Genesis 1 is to be taken literaly - it is the only logical option

[GodLovesCats]

When I first read the OP I was like "Well duh, every Christian believes in a literal seven day creation" then I read the first few pages of replies.

I'm like really? How can you call yourself a Christian and call the Bible the inerrant word of God (and several of them do because they're Protestants) and yet still not believe in the literal seven day creation of God?

Obviously because there was no such thing as a seven-day creation of God. Every Christian knows that.

1. God is the Creator, not the created.
2. The Bible says the Creation took 6 days.

Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all agree the Bible was inspired by God, but written by men. It is not like the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments. God told sinners what to write. So many Christians in fact do believe the Bible has errors. The word day is obviously one of them.

The apostles never commented on it but I'm 99.9% sure that they believed in the Genesis account so why shouldn't you?

Also, there is no reason to assume the apostles (or any other Bible characters) believed the Creation that Genesis 1 describes happened in 6 literal days. I am 99.99% sure you are making stuff up with that part. The reason we should not believe the fallacy of a six-day creation is scientific evidence all over the world.

 

[DamianWarS]

That only works if you have examples for legal code of the form "Six days you shall labor.. for in six days the Lord made.. but not really six days" Ex 20:11

As if "that makes no difference in the case of legal code" was ever "A thing" in all of scripture when it comes to "legal code"

a law doesn't need to be based on a literal event for it to be legally binding. "for in six days the Lord made..." is a reference to the creation account. It means the law is this way because it mirrors the creation account and this isn't an accident. The Hebrews wouldn't mirror any other creation account they only look to that which was revealed to them, and what is revealed to them is a 6 day creation and this is the framework the law is based on. the creation account is set up deliberately to build the law (as well as other things). None of this requires it to be literal. It's not a false foundation if the creation account is non-literal and the only reason why it isn't is because it's ordained by God. Anything called true by God is true anything called false by God is false, it doesn't actually matter what happened what matters is what God ordains.

Regardless if you accept this or not we cannot be so liberal with the adding details to the creation account to reconcile it (like making other luminaries on day 1) We shouldn't touch the details, leave them alone regardless what inconsistencies they have. Our need to "figure it out" only take away from this account, so stop figuring it out and leave the details alone.

That's fine to accept the creation account as literal and I don't really take issue with this but don't stop at the wooden literal words and miss the depth of the account. For example, the text tells us there was darkness first then God speaks light into the darkness. These are powerful metaphors speaking to God sending salvation over a world of darkness. You will note that a Jewish day starts at darkness and only later the light comes. Don't ignore the powerful meanings of this account, shelf the literalness because it's only a yes/no question and you have already answered it, accept it however you want, but do not cause this to stop looking at the account as greater.

That is not even the topic - in Acts 10 God is giving no law at all about eating rats. " all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth" - it is not an example of a rat-sandwich law as Peter explains three times in the book of Acts. It is about evangelism according to Peter and "calling no man unclean"

You can't have it both ways. Acts 10 tells us the dietary laws are not actually about food, they are about who God's spirit is released to. If true then the original law, when issued by Moses, is also not actually about food too (although the Israelites were bound by the letter of the law). The law doesn't magically change in Acts 10 instead it shows us that it was never about food.

The entire law foreshadows things like these, dietary laws and things that set apart the Jews represented God's special blessing upon the Jews but a time came when this blessing was released to all people who call upon his name. No matter what law you read it points to something greater and the law itself is only a shadow. Moral laws like don't steal or don't murder are no different and also point to something greater Jesus tells us that the heart of the law is not about just don't kill your brother, it is about loving your brother or rather than steal from your neighbour we instead should go out of our way to meet their needs, whatever they are.

 

[BobRyan]

a law doesn't need to be based on a literal event for it to be legally binding. "for in six days the Lord made..." is a reference to the creation account.

In fact most of the TEN - make no reference at all to any past event.. which also counts as not appealing to fiction to establish a point of law.

So either the law appeals to no event and is just an imperative or it is linked to a real past event. What you don't have is law that appeals to fiction as its foundation/basis.

"six days you shall labor...FOR IN six days the Lord made"

 

[BobRyan]

The whole thread is a rabbit trail.

I have done my best not to "force you to post".. what else could I do?

 

[BobRyan]

a law doesn't need to be based on a literal event for it to be legally binding. "for in six days the Lord made..." is a reference to the creation account. It means the law is this way because it mirrors the creation account and this isn't an accident. The Hebrews wouldn't mirror any other creation account they only look to that which was revealed to them, and what is revealed to them is a 6 day creation and this is the framework the law is based on. the creation account is set up deliberately to build the law (as well as other things).

all of that requires the timeline to be literal since it is "the timeline" that is the topic of the law in the case of Ex 20:8-11 it does not specify the order in law "First plants and then birds" for example. Rather the law specifically points to the timeline itself "six days you shall labor..for in six days the LORD made". Ex 20:11

Impossible to gloss over.

Anything called true by God is true anything called false by God is false, it doesn't actually matter what happened

It does not matter if His statement is true or not - if He says it is true - then it is true even though evolutionism is more correct to say He is wrong and the timeline is nothing like what He said??

That is where Barr's statement comes to mind.

 

[BobRyan]

the law itself points to something greater than it is. A perfect example is Peter's dream because it reveals the dietary laws actually weren't about food at all

That is not even the topic - in Acts 10 God is giving no law at all about eating rats. " all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth" - it is not an example of a rat-sandwich law as Peter explains three times in the book of Acts. It is about evangelism according to Peter and "calling no man unclean"

You can't have it both ways. Acts 10 tells us the dietary laws are not actually about food,

In Acts 10-15 that detail is explained 3 times and we are told 3 times the point raised in Acts 10 was "call no man unclean" and the symbolism used was the case of 'eating rats' .. the rat sandwich idea was to point out that what Peter called unclean is not unclean when it comes to gospel given to gentiles.

To munge that into "in the old testament God did not want the gospel to go to gentiles and that is what that law is about" breaks a lot of scripture both before the cross and after.

If true then the original law, when issued by Moses, is also not actually about food

Yes "if your idea is true". But if "the details" matter then Lev 11 not only specifies that certain animals are unclean but also that diseased meat is unclean. The notion that "none of that was really true" does not work at all "given the details". What is worse you would be turning it into "don't give the gospel to gentiles until eating rat sandwiches and diseased meat is ok for God's people to do"

You need to rethink that whole solution.

 

[solid_core]

Moses wrote that the Earth was created apart from the Sun.

Moses was an ancient man, not knowing that sun is a distant huge star, much bigger than whole the Earth. He thought that sun,moon and stars are just lights in firmanent.

Therefore, in his imagination, it was very feasible to think that earth was created first and then the lights "above it".

 

[DamianWarS]

In fact most of the TEN - make no reference at all to any past event.. which also counts as not appealing to fiction to establish a point of law.

So either the law appeals to no event and is just an imperative or it is linked to a real past event. What you don't have is law that appeals to fiction as its foundation/basis.

who said anything about fiction? you seem to have a hard time understanding that powerful truth can be contained in non-literal accounts.

all of that requires the timeline to be literal since it is "the timeline" that is the topic of the law in the case of Ex 20:8-11 it does not specify the order in law "First plants and then birds" for example. Rather the law specifically points to the timeline itself "six days you shall labor..for in six days the LORD made". Ex 20:11

Impossible to gloss over.

Ex 20:11 inherits the time line of the creation account. It does not demand the timeline to be literal it only demands that the timeline be ordained by God.

It does not matter if His statement is true or not - if He says it is true - then it is true even though evolutionism is more correct to say He is wrong and the timeline is nothing like what He said??

That is where Barr's statement comes to mind.

I'm not replacing the creation account with evolution or for that matter with any other theory. This isn't about me saying what really happens, it simply pointing out that the creation account reads like a non-literal account. What this help unlock is the creation account is far more powerful than a literal account. God had Ex 20:11 in mind in this account and it is set up like pins at a bowling alley, every detail in a specific order, he uses the creation account to create a framework for the law and to foreshadow his salvation and life upon all things. Eastern philosophy often will work this way, they are less interested in the actual story and more interested in the story that shows the most honour. Eastern culture is honour driven rather than fact-driven like western culture so details.

An example is the story of Washington cutting down the cherry tree. Washington cuts down the tree as a child, his Father questions him and he admits to cutting down the tree under the logic that he can't lie then young Washington is praised by his father for having such high morals. Americans use this account to show the value they place of truth above all things because folk-accounts like these show a rubric of a society

In Eastern culture, if young Washington is asked the same question he would be reprimanded for bringing shame upon himself and by extension, his father and entire family name and telling the truth wouldn't matter at all and would be discouraged since he did such a shameful thing. literal truth, in this case, is less important than honour, and this is the same for the creation account. The creation account is honor driven it is not driven by literal chronological details even though it is framed like this. The account uses the details to proclaim God's truth the best way and it doesn't matter if it actually happened or not. The literalness of the account is the most unimportant part of the account.

the irony in the Washington account is it too is just a fabrication and it never actually happened yet the values of honesty in American culture stand upon accounts like these and even though the account itself non-literal it doesn't make the value of honesty in the culture any less powerful. It remains just a powerful and the account is there to build the value, the fact that it didn't happen actually doesn't matter.

You may accept the creation account however you choose but don't stop at the shallow level of the literal words as the text is far deeper in meaning.

 

[DamianWarS]

Yes "if your idea is true". But if "the details" matter then Lev 11 not only specifies that certain animals are unclean but also that diseased meat is unclean. The notion that "none of that was really true" does not work at all "given the details". What is worse you would be turning it into "don't give the gospel to gentiles until eating rat sandwiches and diseased meat is ok for God's people to do"

You need to rethink that whole solution.

unclean/clean animals are about the Jews being set apart, you may choice whatever language you wish to represent this. Peter's dream reveals it's meaning and subsequent release to all people. The dream is actually not about food and it also reveals the law also is not about food (because they carry the same meaning). I didn't say the law wasn't true but the law itself points to something greater and what the dietary laws pointed to was revealed in Peter's dream. The law was a part of a system and in that system, the letter of the law was required, but the meaning of the law was always the same and this meaning was revealed in Peter's dream. We know what changed, it was the new covenant that Christ ushers in and with it the dietary laws are released, not because unclean meat is healthy and if you think that you have missed the entire point. They are released because of the release that happened to all nations and since they mirror each other they both are released.

This is the same with the entire law. It all means something much greater than the letter and if we only take the literal surface meaning we miss out on the rich deep meaning it offers. The creation account is the first of the law, as you have shown how Ex 20:11 is based on it, it is the first of it because it establishes Sabbath (but it does not enforce it). The Sabbath is God's rest and as Christ says himself "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest" what is this rest that Christ offers? It is the same rest written on the 10 commandments (because he was there when it was written) and it is the same rest on the 7th day (he was there too), in fact, rest means "sabbath" so Christ is saying "I will give you Sabbath". Christ offers God's rest and he can do this because it is his to give. His conditions to receive the rest are simply to "come to him" and this is the new 4th commandment.

You're looking at it the wrong way proping up a literal interpretation to enforce law and so are agenda-driven. Well, whatever formula you come up with doesn't matter because what you work for so hard to keep, Christ offers freely, his condition is only to "come to him"

 

[BobRyan]

unclean/clean animals are about the Jews being set apart,

So then the rule in Lev 11 about not eating diseased animals is "About the Jews set apart" and gentiles rejected??

And in Genesis 7 the clean vs unclean distinction is because Noah is a Jew?

It is unclear why you are pulling that highly speculative line of argument into the 7 day creation week in Genesis 1

 

[BobRyan]

a law doesn't need to be based on a literal event for it to be legally binding. "for in six days the Lord made..." is a reference to the creation account.

In fact most of the TEN - make no reference at all to any past event.. which also counts as not appealing to fiction to establish a point of law.

So either the law appeals to no event and is just an imperative or it is linked to a real past event. What you don't have is law that appeals to fiction as its foundation/basis.

"six days you shall labor...FOR IN six days the Lord made"

who said anything about fiction?

you said --

a law doesn't need to be based on a literal event for it to be legally binding

And then quote from Ex 20 "six days you shall labor ... FOR IN six days the Lord made"

As if to say that the LAW given in the language "for IN" could have the fact it appeals to be entirely not real at all. (Fiction is short for not literally real as used here)

you seem to have a hard time understanding that powerful truth can be contained in non-literal accounts.

That was not the point. That point is that you give no example at all where legal code is given in the form "Do this.. for I have done it that same way as an example for you here in this case" where the second part of that statement is totally not true.

In fact you argue that it does not matter whether the basis for the command as given in the command is actually true or not -- as if the Bible ever does that with legal code. Which you have failed to demonstrate so far.

 

[BobRyan]

Moses was an ancient man, not knowing that sun is a distant huge star, much bigger than whole the Earth. He thought that sun,moon and stars are just lights in firmanent.

Therefore, in his imagination, it was very feasible to think that earth was created first and then the lights "above it".

That illustrates one of the points in the OP... will add it.

"The only logical option" may be too strong a statement -- how about "the best logical option given all the texts".

2 primary positions that appear on this thread and the first one has two opposing views within it - they are all posted on this thread.

1. The Bible is clearly specifying real 24 hour days - 7 days for Creation week - Ex 20:11, Gen 2:1-3
1.A -- the Bible is reliable and accurate the topic of origins/creation and the timeline in real life
1.B -- the Bible is wrong. The bible writers were not qualified to speak accurately on the topic of origins/creation and the timeline in real life


2. The Bible appears to be stating a 7 day week but in fact Moses was a Darwinist and his readers were inclined to some form of evolutionism. They would have read his words as indicating long ages possibly billions of years.
2.A in that view then - those who see it as stating a real 7 day week are simply "reading it wrong", "interpreting it wrong".

.

you are posting the 1B option

 

[DamianWarS]

So then the rule in Lev 11 about not eating diseased animals is "About the Jews set apart" and gentiles rejected??

And in Genesis 7 the clean vs unclean distinction is because Noah is a Jew?

It is unclear why you are pulling that highly speculative line of argument into the 7 day creation week in Genesis 1

you're arguing semantics. the jews had a covenant and the dietary laws represented that covenant (and you know this), Noah had instruction for clean animals as well so it is clear he understood the terminology and this acts as a precursor to the law just like the creation account does with the Sabbath, even though Noah/Adam were not under the letter of the law in the same way.

you may use whatever language you wish to express this. Peter's dream at the very least reveals this so whatever the net result of Peter's dream is with regards to the meanings of unclean/clean is, the same meaning existed when Moses taught them and when Noah was given instruction regarding them and at the beginning of creation. Their meanings don't change over time even if Adam, Noah, Moses and Peter all had a different understanding of them the meanings and even the purpose was always the same we now have that revelation of what their meanings are.

 

[solid_core]

That illustrates one of the points in the OP... will add it.



you are posting the 1B option

Yes, you are right, ancient Hebrews were not qualified to talk about scientific issues, quite logically. There is no solid firmanent, we do not think in our kidneys, earth is not flat and Pi is not 3.

And they did not even want to be qualified. Mythology was the hyped style in their days which they liked and used. They were not interested in a boring scientific research.

 

[Anguspure]

Could God in your opinion tell the difference between 6 days and 4 billion years? If so then when God says "six days you shall labor...for in six days the LORD made" Ex 20:11 would he be aware that humans do not labor for 4 billion years and then rest? Would he also be aware that the language He is using in his own spoken statement in Ex 20:11 was conveying the idea that He did something in six days the same as people work six days -- the same unit of time? Would he be aware of that?

If you say you did something in an hour but in fact it took you 20 years would you be "overstating your case"??

Who is it that determines the truth about time? The observer from within the system or the Creator of time itself? If God says He took 6 days then He took 6 days.
God creates time and He makes it do anything He pleases. If He tells me that when He was carrying out the work that shows clear evidence of being 15 billion years old then it's up to me to discover the disparity in my perception, and not for me to call Him a liar.

If there was "evening and morning" for each of those days then plants would have how many100's of millions of years of darkness in your view? How fast do you think the earth was rotating at that time? Same as today?

You are quoting from an English translation. Make a study of erev and boker from the original meaning and you will find that solar days are very unlikely to have anything to do with it. It is more likely that the original meaning has to do with order coming from the chaos.

The earth would have needed "some light" besides the sun for three rotations of planet earth -- the day night sequence 3 times.

A couple of prophecies refer to the phenomenon of YHWH supplied light:

• It will be a unique day--a day known only to the LORD--with no distinction between day and night. When evening comes, there will be light. Zechariah 14
• There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. Revelation 22

I see no reason why this is not a suitable explanation for what God did before the Earth was brought into orbit around the Sun

 

[Anguspure]

Moses was an ancient man, not knowing that sun is a distant huge star, much bigger than whole the Earth. He thought that sun,moon and stars are just lights in firmanent.

Therefore, in his imagination, it was very feasible to think that earth was created first and then the lights "above it".

The Creator knew better and it is He who inspired Moses to write.

Further to this the nebular hypothesis doesn't work for the Solar system so perhaps in time this will be seen to be another case of inspired holy men waiting for the scientists at the top of the mountain.

 

[solid_core]

The Creator knew better and it is He who inspired Moses to write.

Further to this the nebular hypothesis doesn't work for the Solar system so perhaps in time this will be seen to be another case of inspired holy men waiting for the scientists at the top of the mountain.

Genesis is not dictated by God.

Its a monotheistic polemic with pagan mythologies of those days and it used the standard style of their day (mythology and symbolism), not our standard style (objective chronological description of events).

 

[Anguspure]

Genesis is not dictated by God.

Its a monotheistic polemic with pagan mythologies of those days and it used the standard style of their day (mythology), not our standard style.

I disagree, and as with most of this sort of literature it is the translators and readers who by putting their own understanding on the text fail to comprehend what is written.
There is definitely a reasoning behind the text that is less concerned with impressing the casual reader but it is not the fault of the Author that we don't understand his style.

 

[solid_core]

I disagree, and as with most of this sort of literature it is the translators and readers who by putting their own understanding on the text fail to comprehend what is written.
There is definitely a reasoning behind the text that is less concerned with impressing the casual reader but it is not the fault of the Author that we don't understand his style.

What do you disagree with? That the standard and favorite style of those days was mythology or what?

Why do you desire so much this ancient writing to be scientific?

 

[Anguspure]

Obviously because there was no such thing as a seven-day creation of God. Every Christian knows that.

1. God is the Creator, not the created.
2. The Bible says the Creation took 6 days.

Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all agree the Bible was inspired by God, but written by men. It is not like the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments. God told sinners what to write. So many Christians in fact do believe the Bible has errors. The word day is obviously one of them.


Also, there is no reason to assume the apostles (or any other Bible characters) believed the Creation that Genesis 1 describes happened in 6 literal days. I am 99.99% sure you are making stuff up with that part. The reason we should not believe the fallacy of a six-day creation is scientific evidence all over the world.

The scientific evidence supports Genesis 6 days of creation, if we look through the eyes of God. When we look through the eyes of the created being we see 15 billion years. Both time frames are true for the observer in each case.