A Literal Reading: Genesis 1

[Hentenza]

Believe what you want, I am not going to argue with you about it. Whatever works for you: wonderful.

Jazer, where in the bible does it say that a day is 1000 years?

BTW- I was merely attempting to address a typical misunderstanding of 2 Peter 3:8. Please don't take it as an attack on you.

 

[cubinity]

So the first line you quoted doesn't mean that when reading Genesis literally we cannot conclude the age of the earth? I'm still lost as to how this isn't arguing against a literal interpretation.

A literal interpretation of the text requires us to read the terms in light of how the text defines the terms, and how we understand those definitions.

The text literally says a day in the creation process is defined by one evening and one morning, and defines those two terms as transitions between periods of light and darkness.

Since the only observer of these phenomenon is God, you are challenged to take either a local view or an whole-earth encompassing view of these facts.

If we take a whole-earth encompassing view, then light and dark effected the whole earth, and it was thus not caused by the same phenomenon that cause evenings and mornings today. If it is a local view, the same or similar phenomenon causes mornings and evenings, but the interval between them is not consistent because the observer is not standing on a bit of land, but freely hovering over the waters.

Thus, mobile, the Spirit can stay on the dark side of the planet for as long as he wants, thereby postponing the next morning indefinitely.

My argument is that we can read the text literally and still not come to the conclusion that creation took only 168 hours because of key facts and definitions right there in the text.

We don't have to reduce it to fiction or ignore the facts in it in order to give time for other theories like evolution. There is enough literal evidence in the text to derive conclusions that are compatible with modern scientific notions.

 

[cubinity]

We are in full agreement here.

I cannot express in words how much respect I have for you. I am so glad you have chosen to hang out on this thread. Even in the areas we disagree, I learn a tremendous amount from you. I appreciate your ongoing respect for all posters, and I thank you for looking for the common ground we do have.

 

[Hentenza]

I cannot express in words how much respect I have for you. I am so glad you have chosen to hang out on this thread. Even in the areas we disagree, I learn a tremendous amount from you. I appreciate your ongoing respect for all posters, and I thank you for looking for the common ground we do have.

Thank you brother. I enjoy reading your posts also.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Excuse me, but I have never communicated a refusal to accept symbolic meanings for the text, so I don't understand your claims that I have done anything of the sort.

Telling me that the text has symbolic meaning (a notion I fully embrace) is in no way a refute of the understanding of Genesis 1 that I have laid out in this thread.

Perhaps you should reread the thread and figure out which poster I am before making claims about me.

You have been basing your conclusions of Creation from the rotation of the Earth and the sun, rather then accepting the symbolic meaning of the text that explains it. It has been issued and explained. God can keep something consistent without the need of something else (in this case the sun), He marked each day by the sun, called each day before and after the sun a day, and wherever the sun hits on the Earth indicates the day of the Sabbath wherever you are. It's solid.

-This absence of the sun issue is solved because God is in fact Almighty
-The 1000 year idea is just a theory (and a bad one at that, as a 1000 years might as well be 24 hours in lieu of the entire universe)
-The time-zone problem is solved because God indicates the days to us through it.

 

[Jazer]

Jazer, where in the bible does it say that a day is 1000 years?

BTW- I was merely attempting to address a typical misunderstanding of 2 Peter 3:8. Please don't take it as an attack on you.

Moses tells us in Psalm 90:

90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Also it is interesting to read what Moses says about days. For example look at the passages that talks about the third day:

He shall purify 2398 himself with it on the third 7992 day 3117, and on the seventh 7637 day 3117 he shall be clean

The 1000 year reign of Christ is refered to as the third day, because it follows the 2000 year church age, the age of grace or what they call the Holy Spirit dispensation. Then the third day is the 1000 year reign of Christ, this a sabbath when man will rest from His works. We know that Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago.

 

[cubinity]

You have been basing your conclusions of Creation from the rotation of the Earth and the sun, rather then accepting the symbolic meaning of the text that explains it. It has been issued and explained. God can keep something consistent without the need of something else (in this case the sun), He marked each day by the sun, called each day before and after the sun a day, and wherever the sun hits on the Earth indicates the day of the Sabbath wherever you are. It's solid.

-This absence of the sun issue is solved because God is in fact Almighty
-The 1000 year idea is just a theory (and a bad one at that, as a 1000 years might as well be 24 hours in lieu of the entire universe)
-The time-zone problem is solved because God indicates the days to us through it.

This thread is about a literal reading of the text, not a symbolic one.

This is not a thread about the Sabbath, but about the six days that precede it.

I'm all for God being almighty, but from my experience, He also makes sense.

Now, let's go through your short list of refutations and deal with each independently:

The absence of the sun is not an issue according to the OP of this thread, so let's check that off the refutation list right now.

The thousand year idea is, as you say, a bad theory, so that can be marked off the refutation list as well.

The third point about timezones is not relevant because there are no timezones described in the text, as they were not first implemented until 1847 AD, so that can be stricken from the refutation list as well.

So, that about wraps that up, I guess.

My perspective stands, for now...

 

[miamited]

Hi cubinity,

You responded: The reasoning that you've missed, however, is that my commitment to a day being defined as containing one evening and one morning is because that is explicitly how the text defines its use of the term day.

While I absolutely appreciate that a modern definition of day is as you've described, I am not trying to bind the ancient text to my own definitions. I am trying to understand the text in light of its own specified definitions.

I this case, the author of Genesis 1 is explicit in his definition of a day: each contains one evening and one morning, defined as transitions between a period of light and dark.

And you gain this 'fact' that the author of Genesis explicitly says a day is defined as transitions between a period of light and dark, where?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Jase]

The Bible does not say God created the moon on the 4th day. How could he the 4th day was only 9,000 years ago and the moon has been there a LOT longer then that. Gen talks about a work that God did in the FIRMAMENT "Let there be lights in the firmament". He is talking about what we see with our eyes in the sky at night. There is no problem with a literal reading of Genesis. As long as you know that a day is 1000 years it all works out just fine and Science confirms that Gen is all true.

The firmament in Hebrew was a solid dome used to cover the Earth in order to allow water to be held at bay and fall through windows during the flood. The stars and moon were underneath the firmament.

12,982 years ago at the end of the Ice age you had a "earth was without form, and void;". We see these same words used later on used by the prophets in referance to Isreal. This means the world was in a state of ruin and destruction. This was a time of mass extinction. This was the beginning of what they call the neolithic age.

And what about the other extinction events? There have been 5 massive ones, and several other smaller ones. And where does the Bible talk about supercontinents? Pangaea was only the the most recent. The Continents have combined and broken apart several times over Earth's history. Before Pangaea was Pannotia, before that was Rodinia, before that was Columbia. How do Continents break apart, travel thousands of miles away from each other, then move back together, collide and reform as new supercontinents multiple times in the span of 13,000 years?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

This thread is about a literal reading of the text, not a symbolic one.

This is not a thread about the Sabbath, but about the six days that precede it.

I'm all for God being almighty, but from my experience, He also makes sense.

Now, let's go through your short list of refutations and deal with each independently:

The absence of the sun is not an issue according to the OP of this thread, so let's check that off the refutation list right now.

The thousand year idea is, as you say, a bad theory, so that can be marked off the refutation list as well.

The third point about timezones is not relevant because there are no timezones described in the text, as they were not first implemented until 1847 AD, so that can be stricken from the refutation list as well.

So, that about wraps that up, I guess.

My perspective stands, for now...

Marked off, even though they refuted everything you have stated about Genesis 1.

Timezones are marked by the rotation of the Earth in light of the sun, so really, you are just using semantics to squeeze out a rebuttal on something that is correct.

So the part of your perspective that you have given thus far has been answered. And all have to do with Genesis 1 in some fashion.

 

[Hentenza]

The firmament in Hebrew was a solid dome used to cover the Earth in order to allow water to be held at bay and fall through windows during the flood. The stars and moon were underneath the firmament.

That is not true. The Hebrew word רָקִ֖יעַ (raqia) does not carry the meaning or connotation of a solid dome. In fact, the definition is "an extended surface" "expanse". It is rendered correctly as "expanse" in the NASB.

 

[Hentenza]

Moses tells us in Psalm 90:

90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Also it is interesting to read what Moses says about days. For example look at the passages that talks about the third day:

He shall purify 2398 himself with it on the third 7992 day 3117, and on the seventh 7637 day 3117 he shall be clean

The 1000 year reign of Christ is refered to as the third day, because it follows the 2000 year church age, the age of grace or what they call the Holy Spirit dispensation. Then the third day is the 1000 year reign of Christ, this a sabbath when man will rest from His works. We know that Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago.

That is interesting from a typology perspective. One can certainly make the case that the often use of three days in the OT are shadows of the 3 days after crucifixion. I do have an issue straying away from typology since this typing is not implicit in the text. For example, the example from Psalm that you posted does not imply that a day is 1000 years but it has the same context as that one of 2 Peter, God's patience.

 

[elopez]

A literal interpretation of the text requires us to read the terms in light of how the text defines the terms, and how we understand those definitions.

The text literally says a day in the creation process is defined by one evening and one morning, and defines those two terms as transitions between periods of light and darkness.

Since the only observer of these phenomenon is God, you are challenged to take either a local view or an whole-earth encompassing view of these facts.

If we take a whole-earth encompassing view, then light and dark effected the whole earth, and it was thus not caused by the same phenomenon that cause evenings and mornings today. If it is a local view, the same or similar phenomenon causes mornings and evenings, but the interval between them is not consistent because the observer is not standing on a bit of land, but freely hovering over the waters.

Thus, mobile, the Spirit can stay on the dark side of the planet for as long as he wants, thereby postponing the next morning indefinitely.

My argument is that we can read the text literally and still not come to the conclusion that creation took only 168 hours because of key facts and definitions right there in the text.

We don't have to reduce it to fiction or ignore the facts in it in order to give time for other theories like evolution. There is enough literal evidence in the text to derive conclusions that are compatible with modern scientific notions.

I'm not here addressing your argument. I was just giving my two cents on a literal interpretation. That aside, what "literal evidence" is there in Genesis that makes it compatible with modern science?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I'm not here addressing your argument. I was just giving my two cents on a literal interpretation. That aside, what "literal evidence" is there in Genesis that makes it compatible with modern science?

How about the fact that the key mechanism needed for common descent is non-existent?
How about the fact that the pearly gates in Heaven did not wait a billion years for clams to produce them, and therefore dating techniques are all but obsolete no matter how accurate they are? (anolagy intended)
How about where the moon is located in distance and how fast it is moving away from Earth?
How about the rate of decaying magnetism of the Earth not being able to comply with a multi-billlion year old planet?

There are many things, but it is just a natural human instinct to neglect what doesn't correspond to what they want to believe.

 

[elopez]

How about the fact that the key mechanism needed for common descent is non-existent?
How about the fact that the pearly gates in Heaven did not wait a billion years for clams to produce them, and therefore dating techniques are all but obsolete no matter how accurate they are? (anolagy intended)
How about where the moon is located in distance and how fast it is moving away from Earth?
How about the rate of decaying magnetism of the Earth not being able to comply with a multi-billlion year old planet?

There are many things, but it is just a natural human instinct to neglect what doesn't correspond to what they want to believe.

Only one needs to be addressed to show your confusion, though implicitly I sense strong hostility in each. Analogies are meant to compare two familiar situations using relevant similarities, though in your analogy there is only but relevant dissimilarities, which makes the so called 'analogy' weak. Heaven, if there is big white pearly gates, is not comparable to earth and all of it's inhabitants in what you say is "obsolete no matter how we test them." You and I both know this without any further support, so that you thought it would be reasonable or courageous of you to claim "analogy intended" is puzzling itself.

 

[Assyrian]

A day is 1000 years. We are about to enter the 1000 year reign of Christ and this will be a day of Sabbath when man will rest from his works.

Weren't Joshua, David and the writer of Hebrews (Chs 3&4) commanded to enter God's Sabbath rest back in their day, "Today if you hear my voice..."? That would mean God's Sabbath has already been going on for a lot longer than one thousand years.

 

[Assyrian]

Science helps us to better understand the Bible. The more information we have from science the better our understanding is going to be. Also the Bible can provide a check and balance for science. So the door swings both ways.

Different door though. The bible can certainly teach science about the ethical issues new discoveries and new technologies raise, and can tell them about the creator of the universe they gaze at in awe. The bible doesn't teach science about science. That is not what it is there for. If our interpretation of scripture is contradicted by science, as it has been with heliocentrism, the geological history of the earth, the evolution of other species or the evolution mankind, then we need another interpretation.

 

[Jase]

That is not true. The Hebrew word רָקִ֖יעַ (raqia) does not carry the meaning or connotation of a solid dome. In fact, the definition is "an extended surface" "expanse". It is rendered correctly as "expanse" in the NASB.

Do you have evidence to support this?

Raqiya` - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version

Raqiya`

extended surface (solid)
considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_(Judaism)

The word "raqiya", “firmament”, comes from riqqua, meaning “expansion,” “broad,” and “beaten out.”[1] In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?” As this verse indicates, the vault of heaven was a solid, physical object.


The Babylonians and Egyptians also thought the sky was solid, and we know for a fact the ancient Hebrews were influenced by their culture and had the same understanding of the universe.

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted...s/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.htm
S]cientifically naive peoples employed their concept of a solid sky in their mythology, but that they nevertheless thought of the solid sky as an integral part of their physical universe. And it is precisely because ancient peoples were scientifically naive that they did not distinguish between the appearance of the sky and their scientific concept of the sky. They had no reason to doubt what their eyes told them was true, namely, that the stars above them were fixed in a solid dome and that the sky literally touched the earth at the horizon. So, they equated appearance with reality and concluded that the sky must be a solid physical part of the universe just as much as the earth itself.

 

[Hentenza]

Do you have evidence to support this?

Raqiya` - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version

Raqiya`

extended surface (solid)
considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_(Judaism)

The word "raqiya", “firmament”, comes from riqqua, meaning “expansion,” “broad,” and “beaten out.”[1] In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?” As this verse indicates, the vault of heaven was a solid, physical object.


The Babylonians and Egyptians also thought the sky was solid, and we know for a fact the ancient Hebrews were influenced by their culture and had the same understanding of the universe.

The Firmament and the Water Above: Seely
S]cientifically naive peoples employed their concept of a solid sky in their mythology, but that they nevertheless thought of the solid sky as an integral part of their physical universe. And it is precisely because ancient peoples were scientifically naive that they did not distinguish between the appearance of the sky and their scientific concept of the sky. They had no reason to doubt what their eyes told them was true, namely, that the stars above them were fixed in a solid dome and that the sky literally touched the earth at the horizon. So, they equated appearance with reality and concluded that the sky must be a solid physical part of the universe just as much as the earth itself.

Yes I do have evidence. You are correct that a portion of the Jews were influenced by the Babylonians and Egyptians. In fact, the writers of the LXX translated raqia as stereoma which does have a connotation of a solid structure because of such influence. Jerome further translated the Vulgate using the Hexapla extensively (the Hexapla includes a recension of the LXX) translated the word as the Latin firmamentum. Erasmus, in the 16th century and using the Vulgate extensively, transliterated the Latin word to English as firmament in his Textus Receptus. The writers of the KJV using the TR perpetuated the mistranslation.

The Hebrew raqia does not mean or connote anything solid anywhere in the word's definition semantic range. Raqia denotes simply an expanse. Furthermore, the actual substance of the expanse is not inherent in the word but has to be specified. Here "heavens" not solid matter is the substance of raqia (Gen. 1:8, 14, 15, 7, and 20). The original context in which raqia is used here does not imply any kind of solid of solid dome above the Earth. God gives us the correct definition when God called the expanse "heaven" in verse 8. In Isaiah 40:22 Isaiah describes it further when he writes "Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." Heaven is always dual in the Hebrew and in general refers to the "heights" above the Earth. There are 3 applications of "heavens" in scripture. The first is the atmospheric heaven as in Jeremiah 4:25. The second is the outer space where the planets reside as in Isaiah 13:10. And the third is God's dwelling place as in Hebrews 9:24.

As the context requires, raqia can be used in reference to any one of these applications. The bird fly in the "open expanse of Heaven" (Gen. 1:20). Psalm 150:1 speaks of God's sanctuary as being in the 'expanse". None of these applications denotes "heaven" as having the substance of a solid dome.

 

[cubinity]

Hi cubinity,

You responded: The reasoning that you've missed, however, is that my commitment to a day being defined as containing one evening and one morning is because that is explicitly how the text defines its use of the term day.

While I absolutely appreciate that a modern definition of day is as you've described, I am not trying to bind the ancient text to my own definitions. I am trying to understand the text in light of its own specified definitions.

I this case, the author of Genesis 1 is explicit in his definition of a day: each contains one evening and one morning, defined as transitions between a period of light and dark.

And you gain this 'fact' that the author of Genesis explicitly says a day is defined as transitions between a period of light and dark, where?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Gen 1:4 - And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Gen 1:8 - there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
Gen 1:13 - there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
Gen 1:19 - there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
Gen 1:23 - there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
Gen 1:31 - there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.