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

BobRyan · Oct 15, 2019

SkyWriting said:
A "day" is the function of the earth spinning and the light from the sun hitting only one side. Since there were no people most of the "week" and God was not standing on the equator, then "day" in Genesis has no ties to 24 hours.

Because "the earth does not spin if only God is there to see it"??

Seriously??

SkyWriting said:
There were not even humans around to give a 24 hour day perspective.

Because God cannot show or tell a human what happened in the past if the human was not already there to see it in the past in the first place?

You are being serious?

And God was not standing on the earth providing a day/night perspective either.
So there is no 24 hour connection.

Because God cannot tell that the planet He made rotates every 24 hours unless he stands right here to see it.??

Plus the words used in scripture (bara) do not suggest anything quick.

The "words in scripture"... "legal code" --

"Six days you shall labor.. for in six days the Lord made.." Ex 20:11

BTW: That was from the OP.

So is this

BobRyan said:
A literal day is, at the very least, a twenty four hour period in which the earth rotates on its axis is the time for day and night cycles to complete but to have that rotation viewed from the surface of the earth as composed of day and night we need a single-side light source... which of course some assume God would not know how to provide without the sun in place.

Let's be honest and admit that for case of those tossing out the historic reliability of the Genesis account, one has to make some massive unproven speculative assertions in the above.

1. They must "assume" God only has the capacity to know of 'one source of light' and so failing to create the sun first he is simply "mistaken" in his recollection of what He did. That is not a logical position .. as if the only source of light known to God is a fusion reaction 93 million miles from Earth.

2.They must "assume" that the rotation of the planet (no matter if it is day or night) cannot possibly happen (or cannot possibly be 24 hours ) IF the light source God uses is anything other than the sun created on day 4. The imagination that the "observer" at the surface of Earth would not "notice" day or night during that single rotation IF the light was anything other than "fusion reactions 93 million miles away" demonstrates a paucity in logic that is difficult to take seriously. "AS IF" the rotation of the planet had not even started 6000 years ago. That is not logical

3. They then place their own unproven assertions in the steps outlined above - and make those assumptions "the infallible rule" / foundation from which to reject the entire historic account of Genesis 1-2:3 as being "literal".

Christ is Lord · Oct 15, 2019

BobRyan said:
Sadly for that - we already know what a 7 day week is and that takes almost no science at all.

We already know that "science" can't create life on Earth
We already know that "science" can't create the incarnation of the Son of God
We already know that "science" can't cause the resurrection or ascension of Christ into heaven.

Shall we "deny ALL the Bible" any time "Science can't do that"??

Was that idea "ever a thing" in Christianity over the centuries?

Is God's Word not recording "historic fact" any time our own understanding of "science" can't do what God says He can do?

How has that logic ever been employed in the past?

Of course it's not a science textbook. The Bible isn't trying to communicate to us scientific knowledge. Why? Because the Biblical author's audience is primitive when compared to our understanding of the world. Example, the seat of our emotions is not your heart or liver. The seat of your emotion (the thing that controls it, is our brains). Did ancient people know that? Of course they didn't.

Something can be an unscientific claim but still true. For example, when a kid asks their parents, "where did I come from, who made me?". The parents don't have to explain to them the nature of sex, however, when they tell the child that God made them (which is unscientific) but it's true. Because God is ultimately the creator of all life. Sometimes I wished the book of Genesis just started with, "And God made the world". That's enough for me, and would make debates (which are ultimately useless) about the age of the earth and whether or not creation is 7 literal days. At the end of the day, regardless of what position you want to die on, one thing remains true, God is still ultimately the creator of the universe.

Christ is Lord · Oct 15, 2019

BobRyan said:
Was that idea "ever a thing" in Christianity over the centuries?

Early Christians didn't debate the science of the Bible to the extent we do today. Modern science is a relatively new field, Christians living in the 1200s are almost on the same scientific level of understanding as the Apostles. However, as we go down into the early modern period we see the church starting to fight science. Look at Galileo, the reason why the church was against him was because they saw the Bible as a science textbook and his discoveries we creating a problem for them.

BobRyan · Oct 15, 2019

klutedavid said:
You are confused.

Professor James Barr was not an atheist.

His Bible denying was at a stellar level and he admits that he and his fellow atheists at all world class universities - experts in the field of Hebrew language and OT texts - knew full well that the text of Genesis is not the munged version that some Christians like to imagine it to be - but rather it declared a real 7 day week and a real world wide flood. You have seen this quote from him.

I assume that your affirmation of his Christianity will now lead you to accept his statement that the text of Genesis is in fact a historic account of a real 7 day week -- Bible texts that he claims "are not to be believed" but never-the-less are what they are.

You avoid that point already made in my previous post.

What inspires that response?

Professor James Barr simply pointed out that he believes in a literal translation of the text.

Atheist professors of Hebrew and OT studies don't "Believe in" they state the fact of what the Language dictates and the OT context dictates. Moses was not "an evolutionist" and Barr knows it. So also do all of his atheist peers.

the point remains.

Christ is Lord · Oct 15, 2019

BobRyan said:
We already know that "science" can't create the incarnation of the Son of God
We already know that "science" can't cause the resurrection or ascension of Christ into heaven.

These are supernatural events and therefore, by nature isn't something that can be explained by science. Doesn't mean they aren't true.

BobRyan · Oct 15, 2019

Christ is Lord said:
Early Christians didn't debate the science of the Bible

Indeed they were not even remotely "evolutionists" - and No one ever said that historic events recorded in the Bible "did not happen if an atheist cannot reproduce the event in the lab".

The resurrection of Christ is historic fact even though "atheists cannot reproduce it in the lab"
The incarnation of the Son of God 2000 years ago is "historic fact" even though "atheists cannot reproduce it in the lab"
The 7 day creation week reported in the Bible is of the form "six days you shall labor ... for in six days the LORD made..." Ex 20:11 -- even though "atheists cannot reproduce it in the lab"

This is common ground that we can all agree with.

BobRyan · Oct 15, 2019

Christ is Lord said:
These are supernatural events and therefore, by nature isn't something that can be explained by science. Doesn't mean they aren't true.

Agreed. God says "HE made" all life on Earth in 7 days "Six days you shall labor...for in six days the LORD made" Ex 20:11

That is as supernatural as it gets and in that case God is setting the timeline not merely "unscientific man living in the a pre-scientific age coming up with the best ideas they can speculate at the time"

BobRyan · Oct 15, 2019

Christ is Lord said:
Of course it's not a science textbook. The Bible isn't trying to communicate to us scientific knowledge.

Historic fact is what it conveys.

We don't say "hey the incarnation of God the Son is not historic fact unless God also tells us how to do it in the lab".

That was never "a thing" for determining historic fact when it comes to the act of God.

And "six days you shall labor...for in six days the lord made" Ex 20:11 is a direct appeal to historic fact without telling us "how we can do that in the lab".

Christ is Lord · Oct 15, 2019

I ultimately don't care what you believe, regarding creation, whether it is seven literal days or an undetermined amount of time. My problem is when we take these beliefs use them to prop up our various beliefs (e.g. the Sabbath).

BobRyan · Oct 15, 2019

When the Bible says "six days you shall labor ... for in six days the Lord made" Ex 20:11
And
" 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 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." Gen 2

Some respond with "that timeline God repeats in legal code is the most untrue thing of all that was said in Genesis".

But thankfully others will post this -

DamianWarS said:
The more I revisit the creation account I feel it is one of the most underrated and intensely mysterious passages in the bible .

But the idea that legal code is allegory in Ex 20:11 ... well that is pretty interesting speculation.

Christ is Lord · Oct 15, 2019

BobRyan said:
Historic fact is what it conveys.

We don't say "hey the incarnation of God the Son is not historic fact unless God also tells us how to do it in the lab".

That was never "a thing" for determining historic fact when it comes to the act of God.

And "six days you shall labor...for in six days the lord made" Ex 20:11 is a direct appeal to historic fact without telling us "how we can do that in the lab".

Not everything that appears as a recording of history is indeed historical fact. For example, the generations given in Matthew 1, his purpose wasn't to be historically accurate, but I've seen people use that to try and make calculations based on the number of generations.

BobRyan · Oct 15, 2019

BobRyan said:
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

Christ is Lord said:
I ultimately don't care what you believe in in regards to creation, whether it is seven literal days or an undetermined amount of time. My problem is when we take these beliefs use them to prop up our various beliefs (e.g. the Sabbath).

So then God made this mistake in His summary of the Genesis creation account "six days you shall labor...for in six days the LORD made"?? Ex 20:11

It was fine for Him to insist in legal code that He made the world in a real 7 day week the same as that which existed at Sinai - but He stepped out of line when He tied that to "six days you shall labor"???

And what must then be even worse in that POV is that God went even further "out of bounds" when in the creation account itself He said -

" 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 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." Gen 2

These are the parts of the Bible that cause heart burn??

Christ is Lord · Oct 15, 2019

BobRyan said:
It was fine for Him to insist in legal code that He made the world in a real 7 day week the same as that which existed at Sinai - but He stepped out of line when He tied that to "six days you shall labor"???

You can take it as a polemic.

BobRyan · Oct 15, 2019

"six days you shall labor...for in six days the LORD made"?? Ex 20:11

" 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 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." Gen 2

And on the third day "Christ rose from the grave"
And of course we have the virgin birth and incarnation of the Son of God in the Gospels
And the resurrection of Christ in Luke 24

all of these - historic facts recorded in the Bible

Christ is Lord said:
Not everything that appears as a recording of history is indeed historical fact.

Certainly we both agree that atheists would argue that none of those Bible "historic facts" are in fact real historic fact.

That objection has been the case for many centuries.

Thankfully for the "timeline" we have "legal code" that is a form of writing which does not allow "law based on myth" to confirm the "time" detail that even James Barr admits is what the text is conveying to the reader.

In Barr's case he believes the text is corrupt and not to be trusted - but at least he admits the detail it is conveying and we have the added benefit that legal code confirms it.

Anguspure · Oct 15, 2019

fwGod said:
1Jn.1:5
"God is light and in Him is no darkness at all."

Gen.1:2
"Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep."

It was dark, but there was no darkness in God.

Gen.1:3
"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."

When God said "light be" is not when the sun was created.

Those who read the chapter, thinking in natural terms, mistake that the light came from the sun. But it came directly from God.

In the Revelation of John, it's said that in the Millennium there will be no night. The sun will not be the light of the world.
Rev.21:23
"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp."

Further to this if we consider that the Nebular hypothesis fails on angular momentum and the fact that one planet is counter rotating, and the consider the actual way the Sun and planets are moving in space:

We can come to the realisation that what Moses describes here is very likely to be correct.

BobRyan · Oct 15, 2019

BobRyan said:
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

Christ is Lord said:
I ultimately don't care what you believe in in regards to creation, whether it is seven literal days or an undetermined amount of time. My problem is when we take these beliefs use them to prop up our various beliefs (e.g. the Sabbath).

So then God made this mistake in His summary of the Genesis creation account "six days you shall labor...for in six days the LORD made"?? Ex 20:11

It was fine for Him to insist in legal code that He made the world in a real 7 day week the same as that which existed at Sinai - but He stepped out of line when He tied that to "six days you shall labor"???

And what must then be even worse in that POV is that God went even further "out of bounds" when in the creation account itself He said -

" 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 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." Gen 2

These are the parts of the Bible that cause heart burn??

Christ is Lord said:
You can take it as a polemic.

Legal code is a "polemic" -- against what??

Christ is Lord · Oct 15, 2019

BobRyan said:
Legal code is a "polemic" -- against what??

I meant the creation account (7-days) is a polemic. The legal code can link back to something that is ultimately a polemic.

Christ is Lord · Oct 15, 2019

BobRyan said:
Certainly we both agree that atheists would argue that none of those Bible "historic facts" are in fact real historic fact.

Well that's their problem. However, for us Christians that have a high view of scripture the Bible has historic fact in it but not all passages that appear to record history are historically accurate (Matthew 1). Those that discredit the Bible as a historic source are just biased because they have no problem in using other texts from ancient religions as reporting historical events and facts.

BobRyan · Oct 15, 2019

"all scripture is inspired by God AND to be used for teaching" 2 Tim 3:16

In legal code we have this spoken by God from Sinai "six days you shall labor...for in six days the LORD made" Ex 20:11

klutedavid said:
You may accept that man is infallible when writing the scripture, I don't. .

Many of my atheist friends also say the same thing - that the Bible is not a reliable text and like James Barr they can admit what it says - but they find the teaching in it to be corrupt and wrong.

Everyone has free will.. and can choose as they wish. I have no problem with that.

BobRyan · Oct 15, 2019

Christ is Lord said:
I meant the creation account (7-days) is a polemic. The legal code can link back to something that is ultimately a polemic.

If the Legal code of the TEN Commandments is merely God making an appeal to non-fact polemic then we have what many non Christians claim about the Bible - God Himself can't be trusted even His Law is not stating actual fact. "Six days you shall labor...for in six days the easter bunny?"

There is no legal code in scripture that is from God - that makes an appeal to myth to establish an imperative in law.

The Hebrew and OT scholars in all world class universities agree on this one point - the text is telling the reader to believe in a real 7 day week and that is not an example of the text "attacking" anyone or anything. It has to do with "the kind of writing that it is"

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

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Similar threads