Today at 11:39 PM Zadok001 said this in Post #40
FoC:
I'm still not seeing the objective critera I've asked for. I'd like to request again that you give us a functional method for distinguishing implied metaphor and literal sections.
Also, please note that I'm not a Bible scholar. As a result, any claims you make about the Bible are going to need to be pretty specific for me to follow your argument. Additionally, when I make the claim that Genesis is not necessarily literal, note that I'm not saying Genesis must be either A) Entirely literal OR B) Entirely figurative. It is reasonable to assume that different verses may be one or the other.
In this case, I take exception to your claim that since Genesis 1:5 seems to describe a literal day, Genesis must be literal. Certainly, under any version of creation, there must be a 'first day.' Hence, God must have literally created and experience that 'first day.' This does NOT mean the rest of Genesis is literal, as you seem to want to imply.
And I'm still not asking you to repeat ANYTHING. What I'd like you to do is VERY simple. You have two options.
1. Claim that you are using objective and universal critera for determining whether a given section of the Bible is literal or figurative. If this is your claim, please provide us with this critera.
2. Claim/admit that you are using 'common sense' to determine whether a given section of the Bible is literal or figurative. (Your statements so far, given such words and phrases such as "obviously" and "f you can look at that verse and honestly tell me that you see no literal day there..." seem to imply that you are indeed invoking the use of common sense.) If this is the case, I'd like to point out that historic 'literal' interpretations also used 'common sense' to define which verses are literal and which are figurative - And they concluded the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Therefore, and I wish I had a smiley for three dots in a triangle, if you are invoking common sense to say that Genesis is literal, YOU COULD VERY WELL BE WRONG! (And indeed, past examples of this seem to show that you likely are.)
Before I dropped ToE, I had not really ''studied'' the OT much.
I read it casually and really didnt see a whole lot of immediate importance for reading it.
I would like to add here that my christian friends who are still evolutionists have never gotten serious about the OT either.
Every Christian that I know that has changed their view of ToE, will confirm it was their fervent study of the OT and Genesis in particular that caused them to give it up.
We all went through the standard High School indoctrination into Toe and really didnt think much about ever changing our views.
The big factors in a literal Genesis is the wording.
I have presented it before and do not feel like typing it out again.
Since AIG added an article which repeats most of what i have studied, I am just posting it.
Sorry, buts its almost midnight and I dont feel like typing it out myself.
As I said, this is basically the same info I have.
My findings were much more extensive than this, but for a short article it does very well in its explanation.
(copied from AIGs website) also, I am not interested in the argurement that AIG in pseudoscience.
This information is exactly what I have found from other soures, and I am glad they decided to include it on their site.
Meaning of yôm
When Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word yôm for 'day'. He combined yôm with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24hour day2,3. There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yôm in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long.
Let us now consider what other words God could have used, if He had wanted to convey a much longer period of time than 24 hours.
Some Hebrew time words
There are several Hebrew words which refer to a long period of time 4. These include qedem which is the main oneword term for 'ancient' and is sometimes translated 'of old'; olam means 'everlasting' or 'eternity' and is translated 'perpetual', 'of old' or 'for ever'; dor means 'a revolution of time' or 'an age' and is sometimes translated 'generations'; tamid means 'continually' or 'for ever'; ad means 'unlimited time' or 'for ever'; orek when used with yôm is translated 'length of days'; shanah means 'a year' or 'a revolution of time' (from the change of seasons); netsach means 'for ever'. Words for a shorter time span include eth (a general term for time); and moed, meaning 'seasons' or 'festivals'. Let us consider how some of these could have been used.
1. Event of long ago
If God had wanted to tell us that the creation events took place a long time in the past, there were several ways He could have said it:
yamim (plural of yôm) alone or with 'evening and morning', would have meant 'and it was days of evening and morning'. This would have been the simplest way, and could have signified many days and so the possibility of a vast age.
qedem by itself or with 'days' would have meant 'and it was from days of old'.
olam with 'days' would also have meant 'and it was from days of old'.
So if God had intended to communicate an ancient creation to us, there were at least three constructions He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these.
2. A continuing event from long ago
If God had wanted to tell us that creation started in the past but continued into the future, meaning that creation took place by some sort of theistic evolution, there were several ways He could have said it:
dor used either alone or with 'days', 'days' and 'nights', or 'evening and morning', could have signified 'and it was generations of days and nights'. This would have been the best word to indicate evolution's alleged aeons, if this had been meant.
olam with the preposition le, plus 'days' or 'evening and morning' could have signified 'perpetual'; another construction le olam va-ed means 'to the age and onward' and is translated 'for ever and ever' in Exodus 15:18.
tamid with 'days', 'days' and 'nights', or 'evening' and 'morning', could have signified 'and it was the continuation of days'.
ad used either alone or with olam could have signified 'and it was for ever'.
shanah (year) could have been used figuratively for 'a long time', especially in the plural.
yôm rab literally means 'a long day' (cf. 'long season' in Joshua 24:7, or 'long time' in the New American Standard Bible). This construction could well have been used by God if He had meant us to understand that the 'days' were long periods of time.
Thus, if God had wanted us to believe that he used a longdrawnout creative process, there were several words He could have used to tell us this. However, God chose not to use any of these.
3. Ambiguous time
If God had wanted to say that creation took place in the past, while giving no real indication of how long the process took, there were ways He could have done it:
yôm combined with 'light' and 'darkness', would have signified 'and it was a day of light and darkness'. This could be ambiguous because of the symbolic use of 'light' and 'darkness' elsewhere in the Old Testament. However, yôm with 'evening and morning', especially with a number preceding it, can never be ambiguous.
eth ('time') combined with 'day' and 'night' as in Jeremiah 33:20 and Zechariah 14:7 could have been ambiguous. Likewise eth combined with 'light' and 'darkness' (a theoretical construction). If any of these forms had been used, the length of the 'days' of creation would have been widely open for debate. However, God chose not to use any of these.
Authors Intention
The following considerations show us what God intended us to understand:
1. The meaning of any part of the Bible must be decided in terms of the intention of the author. In the case of Genesis, the intention of its author clearly was to write a historical account. This is shown by the way in which the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul regarded Genesisthat is, they quoted it as being truth, not symbolic myth or parable5, 6. It was plainly not the author's intention to convey allegorical poetry, fantasy, or myth. And so what God, through Moses, said about creation in Genesis should not be interpreted in these terms.
Moses did, in fact, use some of the above 'longtime' words (italicized in the examples below, with root Hebrew words in square brackets), although not with reference to the days of creation. For example, in Genesis 1:14, he wrote, 'Let there be lights ... for seasons [ moed]'; in Genesis 6:3, 'My spirit shall not always [olam] strive with man'; in Genesis 9:12 'for perpetual generations [olam dor]'; in Leviticus 24:2, 'to burn continually [tamid]'; in Numbers 24:20 'that he perish for ever [ad]'; in Deuteronomy 30:20, 'He is thy light and the length of thy days' [yôm orek]'; in Deuteronomy 32:7, 'Remember the days of old [yôm olam]'; and so on.
Why did God not use any of these words with reference to the creation days, seeing that He used them to describe other things? Clearly it was His intention that the creation days should be regarded as being normal earth-rotation days, and it was not His intention that any longer timeframes should be inferred.
Professor James Barr, professor of Hebrew at Oxford University agrees that the words used in Genesis 1 refer to 'a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience', and he says that he knows of no professor of Hebrew at any leading university who would say otherwise7.
2. Children have no problem in understanding the meaning of Genesis. The only reason why other ideas are entertained is because people apply concepts from outside the Bible, principally from evolutionary/atheistic sources, to interpret the Bible.
3. The Bible is God's message to mankind and as such it makes authoritative statements about reality. If one removes any portion of the Bible from the realm of reality, God may still be communicating truth to us, but the reader can never be sure that he understands it as the author intended. Furthermore, if God's communication to us is outside our realm of reality, then we cannot know whether any account in the Bible means what the words actually say or whether it means something entirely different, beyond our understanding. For example, if we apply this criterion to the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, perhaps the words could mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead physically, but in a way beyond our comprehension. When these sorts of wordgames are played with the Bible, the Bible loses its authority, we lose the divine perspective on reality, and Christianity loses its lifechanging power8.
4. If the 'days' really weren't ordinary days, then God could be open to the charge of having seriously misled His people for thousands of years. Commentators universally understood Genesis in a straightforward way, until attempts were made to harmonize the account with longs ages and then evolution.
