7-Day Creation- Figurative or Literal?

KimberlyAA · Sep 7, 2012

The Lord Jesus Himself and the Gospel writers said that the Law was given by Moses (Mark 10:3; Luke 24:27; John 1:17), and the uniform tradition of the Jewish scribes and early Christian fathers, and the conclusion of conservative scholars to the present day, is that Genesis was written by Moses. This does not preclude the possibility that Moses had access to patriarchal records, preserved by being written on clay tablets and handed down from father to son via the line of AdamSethNoahShemAbrahamIsaacJacob, etc., as there are 11 verses in Genesis which read, These are the generations [Hebrew: toledoth = origins or by extension record of the origins] of .

Chapters 1250 of Genesis were very clearly written as authentic history, as they describe the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his 12 sons who were the ancestral heads of the 12 tribes of Israel. The Jewish people, from earliest biblical times to the present day, have always regarded this portion of Genesis as the true record of their nations history.

Chapters 1250 have always been regarded by the Jewish people as being the record of their own true history, and the style of writing contained in chapters 111 is not strikingly different from that in chapters 1250.

Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, 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 111 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) Noahs 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.http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally#f9

One of the main themes of Genesis is the Sovereignty of God. This is seen in Gods actions in respect of four outstanding events in Genesis 111 (Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the Babel dispersion), and His relationship to four outstanding people in Genesis 1250 (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph). There is thus a unifying theme to the whole of the book of Genesis, which falls to the ground if any part is mythical and not true history; on the other hand, each portion reinforces the historical authenticity of the other.http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally#f10

The principal people mentioned in Genesis chapters 111 are referred to as realhistorical, not mythicalpeople in the rest of the Bible, often many times. For example, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah are referred to in 15 other books of the Bible.

The Lord Jesus Christ referred to the Creation of Adam and Eve as a real historical event, by quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in His teaching about divorce (Matthew 19:36; Mark 10:29), and by referring to Noah as a real historical person and the Flood as a real historical event, in His teaching about the coming of the Son of man (Matthew 24:3739; Luke 17:2627).

Unless the first 11 chapters of Genesis are authentic historical events, the rest of the Bible is incomplete and incomprehensible as to its full meaning. The theme of the Bible is Redemption, and may be outlined thus:

i. Gods redeeming purpose is revealed in Genesis 111,
ii. Gods redeeming purpose progresses from Genesis 12 to Jude 25, and
iii. Gods redeeming purpose is consummated in Revelation 122.

Unless we know that the entrance of sin to the human race was a true historical fact, Gods purpose in providing a substitutionary atonement is a mystery. Conversely, the historical truth of Genesis 111 shows that all mankind has come under the righteous anger of God and needs salvation from the penalty, power, and presence of sin.

Unless the events of the first chapters of Genesis are true history, the Apostle Pauls explanation of the Gospel in Romans chapter 5 and of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 has no meaning. Paul writes: For as by one mans [Adams] disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one [Jesus] shall many be made righteous(Romans 5:19). And, For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit(1 Corinthians 15:2122; 45). The historical truth of the record concerning the first Adam is a guarantee that what God says in His Word about the last Adam [Jesus] is also true. Likewise, the historical, literal truth of the record concerning Jesus is a guarantee that what God says about the first Adam is also historically and literally true.

If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened.http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally#f1

BobRyan · Sep 7, 2012

KimberlyAA said:
Likewise, the historical, literal truth of the record concerning Jesus is a guarantee that what God says about the first Adam is also historically and literally true.

If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened.

Thanks.

Very good points.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Sep 7, 2012

Loudmouth said:
Scientists know that too, which is why they have never proposed that horses evolved from an amoeba.

It would be more helpful if you would not throw out that winding road when you describe evolution. You might as well claim that linguists have proposed that latin speakers all of the sudden started speaking french one day since they claim that french evolved from latin. What you would be ignoring is the intervening 2,000 years during which latin change quite a bit until you finally had french speakers.

We have many examples of transitional fossils along that road, but I would suspect that you will ignore these fossils, won't you.

Then do a google search for "transitional horse fossils". There are plenty out there.

I welcome the day that the fiction about amoebas (eukaryote single celled organisms) turning into horses after the mantra of billions-and-billions is said over the exploits up there on "mount improbable" - is not considered "mainstream science". You at first start off claiming that it is not main stream - so I guess we can all hope that such would one day be the case.

But then you defend it in your "French comes from Latin" argument "as if" we can determine that horses come from amoebas in fiction-life as easily as we can observe actual changes in language in real life.

I think I myself prefer the gross equivocation of direct observations in photosynthesis to the myths of evolutionism - that was tried earlier on this thread by another believer in evolutionism.

As for fossils used to prop up the story of "how one thing came from another"

[FONT=&quot]On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows: [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when [/FONT][FONT=&quot]they say there are no transitional fossils[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You say that[/FONT][FONT=&quot] I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that[/FONT][FONT=&quot]statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no [/FONT][FONT=&quot]there is no way of answering the question[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot] So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “[/FONT]

in Christ,

Bob

SkyWriting · Sep 8, 2012

Loudmouth said:
And that is why you should avoid the Expelled movie. It is nothing more than propoganda. If you want to present an honest argument then you should definitely distance yourself from that movie. At the very least, do some fact checking of your own.

I had film classes in jr.high, hs, and college. I see a LOT of films per year so the influence of any one movie is small. But I did learn a lot about emotional appeal and how to connect with your audience in emotional ways they may not be aware of or able to control.

For example, a person could create a film that enhances the idea of smoking cigarettes by making that person the most likable and approachable character and having the non-smokers be cold or unlikable.

Everyone sees these characters in film and they usually carry a Bible and pray a lot. They usually don't pray for their adversaries to be struck by lightning, but you get the picture. Christians in the media are usually the least compassionate people in a movie. This is mostly because the film & entertainment industry has little appeal to people focused on spiritual values over the values of qlitz & entertainment. Its also true that Christians don't spend as much on entertainment venues.

Portrayals as compassionate as Ned Flanders on the Simpsons are rare. Of course this is part of the secret to success of the Simpsons is not letting Ned beat people over the head with his Bible. Most portrayals are not nearly so balanced, though the Flanders are extreme and over the top on both ends.

I watched some of "Escape from New York" the other day and was amazed by the premise. "Sinners" are sent to a L.A. to reside, which is no longer part of the US, so no laws need be enforced there. You're on your own. But that's not 100% different than the prison system we have now.

BobRyan · Sep 8, 2012

SkyWriting said:
I watched some of "Escape from New York" the other day and was amazed by the premise. "Sinners" are sent to a L.A. to reside, which is no longer part of the US, so no laws need be enforced there. You're on your own. But that's not 100% different than the prison system we have now.

"No Law at all" is its own kind of prison -- as that points out.

in Christ,

Bob

SkyWriting · Sep 9, 2012

BobRyan said:
"No Law at all" is its own kind of prison -- as that points out.

in Christ,

Bob

That's exactly right! Nothing proceeds without structure and form. That's what Terrorists know. If you can't depend on structure and safety, all success is destroyed and crumbles. Even totalitarian governments succeed for a time based on hard rules. People adjust to the structure and depend on it. Then the US steps in and tears it down and leaves a vacuum for the suppressed radicals to fill.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 10, 2012

Bob, I'm sure you're familiar with the background to the quotes you are using from Patterson: Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

Unfortunately, I'm also sure that you'll carry on using them regardless.

RickG · Sep 10, 2012

BobRyan said:
I welcome the day that the fiction about amoebas (eukaryote single celled organisms) turning into horses after the mantra of billions-and-billions is said over the exploits up there on "mount improbable" - is not considered "mainstream science". You at first start off claiming that it is not main stream - so I guess we can all hope that such would one day be the case.

But then you defend it in your "French comes from Latin" argument "as if" we can determine that horses come from amoebas in fiction-life as easily as we can observe actual changes in language in real life.

I think I myself prefer the gross equivocation of direct observations in photosynthesis to the myths of evolutionism - that was tried earlier on this thread by another believer in evolutionism.

As for fossils used to prop up the story of "how one thing came from another"

[FONT=&quot]On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows: [/FONT]

in Christ,

Bob

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the Colin Patterson hype is a "quote mine". You do know what a quote mine is don't you? It is taking something someone said out of context and representing it to mean something entirely different from what the original quote stated. To put it kindly, and I do mean kindly, it is nothing short of deliberate dishonest misrepresentation. I hope you can come to terms with reality and understand that Colin Patterson did not go to his grave questioning evolution. He was a strong proponent of evolution to his dying day in 1998.

Metal Minister · Sep 10, 2012

RickG said:
How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the Colin Patterson hype is a "quote mine". You do know what a quote mine is don't you? It is taking something someone said out of context and representing it to mean something entirely different from what the original quote stated. To put it kindly, and I do mean kindly, it is nothing short of deliberate dishonest misrepresentation. I hope you can come to terms with reality and understand that Colin Patterson did not go to his grave questioning evolution. He was a strong proponent of evolution to his dying day in 1998.

I don't think the quote shows him questioning evolution, as much as he's questioning the abilities its been given by some in the scientific field. To be honest I've never seen the quote before now, so I can only go based on what I see here.

SkyWriting · Sep 10, 2012

Loudmouth said:
From the abstract:

"Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis."

They were indistinguishable from wild type mice in every assay they ran. The DNA they removed was disposable. It didn't affect fitness in any discernable way.

That's what I said. They were unable to discern the effects. That doesn't mean there weren't any. Many problems show with age, or later with offspring. Thousands of diseases and conditions only show up later in offspring. Just as bad, it may have just left them sensitive to a possible condition where they were unable to cope with a possible environmental stress like lack of food or water in their future.

Loudmouth · Sep 10, 2012

BobRyan said:
But then you defend it in your "French comes from Latin" argument "as if" we can determine that horses come from amoebas in fiction-life as easily as we can observe actual changes in language in real life.

Obviously, you missed the point I was trying to make. Perhaps you should reread the post.

Modern french did not come from Latin, just as the horse did not evolve from the amoeba.

As for fossils used to prop up the story of "how one thing came from another"

[FONT=&quot]On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

[/FONT]

It is dishonesty like this which evidences the failings of creationism. Thank you for doing our job for us.

Jamin4422 · Sep 10, 2012

KimberlyAA said:
it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened.

Did you copy this from somewhere? Because your suppose to give a link or credit to the person that wrote it.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 11, 2012

Jamin4422 said:
Did you copy this from somewhere? Because your suppose to give a link or credit to the person that wrote it.

Rare that I agree with Jamin, but there it is.

One thing - *you're supposed - all part of the service.

Googling phrases in Kimberley's copypasta shows it's something that's been copypasta'd around the web in multiple places. Plagiarism upon plagiarism.

BobRyan · Sep 11, 2012

Loudmouth said:
Scientists know that too, which is why they have never proposed that horses evolved from an amoeba.

It would be more helpful if you would not throw out that winding road when you describe evolution. You might as well claim that linguists have proposed that latin speakers all of the sudden started speaking french one day since they claim that french evolved from latin. What you would be ignoring is the intervening 2,000 years during which latin change quite a bit until you finally had french speakers.

We have many examples of transitional fossils along that road, but I would suspect that you will ignore these fossils, won't you.

Then do a google search for "transitional horse fossils". There are plenty out there.

I welcome the day that the fiction about amoebas (eukaryote single celled organisms) turning into horses after the mantra of billions-and-billions is said over the exploits up there on "mount improbable" - is not considered "mainstream science". You at first start off claiming that it is not main stream - so I guess we can all hope that such would one day be the case.

But then you defend it in your "French comes from Latin" argument "as if" we can determine that horses come from amoebas in fiction-life as easily as we can observe actual changes in language in real life.

I think I myself prefer the gross equivocation of direct observations in photosynthesis to the myths of evolutionism - that was tried earlier on this thread by another believer in evolutionism.

As for fossils used to prop up the story of "how one thing came from another"

[FONT=&quot]On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows: [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when [/FONT][FONT=&quot]they say there are no transitional fossils[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You say that[/FONT][FONT=&quot] I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that[/FONT][FONT=&quot]statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no [/FONT][FONT=&quot]there is no way of answering the question[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot] So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “[/FONT]

Loudmouth said:
Obviously, you missed the point I was trying to make. Perhaps you should reread the post.

Modern french did not come from Latin

Indeed. I missed how you proved that modern French did not come from German-Franks adaptation of Latin.

Please explain.

, just as the horse did not evolve from the amoeba.

Admitting that the horse did not evolve from simple single celled eukaryotes is a big step forward for evolutionists. I applaud anyone of them that can admit that.

As Asimov stated about the molecule to mind story of evolutionism, the story telling does go from very simple states to the most complex and it takes a massive decrease in entropy for that story to succeed.

in Christ,

Bob

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 11, 2012

I was correct. Bob continues to dishonestly use the Patterson quote to mean what Patterson never intended to convey.

Utterly disgraceful.

BobRyan · Sep 11, 2012

KimberlyAA said:
The Lord Jesus Himself and the Gospel writers said that the Law was given by Moses (Mark 10:3; Luke 24:27; John 1:17), and the uniform tradition of the Jewish scribes and early Christian fathers, and the conclusion of conservative scholars to the present day, is that Genesis was written by Moses. This does not preclude the possibility that Moses had access to patriarchal records, preserved by being written on clay tablets and handed down from father to son via the line of Adam–Seth–Noah–Shem–Abraham–Isaac–Jacob, etc., as there are 11 verses in Genesis which read, ‘These are the generations [Hebrew: toledoth = ‘origins’ or by extension ‘record of the origins’] of … .’

Chapters 12–50 of Genesis were very clearly written as authentic history, as they describe the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his 12 sons who were the ancestral heads of the 12 tribes of Israel. The Jewish people, from earliest biblical times to the present day, have always regarded this portion of Genesis as the true record of their nation’s history.

indeed - historic accounts - very hard to ignore.

Chapters 12–50 have always been regarded by the Jewish people as being the record of their own true history, and the style of writing contained in chapters 1–11 is not strikingly different from that in chapters 12–50.

Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, 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.’

Yes this is very evident. The wandering shepherds of Sinai would not have been so metaphoricaly Darwinist as to "read into the text" of Genesis 1:2-2:3 (or Exodus 20:11) some darwinist compatible storyline.

Darwin himself admits that he found no way to marry the Bible account of origins to his proposal for blind faith evolutionism.

Another point that is glaringly evident is that Exodus 20:11 is in legal code and so as Darwin points out - the room for bending-and-wrenching the Bible to fit the usages of evolutionism - just isn't there.

in Christ,

Bob

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Sep 11, 2012

The same could no doubt be said of Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, but the fact remains that it's almost entirely mythical. Many peoples have origin myths - either highly embroidered versions of their ancient history, pure mythologising, or most often a combination of the two - Rome dated itself to Romulus' founding of the city, and his legendary descent from Troy; the aforementioned Geoffrey of Monmouth collected a whole bunch of myths relating the Britons, similarly, to the Trojans. The Norse spoke of the creation of the earth itself from the body of Ymir, the Greeks of primal wars between the Titans and gods.

They have all been recorded in a manner that appears to be sober history, even though they contain fantastical elements within them, and often taken as so. Perhaps, indeed, those who codified and wrote them down after centuries of oral transmission took them to be so.

I see no reason to see the origin myths of the Israelites any differently, from a purely anthropological viewpoint. That these myths may be intertwined with divine revelation and therefore contain spiritual truth is a faith question and may well be so; from what I know of James Barr that might not be far from his position given that notwithstanding your quoting of him he is neither a creationist nor a fundamentalist of any hue.

Loudmouth · Sep 11, 2012

BobRyan said:
I welcome the day that the fiction about amoebas (eukaryote single celled organisms) turning into horses after the mantra of billions-and-billions is said over the exploits up there on "mount improbable" - is not considered "mainstream science". You at first start off claiming that it is not main stream - so I guess we can all hope that such would one day be the case.

Why do you continue with these misrepresentations and distortions? What do you hope to get out of it? Do you understand how this makes christians look?

As for fossils used to prop up the story of "how one thing came from another"

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition." --Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

That is how fossils are used. That is how Patterson uses fossils to illustrate evolutionary transitions.

[FONT=&quot]

On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

[/FONT]

If you are willing to twist the words of Dr. Patterson to such a degree I can only assume that you are also willing to twist the words found in the Bible. Therefore, I have no reason to believe anything you have to say on the subject.

RareLight · Nov 4, 2012

You can still take the Bible literally without dismissing science. Old earth creationism can be easily understood with literal Genesis reading accepting some metaphor in the use of day to mean age.

Jamin4422 · Nov 4, 2012

Loudmouth said:
just as the horse did not evolve from the amoeba.

The land horse did not evolve from the sea horse?

7-Day Creation- Figurative or Literal?

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

The Librarian

Junior Member

The Librarian

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

New Year, Still Old School!

The Librarian

Contributor

Member

Senior Veteran

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

RareUniverse

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency