A Literal Reading: Genesis 1

[cubinity]

God is not the author of confusion. That is also something to reconcile if one concludes that the Creation accounts were issued by Him.
That would mean that the context must be taken into account thoroughly, even if it doesn't mean to take it literally.

Thanks for your input.
However, I'd like you to take note that the OP specifies that we are taking it literally, so I will ask you to respect that.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Thanks for your input.
However, I'd like you to take note that the OP specifies that we are taking it literally, so I will ask you to respect that.

I take it 'literally', but literalism is a negative way of putting it. I don't think any smart creationist actually takes the entire context literally. If they did, then the universe would be a big ball of water. See what I mean?
Some creationists take the waters as being central to Earth, and others think of it at a much grander scale.

The point I was making is that since God is not the author of confusion, they must be taken into account. And let's be honest., there is nothing in the contexts that really show common descent to be plausible literally or metaphorically. I have even tried it myself just to see what the TE hype is all about and came up with nothing.

On another thing, I don't see how a day or a 1000 years really makes a difference when taking into account all of existence. It takes 100,000 years just for light to stretch across our backwater universe alone.
But literalists need not worry about that because God created the universe before day one, which can help explain the general age of everything.

I don't agree or disagree, because it is after all friendly for creationists, old or young. The Big Bang has serious issues though, one can bet that.

 

[cubinity]

I take it 'literally', but literalism is a negative way of putting it. I don't think any smart creationist actually takes the entire context literally. If they did, then the universe would be a big ball of water. See what I mean?
Some creationists take the waters as being central to Earth, and others think of it at a much grander scale.

The point I was making is that since God is not the author of confusion, they must be taken into account. And let's be honest., there is nothing in the contexts that really show common descent to be plausible literally or metaphorically. I have even tried it myself just to see what the TE hype is all about and came up with nothing.

On another thing, I don't see how a day or a 1000 years really makes a difference when taking into account all of existence. It takes 100,000 years just for light to stretch across our backwater universe alone.
But literalists need not worry about that because God created the universe before day one, which can help explain the general age of everything.

I don't agree or disagree, because it is after all friendly for creationists, old or young. The Big Bang has serious issues though, one can bet that.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Sorry.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Sorry.

Being called a literalist is more derogatory then meaningful.

The bible was written by men under the guidance of the Spirit consequently anthropomorphisms are common and it needed to be understood by all generations since then. The account is merely told so that all could understand it from their human perspective.

It's pretty much God painting existence. I do not really understand what it is about light needing to travel 13 billion years, for example, that TE's and atheists argue.

Painting a picture of the universe., does one take 13 billion years to make it? Or can one just stretch that light beam across the canvas with their brush in an instant?

The point is that trying to connect scientific ideas to Creation only makes sense to material logic. When you really think about it all being made by an infinite, omnipotent being, material logic carries no meaning whatsoever.

Furthermore, scientists assume the initial conditions of everything based on the default of naturalism, so of course they are not going to draw conclusions which lead to Creation.
I think most people do not see the gravity of this. It's a doomed thinking that will never lead anywhere except what it is based on.

 

[cubinity]

Being called a literalist is more derogatory then meaningful.

Excuse me? I don't understand this comment, either. Please explain yourself.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Excuse me? I don't understand this comment, either. Please explain yourself.

Why not call a creationist a creationist? Why something as negative as literalist? It's negative because it gives an impression that creationists do not know how to interpret the Bible. Creationists do not take the Bible literally, they just take it how it's been taken since it's canonization. Before it's canonization, actually.

You said the thread was about taking Genesis literally, even though I have demonstrated through this thread that I am a creationist. So I gave some insight on 'literalists'.

To be honest, I do not understand why you are being condescending. If you do not understand something, please elaborate.

 

[cubinity]

Why not call a creationist a creationist? Why something as negative as literalist? It's negative because it gives an impression that creationists do not know how to interpret the Bible. Creationists do not take the Bible literally, they just take it how it's been taken since it's canonization. Before it's canonization, actually.

You said the thread was about taking Genesis literally, even though I have demonstrated through this thread that I am a creationist. So I gave some insight on 'literalists'.

To be honest, I do not understand why you are being condescending. If you do not understand something, please elaborate.

First, I've never called anyone a literalist. I don't use the expression, actually. Only you have used it in this thread, which is why I'm confused.

Listen, I wrote the OP because I wanted to discuss Genesis 1 literally. If you have such a problem with that, you know how to unsubscribe from threads.

I didn't just say this thread was about something. I made it specifically about that, and all I've done with you is ask politely that you respect that.

Now, you have the audacity to sit there and call me condescending for no good reason!? What is your goal here?

Enough of this! If you have a personal problem with me, you can address me in a PM. Otherwise, I will report any of your posts directed at me not directly related with the OP and it's specified parameters as inflammatory.

Let's get back to the topic, please.

 

[cubinity]

The text, as literally written, describes a place where light and darkness are transitioned by evenings and mornings.

This is a very local perception of what actually happens.

Why does God use such a local perspective when describing what He is doing on an astronomical level?

I mean, if God is so open about what He did, why not just tell his audience exactly what He did on an astronomical level?

Was He trying to keep astronomical knowledge secret from the human author?

And, what now are we expected to do with a testimony that matches that human author's perception of the universe, but does not match our perception of the universe?

Was the human author's perception based any less on the evidence available to the author than our perception is based on the evidence available to us?

Is our perception based any less on the evidence available to us than the original author's perception was based on the evidence available to him?

If not, why is there such momentum among some to abandon or ignore scientific findings in order to preserve a perception of the universe based on less evidence than that available to us? Why is there such momentum among some to abandon or ignore the literal content of the text in order to preserve a perception of the universe based on the available evidence?

There should not be such conflict between evidence and God's version of how things are, don't you think?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

You seem to be challenging YEC's, and so I should be able to speak in any way I want about it. YEC's should not be assumed that they take the context utterly literal. There are many things in the contexts that they reconcile and do not take literally. That's just part of reading the Bible.

I think the notion in itself is just a dismissal to them, and you are being very pretentious about me merely explaining it, trying to put some kind of idea that I am derailing the thread or something.

But I'll digress. I think half of it was just due to misunderstanding anyways. We're bumping heads for no reason.

 

[shernren]

Actually no. I am using the semantic range of the definition of yom.

That is not my argument at all. Most words have a range of semantic meaning which is usually determined by the context in which is used.

Do you ever use the word "mother" to refer to a virgin in ordinary speech? No, right?

Let me translate this into your jargon-speak: the range of semantic meaning of "mother", as determined by all the contexts in which it has ever been used in any normal human culture, has always referred to a woman who has had sex before.

So why is it valid to call Virgin Mary a mother?

Let's resolve this confusion before we move on.

 

[Hentenza]

But... we don't understand it from our human perspective. Isn't that the point of all this? The descriptions in the text are difficult to reconcile with our perspective at this point.

Now, I accept that the descriptions were understood by the author and his timely audience. However, today we have a much better understanding of astronomy then they did, and that understanding is difficult to reconcile with the content of the text.

Therefore, I'll agree that the original audience understood it from their perspective, but that says very little about our understanding it from our perspective today.

For example, the very fact that light on earth precedes the astronomical bodies by four days is completely misunderstood to a generation that accepts that light is produced by those astronomical bodies and reaches us in a measurable amount of time determined by the speed of light. Quite frankly, this description isn't really understandable at all to our generation, unless we disregard concepts very important to our generation, which just seems counter-intuitive...

Personally I don't believe that there is an issue understanding Genesis with our present understanding of cosmology. There are a plethora of scientific hypothesis and theories attempting to explain origins but all have serious issues that need to be explained. Secondly, there are quite a few of these theories that point to a "designer" but are only viewed under the naturalistic priori.

The grammar of Gen. 1 and 2 does not support days longer than an evening-morning cycle unless one uses the words semantic range definitions outside of their context and ignore modifiers (or lack of them).

Here is what we have grammatically:

1. God created the heavens and the Earth. Verse 1.
2. The Earth was void, dark, and water covered the globe. Verse 2.
3. The Spirit of God hovered over the waters (plural). The waters covered the globe therefore the Spirit hovering covered the globe. Verse 2.
4. God created light prior to the "grater light (generally understood as the sun) and the "lesser" light (normally understood as the moon). Verse 3.
5. God called the light good and separated the light from the darkness. Verse 4.
6. God named the light day and the darkness night. He defined one day as an evening-morning cycle. Verse 5.

Verse 1 describes the action while verse 2 describes the condition after the action. Verse 3 and 4 describe the actions and verse 5 defines the actions. There is no textual evidence of any "time" in between actions nor is there any textual evidence that God's definition of one day differs from what we consider one day today. None of today's scientific theories have refuted a literal reading of Genesis nor is the text hard to understand given our present state of knowledge.

Now, delving into today's scientific theories are beyond the scope of your OP but we can certainly discuss them if you wish, however, I stopped debating in this forum a long time ago because of the "fanaticism" of the naturalistic priori so I can't guarantee that I will continue if it heads that direction.

 

[Hentenza]

Do you ever use the word "mother" to refer to a virgin in ordinary speech? No, right?

Let me translate this into your jargon-speak: the range of semantic meaning of "mother", as determined by all the contexts in which it has ever been used in any normal human culture, has always referred to a woman who has had sex before.

So why is it valid to call Virgin Mary a mother?

Let's resolve this confusion before we move on.

I have no confusion but you seem to want to bring a totally unrelated word from a totally unrelated event to argue the meaning of a totally unrelated word from a totally unrelated event. The semantic range of definitions for mother does NOT include virgin. However, the semantic range of definitions of day does include a normal, evening-morning cycle day. I fail to see the relevance of your argument here.

 

[cubinity]

<snip> you are being condescending.

<snip>you are being very pretentious
<snip>We're bumping heads for no reason.

No, we are not bumping heads for no reason.
You keep accusing me of stuff out of the blue!
I am being neither condescending nor pretentious.
It is quite reasonable for me to take issue with that.
Knock it off.

 

[cubinity]

Personally I don't believe that there is an issue understanding Genesis with our present understanding of cosmology. There are a plethora of scientific hypothesis and theories attempting to explain origins but all have serious issues that need to be explained. Secondly, there are quite a few of these theories that point to a "designer" but are only viewed under the naturalistic priori.

The grammar of Gen. 1 and 2 does not support days longer than an evening-morning cycle unless one uses the words semantic range definitions outside of their context and ignore modifiers (or lack of them).

Here is what we have grammatically:

1. God created the heavens and the Earth. Verse 1.
2. The Earth was void, dark, and water covered the globe. Verse 2.
3. The Spirit of God hovered over the waters (plural). The waters covered the globe therefore the Spirit hovering covered the globe. Verse 2.
4. God created light prior to the "grater light (generally understood as the sun) and the "lesser" light (normally understood as the moon). Verse 3.
5. God called the light good and separated the light from the darkness. Verse 4.
6. God named the light day and the darkness night. He defined one day as an evening-morning cycle. Verse 5.

Verse 1 describes the action while verse 2 describes the condition after the action. Verse 3 and 4 describe the actions and verse 5 defines the actions. There is no textual evidence of any "time" in between actions nor is there any textual evidence that God's definition of one day differs from what we consider one day today. None of today's scientific theories have refuted a literal reading of Genesis nor is the text hard to understand given our present state of knowledge.

Now, delving into today's scientific theories are beyond the scope of your OP but we can certainly discuss them if you wish, however, I stopped debating in this forum a long time ago because of the "fanaticism" of the naturalistic priori so I can't guarantee that I will continue if it heads that direction.

Thanks for spelling it out. Very helpful to see it that way.

There is the line about where God separates the light from the darkness.
Considering a cosmological view of this whole thing, what does that idea mean to you?

 

[Hentenza]

Thanks for spelling it out. Very helpful to see it that way.

There is the line about where God separates the light from the darkness.
Considering a cosmological view of this whole thing, what does that idea mean to you?

Just as the text says. He created the light and then separated the light from the darkness. The hiphil of &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1463;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1491;&#1461;&#1468;&#1443;&#1500; (separate) means to disjoin what was previously mixed and it simply refers to the separation of the luminous particles from the opaque mass so it is no longer commingled. When taken in context with verse 5 it simply refers to the alternation or succession of one to the other, hence, what we know as an evening-morning cycle, one day.

 

[cubinity]

Just as the text says. He created the light and then separated the light from the darkness. The hiphil of &#1493;&#1463;&#1497;&#1463;&#1468;&#1489;&#1456;&#1491;&#1461;&#1468;&#1443;&#1500; (separate) means to disjoin what was previously mixed and it simply refers to the separation of the luminous particles from the opaque mass so it is no longer commingled. When taken in context with verse 5 it simply refers to the alternation or succession of one to the other, hence, what we know as an evening-morning cycle, one day.

Okay, so I'm looking to better understand the content of this post, because it sounds really interesting. These questions aren't presented as arguments, but genuine questions:

What are luminous particles and opaque mass in terms of cosmology? That doesn't sound like anything I've ever heard of before.

Furthermore, in a cosmological sense (sitting in space way from the globe of Earth) there is no experience of evenings and mornings. So, am I missing a link, or how does the separation of light and darkness have anything to do with the rotating, half-lit planet creating the phenomenon we refer to as evening and morning?

 

[shernren]

I have no confusion but you seem to want to bring a totally unrelated word from a totally unrelated event to argue the meaning of a totally unrelated word from a totally unrelated event. The semantic range of definitions for mother does NOT include virgin. However, the semantic range of definitions of day does include a normal, evening-morning cycle day. I fail to see the relevance of your argument here.

So once again, if "the semantic range of definitions for mother does NOT include virgin" (your phrase), why on earth do you think Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin?

(The reason this is relevant is because it is directly parallel to your argument about days. Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin because she was no ordinary mother, as evidenced by the text; similarly, the days of Genesis 1 need not be exactly 24 hours long as they are no ordinary days, again as evidenced by the text.)

 

[Hentenza]

Okay, so I'm looking to better understand the content of this post, because it sounds really interesting. These questions aren't presented as arguments, but genuine questions:

What are luminous particles and opaque mass in terms of cosmology? That doesn't sound like anything I've ever heard of before.

The terms are merely descriptive of light and darkness. Both terms are used frequently in light emission theories and others. I am an engineer and just finished working a project that included optics so I guess the terminology stuck. lol

According to the text darkness (opaque mass) existed prior to light (luminous particles). God created light and called it good. This created the intermingling of light and darkness. God then separated the light from the darkness.

Furthermore, in a cosmological sense (sitting in space way from the globe of Earth) there is no experience of evenings and mornings. So, am I missing a link, or how does the separation of light and darkness have anything to do with the rotating, half-lit planet creating the phenomenon we refer to as evening and morning?

I would think that in order to experience the evening-day cycle one would have to be on Earth. The rotation of the Earth creates the cycle. If the light depicted in verse 2 is a fixed light in space (similar to the sun) then the rotation of the Earth would generate the evening-morning cycle which is what the text implies since the text of each creation day explicitly includes the cycle. Again, the text is historical (descriptive).

 

[Hentenza]

So once again, if "the semantic range of definitions for mother does NOT include virgin" (your phrase), why on earth do you think Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin?

The text tells me (ex. Matt. 1:23). If the word mother appeared in any of the texts modified by virgin then the grammatical construction would be mother as a noun and virgin as an adjective describing the noun. The semantic range definition of mother does not need to include virgin since virgin would be the modifier defining the "kind" of mother. For example, the semantic range definitions for mother does not include "good" or 'bad" but we can use either word to define what kind of mother. In this case the kind of mother is a virgin mother.

(The reason this is relevant is because it is directly parallel to your argument about days. Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin because she was no ordinary mother, as evidenced by the text; similarly, the days of Genesis 1 need not be exactly 24 hours long as they are no ordinary days, again as evidenced by the text.)

First, a day is not exactly 24 hours. Second, where in the text does it evidence a day longer than an evening-morning cycle? Where are the modifiers?

 

[cubinity]

I would think that in order to experience the evening-day cycle one would have to be on Earth. The rotation of the Earth creates the cycle. If the light depicted in verse 2 is a fixed light in space (similar to the sun) then the rotation of the Earth would generate the evening-morning cycle which is what the text implies since the text of each creation day explicitly includes the cycle. Again, the text is historical (descriptive).

Not just on the Earth, but have a localized point of view, too, right? I mean, a thing that is all around the planet isn't going to experience the evening-morning thing either. In is an observed phenomenon from the point of view of a localized perception, right?