7 Day creation- literal or figurative?

[jlmagee]

I could be wrong, but I tend to think that this “non-literal” view of Genesis 1, is a pretty new theory brought about by modern day science. I would doubt that the “non-literal” view was even considered as a possible theory among Christians before the days of Darwin.

Many modern day Christians have changed from “In the beginning God” to “In the beginning science” in order to attempt to make the two compatible, and to avoid being laughed at by the scoffers.

It is very easy to understand the early chapters of Genesis as a devotional framework for early Jews with no/limited access to scripture. Philo discusses possibilities other than literal interpretation.

The evidence is hard to ignore. God is not deceptive.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

Partaker wrote:


You are.



Then you clearly haven't read much from St. Augustine, Origen,

True, but then I have no desire to read such bile.

and other early Christians who wrote about a non-literal reading of Genesis. No early Christians wrote about questioning the morality of having slaves, but some did write about non-literal readings of Genesis.

Papias

According to a quote on Wikipedia, Augustine may have believed in a young earth

Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.

 

[Papias]

Partaker wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Then you clearly haven't read much from St. Augustine, Origen,

True, but then I have no desire to read such bile.


​

Wow, why such hatred for these early Christians? St. Augustine, for instance, is revered by Catholics and Protestants alike, even Luther himself was an Augustinian monk. As for other earth Christians, do you similarly consider any views of theirs that include allegorical readings of part of Genesis to be bile?

According to a quote on Wikipedia, Augustine may have believed in a young earth

Yes, St. Augustine believed that Genesis was best interpreted symbolically, and he came to the conclusion that the 6 days weren't literal days, but rather symbols of creative categories, so that all of creation had been created instantly. He then believed that 6,000 years had transpired since then. So we are both correct.

However, he also specifically says that current knowledge must be used, and if he were alive today it seems likely, based on this passage, that he would support theistic evolution:

Augustine writes:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

Papias

 

[good brother]

I take it as I read it. Of course I do the same for John 3:16-18 and Romans 10:9-15. I also believe Jesus physically walked on water, healed people, raised people from the dead, calmed a storm with a word, turned water instantaneously into wine, physically died and physically rose three days later.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is very easy to understand the early chapters of Genesis as a devotional framework for early Jews with no/limited access to scripture. Philo discusses possibilities other than literal interpretation.

The evidence is hard to ignore. God is not deceptive.

Bur we are sinners and sin is.

But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
Hebrews 3:13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called "Today," so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness.

 

[jacksonduluth]

The Bible seems to go to some lengths to explain that what is meant by 'day' is one period of light and one of dark. All the celebrations - Sabbath - that were based on this assumed the same.

 

[jacksonduluth]

If not literal days, it would seem God was trying to confuse us with Scripture?

 

[SkyWriting]

If not literal days, it would seem God was trying to confuse us with Scripture?

"Time" that we are familiar with causes rust, decay, and death. It would be illogical have such a thing "turned-on" at the same time you're busy Creating.

So "time" was not "turned on" during the Creation process.

Time began when Adam separated from God. Let's call it an "Anti-Gift."
Still, you're not that bright, or perhaps you'd have difficulty with the way God thinks things into existance, so God explains that it was a set of orderly days.

Close enough for a rebellious brat like mankind.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm after thoughts and opinions Gods 7-day creation. Did Moses right it as a narrative to the Israelites? Is Genesis all figurative language?

Thoughts and opinions on the controversial topic!

Some say that the 7 day creation week is myth and so also the incarnation, the virgin birth, the resurrection, the ascension of Christ...

I was hoping to find a few more Christians in the General Theology area that agreed with accepting the Bible as it is -- and not calling it myth.

For example.

Do you consider the virgin birth, incarnation of God the Son, the resurrection and ascension of Christ to be "fact" or nothing more than myth?

Some have argued for myth.

I am one who believes in the historicity of Bible history, Bible miracles, Bible events recorded in scripture.

NOTE: (Some argue that we may not include the 7 day creation week on GT when talking about acceptance of the Bible so please don't bring that up on this thread so it can remain...)

By contrast I don't mind saying that purgatory, the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, apostolic succession for the papacy - are all myths just as others would argue we should treat the Bible.

(Of course I do have one exception to that - and it is the apostolic succession of Judas in Acts 1 - that is historic fact.)

That is a thread where by far the more active posts are against the Bible Gospel accounts being anything other than myth.

If you have some other ideas please add a few lines to that thread.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Partaker wrote:

Wow, why such hatred for these early Christians? St. Augustine, for instance, is revered by Catholics and Protestants alike, even Luther himself was an Augustinian monk. As for other earth Christians, do you similarly consider any views of theirs that include allegorical readings of part of Genesis to be bile?



​

Yes, St. Augustine believed that Genesis was best interpreted symbolically, and he came to the conclusion that the 6 days weren't literal days, but rather symbols of creative categories, so that all of creation had been created instantly. He then believed that 6,000 years had transpired since then. So we are both correct.

However, he also specifically says that current knowledge must be used, and if he were alive today it seems likely, based on this passage, that he would support theistic evolution:

Augustine writes:


Papias

That was carefully worded to avoid the "inconvenient detail" that Augustine believed that it all happened in .... wait for it.... one day!! He thought 7 days were TOO long!

He was stuck on the fact that the Sun and Moon are made a day AFTER plants - so he decided that all of creation week happened instantaneously - in ONE day... hoping to get that day lag for Sun vs plants down to some small minute that would not matter.

Now notice that the "spin" above is to imagine that the INSTANTANEOUS creation idea Augustine was promoting is some odd never-heard-of-before "Evolution" friendly "eons" of billions of years of undefined gaps of time.

You have to wonder how that spin ever got put on Augustine's idea.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I'm after thoughts and opinions Gods 7-day creation. Did Moses right it as a narrative to the Israelites? Is Genesis all figurative language?

Thoughts and opinions on the controversial topic!

The idea that Genesis 1:2-2:3 or Gen 1-11 is intended by the author to be anything other than an accurate historic account is nonsense even by the standards of all the world-class universities on the planet today.

[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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; . . . 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. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
​

Those may not accept the historicity of the text - but they do not deny that the intent of the authors was to convey literal, actual history, a real 7 day week, a real world-wide flood.

Thus if the question is 'the kind of writing' then the answer is resoundingly - a literal 7 day week.

But whether one choose to put faith in the Bible account - is another matter.

I am a Christian who prefers to accept the Bible account of history.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So then where does that lead? once someone gets so cross-wise on the point that is seen clearly even by the "Hebrew Professors" of all world-class universities that they have to "imagine poetry and myth" where the text is trying to convey historic fact...

During our Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) program, about the third week in, we teach the catechumens and candidates (and any observers who come along without necessarily intending to become Catholics) that sacred scripture is to be read literarily (coining an adjective) but not literally. The difference we seek to instil in them is that literal reading which follows the words of the text without taking proper account of the kind of literature will mislead whenever the literature is anything other than a simple prose description. The moment the literary form becomes poetic, gospel, apocalyptic, moral-lesson story or any of a number of other forms common in sacred scripture a literal reading will not serve well.

And just how "far" can the text be "bent" when it is one of those "myth" categories listed above???

Yes, I think we are mostly on the same page here. Our Holy Church is clear that agreeing with the conclusion that humans evolved from earlier apes is OK,
...
I agree that it is certainly required to believe in Adam and Eve in some
sense. One of the most common Catholic positions I've heard is to see Adam and Eve as the first hominids in the ape to human transition to "cross the line" to being human,

How then does "Hominid crossing from ape to human" manage to "make a mistake" for which you and I must be born into a sinful world - doomed to the lake of fire -- and in need for God Himself to come and die in the place of that poor, ignorant just barely human ape-hominid?

What sort of mockery does that TE view make of the actual Bible?

any ideas?

Maybe Darwin had it right - about just how much of a mockery that makes of the Bible and all of Christianity.

 

[SkyWriting]

So then where does that lead? once someone gets so cross-wise on the point that is seen clearly even by the "Hebrew Professors" of all world-class universities that they have to "imagine poetry and myth" where the text is trying to convey historic fact...

Try to imagine you being in a university and them paying you money to teach.

You stand up and say "Don't interpret what you read. Just take it as History."

You can see why teachers, who must publish regularly to keep their jobs, have to come up with hair-brained schemes to write about rather than accept at face value.

 

[BobRyan]

In the example of my quote above - the Hebrew professors of all world-class universities are said to fully and openly accept the fact that the Gen 1-11 text is written as history not as poetry, symbolism, allegory, figure of speech etc.

They deny the historicity of the text - but they at least admit to the "kind of literature that it is".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[SkyWriting]

In the example of my quote above - the Hebrew professors of all world-class universities are said to fully and openly accept the fact that the Gen 1-11 text is written as history not as poetry, symbolism, allegory, figure of speech etc.

They deny the historicity of the text - but they at least admit to the "kind of literature that it is".

in Christ,

Bob

It's not they choose to. They take classes and are taught to find meaning that is not intended.
The education process is opposed to the idea divine origin and truth.
If it was historical, understandable, and accurate, why need a teacher?

 

[BobRyan]

in the case of Gen 1-11 they find the meaning in the text exactly as it is written.


a literal 7 day week for creation and a literal world wide flood

 

[Johnnz]

The idea that Genesis 1:2-2:3 or Gen 1-11 is intended by the author to be anything other than an accurate historic account is nonsense even by the standards of all the world-class universities on the planet today.

That it is an historical aco[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is the nonsense view. That was never a concern of the ancients. What we have in Genesis 1 is an ordering of creation to explain the "why' and by Who of creation. In Genesis 1 man occurs last. In Genesis 2 which is about relationship, man precedes vegetation. Clearly neither chronological nor historical, but theological and teleological.

Those may not accept the historicity of the text - but they do not deny that the intent of the authors was to convey literal, actual history, a real 7 day week, a real world-wide flood.

Or use week as a literary device and a flood over the area of the world they knew, or just to say 'very extensive.'

Thus if the question is 'the kind of writing' then the answer is resoundingly - a literal 7 day week.

Unless the above applies instead.

But whether one choose to put faith in the Bible account - is another matter.

I am a Christian who prefers to accept the Bible account of history.

So am I but only where is clearly is history. Even the prose style with repeated phrases is more like poetry that narrative.

in Christ,

Bob

My comments are in bold

John
NZ

 

[SkyWriting]

in the case of Gen 1-11 they find the meaning in the text exactly as it is written.
a literal 7 day week for creation and a literal world wide flood

The number of colleges that hold to that meaning are very few.
Most teach some other variation on what the time frames
are likely to be.

 

[BobRyan]

That is one observation -- here is another --


[FONT=&quot]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; . . . 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. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

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

Recall that in what James Barr consideres "World class universities" there is no inclination at all to try to make the Bible fit evolution. They treat it as a document, literature.

And Barr argues that the view they hold is due strictly "to the kind of literature that it is " - It is written in the style of a historic account - and Barr points out that Moses expected the contemporary reader to believe exactly what he was saying.

some goes for the writers of the historic account of the virgin birth, resurrection, ascension of Christ etc.

 

[SkyWriting]

[*]

[*] [FONT=&quot]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; . . . 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. [/FONT]
[*] James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
[*]==========================Recall that in what James Barr considers "World class universities" there is no inclination at all to try to make the Bible fit evolution. They treat it as a document, literature.And Barr argues that the view they hold is due strictly "to the kind of literature that it is " - It is written in the style of a historic account - and Barr points out that Moses expected the contemporary reader to believe exactly what he was saying.some goes for the writers of the historic account of the virgin birth, resurrection, ascension of Christ etc.

I don't believe any of that is true
but I cannot dispute it either.