A Literal Reading: Genesis 1

[cubinity]

Well, I don't buy a literal interpretation of Genesis. I don't think the sun or moon was created on day 4, I do not think there was some 'light' that acted in place as the sun, and I surely do not think that anywhere in Genesis that it states God is the sun Himself. All of it is nonsense piled on more nonsense.

Then why are you on this thread?

(I ask because some of these assumptions are built into the Op of this thread)

 

[elopez]

Then why are you on this thread?

(I ask because some of these assumptions are built into the Op of this thread)

What do you mean why am I posting in this thread? I thought this thread was about Genesis not being literal?

 

[cubinity]

What do you mean why am I posting in this thread? I thought this thread was about Genesis not being literal?

Reread the OP, then.

This thread is precisely about Genesis 1 being literal.

It is about understanding the literal days of creation in context of the way they are described in the text, in light of what happens to a traveling observer.

The first line reads, "We cannot determine the age of the earth by referencing Genesis 1 because we cannot determine the length of each day in the creation process when reading it literally."

 

[Assyrian]

Context would be nice. You can not use the whole semantic definition of a particle simply because it is the same particle.

The context is the same, Moses telling the Israelites the ten commandments and giving a reason for the Sabbath command. He give a different reason in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy the reason Moses gives is a metaphorical description of the Exodus, yet you think the same particle in Exodus must be causal and only a literal six days can be the reason for the Sabbath.

 

[Hentenza]

Well, I don't buy a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I do.

I don't think the sun or moon was created on day 4,

I do.

I do not think there was some 'light' that acted in place as the sun,

I do.

and I surely do not think that anywhere in Genesis that it states God is the sun Himself.

I do.

All of it is nonsense piled on more nonsense.

The nonsense is when one ignores the text in favor of ones eisegesises. The nonesense is framework and gap theology.

So what do you think that Genesis is? Poetry? A good story?

 

[Hentenza]

The context is the same, Moses telling the Israelites the ten commandments and giving a reason for the Sabbath command. He give a different reason in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy the reason Moses gives is a metaphorical description of the Exodus, yet you think the same particle in Exodus must be causal and only a literal six days can be the reason for the Sabbath.

Yes I do because it makes zero sense if it is not causal. There is no allowance for additional time past an evening to morning reading. The Sabbath "day" is NOT millions of years long and neither are the "days" of the week depicted in Exodus or in Genesis. The Israelites didn't work millions of years each day Sunday thru Friday nor did they rested millions of years on Saturday.

 

[Hentenza]

I don't understand why you are harping on this point. I have not ever denied that these transitions occur in the text. In fact, these transitions are a fundamental aspect of the OP. What are you getting at?

I have only argued that the earth's rotations are not explicitly in the text; a point you concede above anyway.

Yes, I do concede that rotation is not explicit but is also not refuted. The evening-morning cycle described in Genesis matches the current evening-morning cycle that we have now so it certainly could be implied.

So, if the period of "light" and "dark" effects the whole earth at the same time, then we are not even dealing with the same kind of light/dark phenomenon as is caused by the sun/earth relationship. Therefore, from that assumption, there is no evidence in a literal reading of the text that these described days were any particular duration at all, as they are not even the result of the same conditions.

One can only draw such a conclusion if one applies the whole semantic definition to yom to fit it withing a framework but that is problematic at best. There is no grammatical reason to render the evening-morning cycle as anything other that a "regular" day given the context and other semantic uses of yom.

Since I am making this assumption in the OP that rotation is fundamentally tied to the occurrence of half the globe being illuminated at any given time, then an argument for the entire globe being illuminated or darkened doesn't fit into the model being described in this thread.

Right which is why the ereb-boger cycle is explicit. There is an evening and there is a morning. There is no reason to assume anything beyond a regular day being depicted.

 

[cubinity]

The focal point of the text is the Holy Spirit. That being's perspective is either local or astronomical.

If astronomical, then there is no observable difference between light and dark, since modern science shows that at all times, half the globe is lit, and half is shadowed. Therefore, if you argue for an astronomical perspective, the description does not make any sense, because no evenings and mornings are observed, and this phenomenon being described in the text must be caused by something we are not familiar with.

If local, then the familiar phenomenon is possible to cause evenings and mornings, as the earth rotates. However, "regular" evenings and mornings require the focal point to be fixed to a specific geographic location, and that isn't how the text describes the Spirit. Instead, the Spirit is hovering over the globe.

There is nothing identifying the Spirit with a fixed location, which means He is free to intentionally remain on the shadowed side of the globe for as long as is necessary to complete his desired creative tasks, thus indeterminably prolonging the arrival of morning.

Because his audience is localized and fixed to a particular area of land, their perspective of the evening and morning cycle will be regulated. However, there is no reason to believe the Spirit of God was regulated by such constraints, as modern man is also not.

I have yet to encounter a reasonable, Biblical refute to my understanding of Genesis 1.

 

[miamited]

Hello all,

Cubinity, your wrote:
So, if the period of "light" and "dark" effects the whole earth at the same time, then we are not even dealing with the same kind of light/dark phenomenon as is caused by the sun/earth relationship. Therefore, from that assumption, there is no evidence in a literal reading of the text that these described days were any particular duration at all, as they are not even the result of the same conditions.

That's right. Light and dark really have no bearing on a day. It is only that we think in our human minds that a day, since it has for thousands of years been accompanied by a period of light and dark, that the light/dark is any part of the definition of a day.

A day, as defined by merriam webster: A period of twenty-four hours as a unit of time, reckoned from one midnight to the next, corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis.

Notice nothing mentioned of light or dark. Only midnight to midnight corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis.

The sun could implode the moon could zing off into the far reaches of space and if the earth continued to rotate on its axis we would still account a day passing for each rotation. Here is a fairly good description of the value of a day: Rotation Period and Day Length

Notice that the earth day is very close to the same no matter which formula you se to describe the day. There is nothing about light and dark, nothing about sun rise and sun set. In either case it is determined by the length of time the earth rotates in relation to the sun or to the stars.

Based on all of this information regarding our accounting for the length of a day, hopefully you can see that the creation of the other heavenly bodies on day four has very little to do with the reckoning of the length of a 'day' upon the earth.

As was previously written, neither does the sun and the moon have any bearing on evening or morning. How many times have you given a salutation to someone at 2 o'clock A.M. such as 'good night' and then looked at your watch and corrected yourself, 'good morning'. It's not about the sun being up that makes it morning. Its about it being before or after midnight and before or after the meridian of 'noon'. We say, 'goodnight, good afternoon or good morning' based on these parameters.

God bless you.
Ted McFarland

 

[cubinity]

Hello all,

Cubinity, your wrote:
So, if the period of "light" and "dark" effects the whole earth at the same time, then we are not even dealing with the same kind of light/dark phenomenon as is caused by the sun/earth relationship. Therefore, from that assumption, there is no evidence in a literal reading of the text that these described days were any particular duration at all, as they are not even the result of the same conditions.

That's right. Light and dark really have no bearing on a day. It is only that we think in our human minds that a day, since it has for thousands of years been accompanied by a period of light and dark, that the light/dark is any part of the definition of a day.

A day, as defined by merriam webster: A period of twenty-four hours as a unit of time, reckoned from one midnight to the next, corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis.

Notice nothing mentioned of light or dark. Only midnight to midnight corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis.

The sun could implode the moon could zing off into the far reaches of space and if the earth continued to rotate on its axis we would still account a day passing for each rotation. Here is a fairly good description of the value of a day: Rotation Period and Day Length

Notice that the earth day is very close to the same no matter which formula you se to describe the day. There is nothing about light and dark, nothing about sun rise and sun set. In either case it is determined by the length of time the earth rotates in relation to the sun or to the stars.

Based on all of this information regarding our accounting for the length of a day, hopefully you can see that the creation of the other heavenly bodies on day four has very little to do with the reckoning of the length of a 'day' upon the earth.

As was previously written, neither does the sun and the moon have any bearing on evening or morning. How many times have you given a salutation to someone at 2 o'clock A.M. such as 'good night' and then looked at your watch and corrected yourself, 'good morning'. It's not about the sun being up that makes it morning. Its about it being before or after midnight and before or after the meridian of 'noon'. We say, 'goodnight, good afternoon or good morning' based on these parameters.

God bless you.
Ted McFarland

Thanks for your thoughts, Ted.

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.

I hope this helps.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

The focal point of the text is the Holy Spirit. That being's perspective is either local or astronomical.

If astronomical, then there is no observable difference between light and dark, since modern science shows that at all times, half the globe is lit, and half is shadowed. Therefore, if you argue for an astronomical perspective, the description does not make any sense, because no evenings and mornings are observed, and this phenomenon being described in the text must be caused by something we are not familiar with.

If local, then the familiar phenomenon is possible to cause evenings and mornings, as the earth rotates. However, "regular" evenings and mornings require the focal point to be fixed to a specific geographic location, and that isn't how the text describes the Spirit. Instead, the Spirit is hovering over the globe.

There is nothing identifying the Spirit with a fixed location, which means He is free to intentionally remain on the shadowed side of the globe for as long as is necessary to complete his desired creative tasks, thus indeterminably prolonging the arrival of morning.

Because his audience is localized and fixed to a particular area of land, their perspective of the evening and morning cycle will be regulated. However, there is no reason to believe the Spirit of God was regulated by such constraints, as modern man is also not.

I have yet to encounter a reasonable, Biblical refute to my understanding of Genesis 1.

Yes you have, you just do not want to accept it. Light is life. It is the blood of the universe. Without it, everything is cold and dark. God being the sun is a metaphor for keeping things rectified wit the absence of other things.
One thing a person may experience while in prophesy is not breathing. They would not need to.

You know this is reasonable in lieu of God and Creation, you are just hiding behind material rationale.

God marked the seventh day as the Sabbath, and He knew the rotation of the Earth. But He never gave a specific location. That is because the Sabbath is the seventh day wherever you are. It's for us, not Him, and people seem to forget that.

 

[elopez]

Reread the OP, then.

This thread is precisely about Genesis 1 being literal.

It is about understanding the literal days of creation in context of the way they are described in the text, in light of what happens to a traveling observer.

The first line reads, "We cannot determine the age of the earth by referencing Genesis 1 because we cannot determine the length of each day in the creation process when reading it literally."

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.

 

[Jazer]

I don't think the sun or moon was created on day 4,

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.

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.

 

[Jazer]

only a literal six days can be the reason for the Sabbath.

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.

 

[Jazer]

Sun itself literally moved across the sky. Science proved that view wrong and forced the Church to change its views.

WHAT!!! It was science that got it wrong and the harlot church that went along with science. The true church knew the truth even they were persecuted by the harlot church.

the Earth is only 6,000 years old

The Bible does not say the earth is 6,000 years old. The Bible says God put Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden 6,000 years ago. Actually Bishops Usshers book is mostly a history book and he talks mostly about Adam and Eve and all the other historical people in the Bible. Ussher does not talk about science and there is a little but not a lot of talk about the age of the earth in his book. Back when his book was written they just did not have the information from Science that we have to work with today.

 

[Hentenza]

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.

A day is not a thousand years. You are taking that verse out of its intended context and ignoring the grammar. A days is like (Hebrew ὡς ) a thousand years not is a thousand years. "Is" is not in the Hebrew. The context relates to God's patience not to a time duration.

 

[cubinity]

Yes you have, you just do not want to accept it. Light is life. It is the blood of the universe. Without it, everything is cold and dark. God being the sun is a metaphor for keeping things rectified wit the absence of other things.
One thing a person may experience while in prophesy is not breathing. They would not need to.

You know this is reasonable in lieu of God and Creation, you are just hiding behind material rationale.

God marked the seventh day as the Sabbath, and He knew the rotation of the Earth. But He never gave a specific location. That is because the Sabbath is the seventh day wherever you are. It's for us, not Him, and people seem to forget that.

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.

 

[Jazer]

It tells us science can challenge our interpretation of the bible.

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.

 

[Hentenza]

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.

We are in full agreement here.

 

[Jazer]

A day is not a thousand years.

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