which he did in John 6 quite a few times.

Jesus speaks to the peoples about the Bread that fell from Heaven in John 6, and they mistake Jesus to be speaking about physical bread to eat, even as the Disciples also later misunderstood again, yet Jesus clearly says that He Himself, with His Words, is the spiritual bread from Heaven, and not physical manna/bread as the days of Moses.

The bread that fell from heaven was the manna, Jesus came down from heaven, and, speaking <not> metaphorically, said in vs 53: Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

The problem is, Roman Catholicism is on the same side of the misunderstanding as those previous Pharisees and hard of heart, not willing nor desirous to understand.

the problem with you is, Jesus did not correct any misunderstanding, therefore, their understanding was correct, for once.

As for the latter part, Mary indeed had no further children, but she did have marital relations with Joseph, Scripturally speaking.

Evidence?

 

[BobRyan]

See, that's the problem with you folks. You think you know better than Jesus.

Not at all. Jesus said that Moses was writing the "Word of God" in Mark 7:6-13 -- and I believe Him.

The NT writers state clearly that the OT is to be accepted as scripture for NT saints - and Christ even says it is the "Word of God".

When in John 6 he says that He is the bread that CAME down out of heaven - when did he fall from heaven as bread -- in your thinking/

In Matt 16 Christ condemned the Disciples for taking too literally the statement "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" and the too-literal disciple "thought he was talking about bread" --

That's not my thinking. The Church has the authority to interpret Scripture, and has. You carry no such authority.
So what?

There was no one-sided light source,

I was hoping to meet someone who may have been in orbit around the earth back then and could give us that bit of certainty. And now by your post --- apparently I have ... How old are you??

Genesis 1 does not say "There were no Angels before the Sun was created" and it does not say "There was no source of light before the sun was created" as you seem to imagine.

Rather it says that there WAS light before our sun.

I choose to believe the Bible.

"The text" says that on day 1 -- (then before the Sun on day 4) "God created light.. and it also says there was evening and morning on day one -- which can only happen if that light source is one just one side of the earth rather than all around it at once - equal intensity - all sides.

obviously.


But then "so as to insert contradiction" you suggest that we imagine that the obvious way this happened be rejected outright so that "lingering contradiction" can be the result when you state

There was no one-sided light source,

I guess you have no way of reading...We do, though have people who were in orbit on the earth back then, and they provide us with context to interpret Scripture authoritatively.

Nice. I guess we know who to go to for self-conflicted views.

Nice try, though.
By the same token, the Gospels do not say Mary had other children

and neither do I.

, and yet you believe she did.

Here again you resort to making stuff up to make your argument.

I am not sure that method is as convincing as you may have at first assumed.

There's something wrong, somewhere.

I go along with that.

Thanks, I'll believe the Church that carries the weight of authority.

When you find it - let us know.

In the mean time the one true church of Christ's day that started by God at sinai - gets slammed in Mark 7;6-13 for "making stuff up"

On the third day, God formed the land out of the seas. There is no time frame given for the formation of the land and seas. Some time after the land was formed, God created the plants

Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:11)
And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:12)

And then comes the part you are anxious to omit???

12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

The text clearly states that the earth "sprouted" the plants (the Hebrew word deshe, usually refers to grasses). The Hebrew word dasha, indicates that the plants grew from either seeds or small seedlings in order to have "sprouted."

Need on the third day - they sprouted up rather than what --- hovering over the ground??

All of it done and then after that "Evening and morning were the third day".

OR where you thinking that the spouts sat there for a few million years in the dark waiting for the Sun to show up on eon-million-years-day-4??

In addition, these plants produced seeds. The Hebrew word here is zera, which is most often translated "descendants." This makes matters very difficult for the 24-hour interpretation.

Why?

God is "not quite that powerful"???

Not only do the plants sprout and grow to maturity, but produce seed or descendants.

Plants that produced seeds were sprouted on that day.

I think we all see the point.

There are no plants capable of doing this

There is no dirt capable of producing seeds.

What part of "Creation" and "Creator" and "God Made" is not allowed in your story??

within a 24-hour period of time. Things actually get worse for this interpretation.

That "interpretation" that you are using is the one that tries to marry naturalism to a divine act of fiat Creation.

We all knew that idea was doomed.

Genesis 1:12 clearly states that God allowed the earth to bring forth trees that bore fruit.

Not too surprising that trees that bear fruit - start out as sprouts.

Where is the surprise?

The process by which the earth brings forth trees to the point of bearing fruit takes several years, at minimum.

Evolutionists claim it takes billions of years for the barren earth to come up with a tree on its own. What do you mean by "several years"?

God did not create the trees already bearing fruit. The text states clearly that He allowed the earth to accomplish the process of fruit bearing through natural means.

No it does not -- you simply imagine the contradiction you need into the text.

Did you think that Adam was created as a zygote then slithered off into the forest waiting for 30 years to meet Eve?

How exactly do you marry your idea of pure naturalism to the text???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Root of Jesse]

And then comes the part you are anxious to omit???

12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

I didn't omit anything. You proved the point. God didn't just create the grasses, herbs, and trees. The EARTH brought them forth. Which takes...wait for it...TIME. Trees do not produce fruit and seed in one day. It does not say "God created the grass, etc." It says the EARTH brought them forth.

Need on the third day - they sprouted up rather than what --- hovering over the ground??

They sprouted as opposed to being BANG-THERE THEY ARE, God Created them. He created the earth, and the earth brought forth.

All of it done and then after that "Evening and morning were the third day".

Proving that a day was a figurative period of time.

OR where you thinking that the spouts sat there for a few million years in the dark waiting for the Sun to show up on eon-million-years-day-4??

I don't know. It doesn't say.

Why?

God is "not quite that powerful"???




Plants that produced seeds were sprouted on that day.

I think we all see the point.

Yes, WE do. Plants growing to produce seeds takes time. Trees growing to produce fruit takes time too. More than a day.

There is no dirt capable of producing seeds.

What part of "Creation" and "Creator" and "God Made" is not allowed in your story??

I have no doubt that everything since Creation is God-created. But the text says God created the Earth, and the Earth brought forth plants and trees.
Our disagreement has nothing to do with whether God did it. That would be heresy. Our disagreement is, simply, the time frame, which really doesn't matter.

That "interpretation" that you are using is the one that tries to marry naturalism to a divine act of fiat Creation.

We all knew that idea was doomed.




Not too surprising that trees that bear fruit - start out as sprouts.

Where is the surprise?

No surprise at all, especially with the fact that it doesn't happen in a day.

Evolutionists claim it takes billions of years for the barren earth to come up with a tree on its own. What do you mean by "several years"?

I don't speak for evolutionists. But I don't believe that your strict-literal interpretation has any weight, especially when you don't take other instances of what's said in the Scriptures as literally as you do this one.

No it does not -- you simply imagine the contradiction you need into the text.

Did you think that Adam was created as a zygote then slithered off into the forest waiting for 30 years to meet Eve?

No, the Bible says God created Adam. It does not say God created trees...

How exactly do you marry your idea of pure naturalism to the text???

in Christ,

Bob

I don't believe in pure naturalism (whatever that is!), I believe that Genesis 1-2 uses figurative language-quite a different thing.

 

[Astonishing Doctrine]

...I believe that Genesis 1-2 uses figurative language-quite a different thing.

Can you demonstrate where at, being specific, and at which point does the figurative start and end, or not end at all?

Then being figurative, can you show where in Scripture the literal is to be found of them, since the figurative, can only be based upon the literal.

For instance, John the Baptist stated, "Behold, the Lamb of God." pointing to Jesus Christ, but Christ Jesus is human, not animal. Therefore, we would know that John was using symbolic language, utilizing the literal creature, the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, in which God had made coats of skins for Adam and Eve.

Would you also suggest that the ages of the Patriarchs are also figurative?

Would you suggest that any in the 'geneological' portions are not real persons, but figurative of something else?

In other words, is Adam himself a real person, or mere figure?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Can you demonstrate where at, being specific, and at which point does the figurative start and end, or not end at all?

Genesis 1, days can be seen as figurative. I've demonstrated that.

Then being figurative, can you show where in Scripture the literal is to be found of them, since the figurative, can only be based upon the literal.

Does Daniel's use of "days" mean literal days?

For instance, John the Baptist stated, "Behold, the Lamb of God." pointing to Jesus Christ, but Christ Jesus is human, not animal. Therefore, we would know that John was using symbolic language, utilizing the literal creature, the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, in which God had made coats of skins for Adam and Eve.

Lamb of God is a title, and hearkens back to the Passover lamb.

Would you also suggest that the ages of the Patriarchs are also figurative?

I don't know. At least they had literal days!

Would you suggest that any in the 'geneological' portions are not real persons, but figurative of something else?

Nope.

In other words, is Adam himself a real person, or mere figure?

Real person. The Creation is a real event. The only thing we're debating is whether it's literal or figurative days. Creation: real. Adam and Eve: Real. Evolution: real, but not the way most of them, in probability all of them, (scientists) believe it. I don't believe humans evolved from other species, FWIW.

 

[Astonishing Doctrine]

Genesis 1, days can be seen as figurative. I've demonstrated that. ...

Where, I have not seen demonstration at all, mere postulation of an apriori without evidence? Sure.

 

[Astonishing Doctrine]

...Does Daniel's use of "days" mean literal days?...

And Daniel was basing the prophetic days upon what literal day, and where may it be found in Scripture?

 

[Astonishing Doctrine]

... Real person. ... Adam and Eve: Real. ...

So you believe that Adam is a real person, Created by God in the 6th Day, and that Eve, coming from the side of Adam, is the Mother of all living? and that all humanity comes from them, which came from the Hand of God?

Did Adam and Eve enter into the 7th Day?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Folks, you have to get something straight. By saying that Genesis uses figurative language, we're not saying that it's a legend, or a myth or a fable. It's not. The issue is that God put the events into mens' brains and it was written in a way that men could convey to people to understand. The concept that God is outside of time is hard to grasp, and day is a unit that people can grasp. The point is that God created the universe, not how long it took him, because God has no time.

I know there's people who believe that Genesis is a fable or something, but Catholics are not allowed to believe that and still remain faithful. We must believe in Creation, and we must believe Adam and Eve are real people.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So you believe that Adam is a real person, Created by God in the 6th Day, and that Eve, coming from the side of Adam, is the Mother of all living? and that all humanity comes from them, which came from the Hand of God?

Is this a real question? Yes.

Did Adam and Eve enter into the 7th Day?

What do you mean?

I don't know what you mean by "enter into". There was no seventh day law until the law of Moses, as far as I know.

 

[Astonishing Doctrine]

... I don't know. At least they had literal days! ...

In speaking of the ages of the Patriarchs, and the view you take from Genesis, how do you know to turn from what you view as figurative to then literal days for the ages of the Patriarchs. How do you determine where the switch is, and based upon what Scripturally?

Where did God define what a literal day is in Scripture, so that we may from there understand any later figurative uses?

Do you know of any authors which begin with a figurative example, not already having explained, or taking into account, the literal beforehand?

 

[Astonishing Doctrine]

... I don't know what you mean by "enter into". There was no seventh day law until the law of Moses, as far as I know.

You stated that Adam and Eve were created the 6th Day, however long you take that day to be.

The question, then, is asking whether or not you understand Adam and Eve, being created the 6th Day, to then have lived into the 7th Day, as Genesis 2:1-3 speaks of?

 

[Astonishing Doctrine]

Folks, you have to get something straight. By saying that Genesis uses figurative language, we're not saying that it's a legend, or a myth or a fable. It's not. The issue is that God put the events into mens' brains and it was written in a way that men could convey to people to understand. The concept that God is outside of time is hard to grasp, and day is a unit that people can grasp. The point is that God created the universe, not how long it took him, because God has no time.

I know there's people who believe that Genesis is a fable or something, but Catholics are not allowed to believe that and still remain faithful. We must believe in Creation, and we must believe Adam and Eve are real people.

We understand what you mean, but we are saying that by Scripture, and even Science, that it is wrong, an even incorrect position on both counts.

 

[Astonishing Doctrine]

A few questions for you Root of Jesse. Please think about this.

You presently understand the "days" of Genesis 1-2, to be 'figurative', yes?

You presently understand that those "day" could be generalized as 'periods of time', yes?

Can your 'figurative' times, in regards those days, be billions/millions/thousands of Years?

Can your 'figurative' times, in regards those days, be mere seconds to minutes long?

Can your 'figurative' times actually still be 7 literal days long?

So, what is being asked, is Why do you extend the 'figurative' in your understanding, to the extreme end of length, billions/millions/thousands of years, and not to mere seconds, or to actual standard length of time, iow, 24hr period of day? What are you basing the measurement of 'figurative' by? What criteria? What is at the "root" of it?

Why do you think, as you say the days are figurative, that God chose to use that 'figurative' language, instead of simply citing large numbers, as elsewhere in the same book of Genesis, ten thousands, thousands of thousands, or thousands of millions - Genesis 24:60, numberless as the stars, hundreds, fifties, &c?

Wherein did God define a literal day, week, month, year, that we may understand a later figurative use?

 

[BobRyan]

Folks, you have to get something straight. By saying that Genesis uses figurative language, we're not saying that it's a legend, or a myth or a fable.

No. You are simply "inventing" the idea that legal code is "figurative" not explicit "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made..."

You are simply "inventing" the idea that the Bible ever mentions "evening and morning were the nth day" as a figure of speech when we all know that there is not even one case of that in all of scripture.

And all of your insert/eisegesis/imagination/flights-of-fancy inserted into the text is the last thing that Moses or the newly freed egytian slaves at Sinai were at all likely to be engaged in.

Think about out - They would have had none of "your incentives" to do it, yet your story must imagine them doing it "anyway".

That is instructive for the unbiased objective reader.

None of your arguments against the 7 day timeline in the text come From the text.

How "instructive".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

What you omit is that all of this happened on the 3rd "evening and morning" - the "third day".

Third evening and morning -- Third day

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.


The text says that the plants themselves were brought forth. The text does not say that the earth merely "brought forth seeds" -- ( a trick that the evolutionists tell us -- takes them about a billion years to do)







4Th evening and morning - 4th day


14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


The 4th evening and morning. 4th day follows the 3rd day. But in your story many years "follow the 3rd evening and morning".

I didn't omit anything. You proved the point. God didn't just create the grasses, herbs, and trees. The EARTH brought them forth. Which takes...wait for it...TIME.

Indeed it takes a few billion years according to evolutionists to make a lifeless dead planet come up with plants.

God did it in a day.

I think we all can see that contrast. Moses is not writing the text for Darwin. He is not an evolutionist by any stretch - and neither were the newly freed egyptian slaves. what you would read into the text - simply is not in the text at all.

Trees do not produce fruit and seed in one day.

The lifeless earth does not "produce" a seed or a tree in one day according to evolutionists.

Our argument is that "God CAN" cause the flood, cause the earth to bring forth fully formed trees - etc.

It does not say "God created the grass, etc."

Actually that is exactly what it says

"Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made."

The evolutionist's point goes directly after the Creator's own claims about what "He made" what "He Created" during each single "evening and morning" -- as HE states it -

It says the EARTH brought them forth.

It says God supernaturally caused the Earth to do what it did. The Text does not say "And God waited 2 billion years for the dead lifeless earth to figure out some way to bring forth plants".

We call see that clearly.

They sprouted as opposed to being BANG-THERE THEY ARE, God Created them. He created the earth, and the earth brought forth.

So the munging wrench of the text should read "And God created the earth then let the lifeless dead earth have a few billion years to figure out how to bring forth plants".

Really? That is what the egyptian slaves were "reading into the text"??

Who seriously goes for that??

Yes, WE do. Plants growing to produce seeds takes time. Trees growing to produce fruit takes time too. More than a day.

Billions of years according to evolutionists.

I have no doubt that everything since Creation is God-created. But the text says God created the Earth, and the Earth brought forth plants and trees.

No it does not. It says that the earth brought forth all plants on the third evening and morning because on that third evening and morning
God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.


The text does NOT say - and a few billion years later the earth brought forth grass.


The text does not say "And God said let the earth bring forth plants and evening and morning were the third day -- then after a few billion years the earth brought forth plants".

Our disagreement has nothing to do with whether God did it. That would be heresy. Our disagreement is, simply, the time frame, which really doesn't matter.

The text says the time frame is 7 evening and mornings - 7 days.

And the newly freed egytian slaves were not inclined to "read into the text" many flights of fancy needed to satisfy a long-future-evolutionist-world-view.

We all know that to be true.

I don't speak for evolutionists. But I don't believe that your strict-literal interpretation has any weight,

until you read the text and see that the 7 day timeline is "in the text" not in "flights of fancy and imagination" and is summarized in legal code as "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made" Ex 20:8-11.

All flights of fancy come to a sudden halt as God summarizes the 7 day timeline of Gen 1:2-2:3 in pure legal code leaving no room for "imaginative insert".

Days or not figurative evening and morning, sun, moon, earth, plants etc are all real object and the timeline is "in the text" as 7 days.

Impossible to ignore.

Moses wrote it so that the newly freed Egyptian slaves would accept the historic account just as it was given.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

A perfect example of the much-to-be-ignored 7 day timeline that is given in the Bible account of our origins.

Gen 1

24 Then God said, &#8220;Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind&#8221;; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, &#8220;Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.&#8221; 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, &#8220;Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.&#8221;
29 And God said, &#8220;See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food&#8221;; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Gen 2
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens

Ex 20:8-11 "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX Days the Lord MADE ...."

Need even more help??

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.


=====================

And there is simply no way the newly free egyptian slaves were going to go through all the "flights of fancy" that some have inserted on this thread trying to wrench the text away from its stated 7 day timeline when they themselves would have to hold to it - on a weekly basis,.