A statement by a literal reader of Scripture

[Vance]

I agree with this writer, who is a believer in the literal reading of Scripture, as you will see from this excerpt:

"Each of the arguments for the twenty-four-hour-day position has been examined and found to be inconclusive at best. Some of them even suggest the "days" were longer than twenty-four hours. There seems to be no scriptural proof that the "days" of Genesis were consecutive twenty-four-hour periods. If there is any such proof, this author has not seen it; but there is proof that those days were not consecutive twenty-four hour periods. The Bible is truth; but God has written other truth as well. The universe is also God's work. The very same God who created the Bible also created the physical universe. God does not lie - ever. The Bible is quite clear about that. 25 He did not lie during the thousands of years when He was "writing" the Bible. He did not lie as He "wrote" the universe either. In case there is any doubt, we are told in the Bible that we see truth when we study God's universe:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge." - Psalm 19:1, 2.​

The Bible even tells us we can learn spiritual truth from God's creation:

"God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made..." - Romans 1:20.​

The Bible is God's word and should be taken to mean exactly what it says - literally! How should the universe be read? It has the same author. There is certainly no reason to assume that it should be taken differently than the Bible; God's universe deserves the same literal reading. It is difficult to interpret the heavens and the earth correctly. Throughout history men have made many mistakes trying. This does not mean the universe itself cannot be trusted as a source of truth. As is well known, men have made just as many mistakes trying to interpret the Bible; yet the Bible itself can certainly be trusted! In either case, the true reading will not always be the "plainest;" but there will be no lies included in the actual "text." The hard evidence for a very old earth is real. This will become clear in the following chapters as some of the most misunderstood aspects of God's other "book" - the universe - are explored. There will be stumbling blocks. Jesus said in Matthew 18:7 this was inevitable. However, our responsibility as Christians is to make sure that we do not put them there; there will be "Woe" to those who do! The "days" of Genesis 1 appear to present such stumbling blocks. It is most important that we are not responsible for magnifying these obstacles when we talk to non-Christians. We must not make our preaching more foolish than it absolutely needs to be. There is already enough hindrance in the world to keep scientists from finding their way to Christ without our making it worse!"

Quoted from here: http://answers.org/newlook/NLCHPTR3.HTM#Argument%207

 

[Saint Philip]

I'll consider sending a response to answers.org.

 

[Saint Philip]

Oh well, I'll respond here, anyway.

Each of the arguments for the twenty-four-hour-day position has been examined and found to be inconclusive at best.

Why is every 24-hour-day argument found inconclusive? Because the critic asserts so? I find it incredible that any unbiased person could read the first chapter of Genesis and not conclude that the days were 24 hours. What we have is a critic with the twisted mind of a lawyer.

The Bible is God's word and should be taken to mean exactly what it says - literally! How should the universe be read?

That's dishonest. Creationists don't read the universe non-literally. You won't find me insisting evidence was planted or evidence is only figurative.

 

[troodon]

That's dishonest. Creationists don't read the universe non-literally. You won't find me insisting evidence was planted or evidence is only figurative.

Then would you please go to this thread and explain how this situation is allowed given a global, catasrophic flood?

 

[lucaspa]

I agree with this writer, who is a believer in the literal reading of Scripture, as you will see from this excerpt:

I think the author(s) of Genesis 1 did mean a literal 24 hour day. That's why yom is tied to "morning and evening" even when there isn't a sun to make a morning and evening. The reason for that literal day is, of course, because they wanted a justification for the 7th day being the Sabbath. Remember, Exodus happened before Genesis 1 was written. The author(s) are retrodicting the creative power of God that they already have witnessed in the creation of Israel to the creation of the universe. God commanded the Sabbath. That should have been enough. But when the author(s) crafted their monograph on monotheism they took the opportunity to make creation be 6 days and having God rest on the 7th. Thus providing a (unnecessary) justification.

Now, Stoner has the same presupposition that gets the Biblical literalists in trouble: God wrote the Bible directly. This obviously isn't true. God did not turn the humans into puppets and moved their hands to make the words on papyrus. The Bible is inspired by God, but written by humans.

In Mark 10:1-10 Jesus claims the Pentateuch was written by Moses, not God. And then goes on to say that Moses got it wrong in terms of divorce! Now, if God had written the Pentateuch, these verses (and their parallel in Matthew) could not be there.

 

[lucaspa]

That's dishonest. Creationists don't read the universe non-literally. You won't find me insisting evidence was planted or evidence is only figurative.

Good, then you have no trouble accepting the universe is 13.4 billion years old or that the light from stars has been traveling to earth for far more than 20,000 years, right?

You will have no trouble accepting these transistional series of individual fossils as showing evolution, even of new "kinds":

Transitional individuals from one class to another
1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.

Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964
2. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.

Transitionals across genera:
1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution is an extremely fine fossil record.
Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html
2. http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm

Speciation in the fossil record
1. McNamara KJ, Heterochrony and the evolution of echinoids. In CRC Paul and AB Smith (eds) Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology, pp149-163, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988 pg 140 of Futuyma.
2. Kellogg DE and Hays JD Microevolutionary patterns in Late Cenozoic Radiolara. Paleobiology 1: 150-160, 1975.

 

[lucaspa]

Each of the arguments for the twenty-four-hour-day position has been examined and found to be inconclusive at best.


Why is every 24-hour-day argument found inconclusive? Because the critic asserts so? I find it incredible that any unbiased person could read the first chapter of Genesis and not conclude that the days were 24 hours. What we have is a critic with the twisted mind of a lawyer.

Because the details are not given in this article.

I agree that the author(s) meant the days to be 24 hours. However, all the evidence shows they were not real.

 

[SonWorshipper]

I think the author(s) of Genesis 1 did mean a literal 24 hour day. That's why yom is tied to "morning and evening" even when there isn't a sun to make a morning and evening. The reason for that literal day is, of course, because they wanted a justification for the 7th day being the Sabbath. Remember, Exodus happened before Genesis 1 was written. The author(s) are retrodicting the creative power of God that they already have witnessed in the creation of Israel to the creation of the universe. God commanded the Sabbath. That should have been enough. But when the author(s) crafted their monograph on monotheism they took the opportunity to make creation be 6 days and having God rest on the 7th. Thus providing a (unnecessary) justification.

Now, Stoner has the same presupposition that gets the Biblical literalists in trouble: God wrote the Bible directly. This obviously isn't true. God did not turn the humans into puppets and moved their hands to make the words on papyrus. The Bible is inspired by God, but written by humans.

In Mark 10:1-10 Jesus claims the Pentateuch was written by Moses, not God. And then goes on to say that Moses got it wrong in terms of divorce! Now, if God had written the Pentateuch, these verses (and their parallel in Matthew) could not be there.

The authors told G-d when to rest? Seriously?

 

[Vance]

Philip, I can assure you that you read the Bible non-literally all the time. Would you like to take me up on that offer?

Secondly, don't go around saying that "Creationists don't do this or that". I am a Creationist, and one who believes that the Bible is the inerrant and true word of God. Yet I read much of the Bible non-literally. And much literally.

Lucaspa:

I understand that there are some very strong arguments for the "inspired only" concept. But I really do think that God went beyond just inspiration of concepts and directed (or better to say "allowed") the specific text we have. Yes, He let the authors use their individual "voices" and styles, but He made sure that everything in the text was as He wished it, containing the messages and truths He wanted told. For some reason, though, God does not seemed concerned that the text as we have it causes sincere, believing Christians to disagree over the details (which He could have prevented if He had chose to). My only conclusion to be drawn from that is that the details are less important that the messages.

Which is important to recognize in the matter of origins. The only reason evolution or an old earth could possibly cause someone to lose their faith in the Message is if they are told that, in order to believe that Message, they can not believe in evolution or an old earth. There is nothing inherently contradictory between the two, as millions of Christians around the world prove every day.

What is ironic is that the atheists are the strongest proponents of the concept that the Bible is in conflict with the scientific knowledge of our world (in order to disprove the Bible, and thus the Message). They stated this early and often and some Christians bought their lies and are now doing the atheists' job for them. Satan does have some amazing tricks.

 

[lucaspa]

The authors told G-d when to rest? Seriously?

I didn't say that. God told humans when to rest among the Commandments. The authors provided a justification for that theological message by structuring the creation story to take 6 days so that they could have God rest on the 7th.

This was just a part of the total goal of Genesis 1. I think the main goal was to bolster the faith of the Israelites at a time of great stress and pressure to give up their faith. They told the theological truth about creation -- God created -- but they did so in a way that would support the faith of the Hebrews to the max. And one of the minor parts of support was to give the Hebrew people a justification for their (peculiar) custom that was rooted in creation itself.

It wasn't necessary. But it is very understandable from a human standpoint.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa:

I understand that there are some very strong arguments for the "inspired only" concept. But I really do think that God went beyond just inspiration of concepts and directed (or better to say "allowed") the specific text we have. Yes, He let the authors use their individual "voices" and styles, but He made sure that everything in the text was as He wished it, containing the messages and truths He wanted told.

If you hold to this position, how do you account for God letting the author get the laws for divorce wrong? Did He wish it to be wrong? Why? Why have hundreds of years of faulty laws? Just so Jesus could come along and change them? But if Jesus does that, then it calls into question the whole argument of directing the authors!

Round and round we go. A viscious circle. The only way I can see to break the circle is to discard the "He made sure that everything in the text was as He wished it". I believe the messages and truths are what He wanted told, but not everything is as He wished.

Also, another problem. If an author was mistaken in the details and wants to write it that way, God has to violate Free Will to force the individual to write something else. When He does that, He deprives teh author of meaning of his work, for now the author has no consequences for his choices. This goes against everything else learned about God in both the Bible and in His Creation.

For some reason, though, God does not seemed concerned that the text as we have it causes sincere, believing Christians to disagree over the details (which He could have prevented if He had chose to). My only conclusion to be drawn from that is that the details are less important that the messages.

Let me offer another hypothesis. God knows that different people need different paths to Him. Thus some areas are left deliberately vague so that people can find whatever path works best for them.

The only reason evolution or an old earth could possibly cause someone to lose their faith in the Message is if they are told that, in order to believe that Message, they can not believe in evolution or an old earth.

There's another reason. If someone has tied the untestable statementd of the Message to the very testable statements of the age of the earth or the origin of species, then when the testable statements are shown false, they will think the Message is false too.

What is ironic is that the atheists are the strongest proponents of the concept that the Bible is in conflict with the scientific knowledge of our world (in order to disprove the Bible, and thus the Message).

Oh yes. Look at any militant atheist and you will find a Biblical literalist. They accept only a literal interpretation because that is the only way they can falsify Christianty.

They stated this early and often and some Christians bought their lies and are now doing the atheists' job for them. Satan does have some amazing tricks.

Nice way to put this.

 

[Vance]

Bump since the quote in the OP is relevent to some current discussion regarding literalism.

 

[Alessandro]

There is no compromise there, when God says something you take it as what it is.

 

[Vance]

Right. Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.

Now, we just have to determine exactly what He said.

And if you say "it is obvious, just follow the plain meaning of the text", the question would be whether we follow the plain reading of the English translation or the Hebrew orginal. What do we do when there are two equally valid ways to read a given text?

If the Scripture was always so crystal clear, why do we have hundred, if not thousands of different denominations and groups who all believe various Scriptures say different things?

 

[Alessandro]

It all means the same. People make a their own choice.

 

[Vance]

It all means the same. People make a their own choice.

Yes, but there is only one interpretation that is ultimately true. Are you sure you have it on all doctrinal issues? After all, you say it is crystal clear to you. So, you obviously have the answer to how each and every Scripture should be interpreted.

I will alert the Vatican that you have arrived.

 

[Alessandro]

It is alot simpler than you think. You do that.

 

[Vance]

But are you really serious?!

You acknowledge that there are a vast array of different interpretations on a multitude of issues. So, obviously the Scriptures are not crystal clear to all of them since they disagree on so many topics.

And you are saying that the text actually *is* crystal clear and not subject to various readings to those who are truly in tune with God.

And so, everyone other than you, and those who believe exactly as you, are obviously not in tune to the proper degree.

 

[Alessandro]

That is not for me to say, I am only stating my view and belief on this. To me the Word of God is clear and I take it for what it is.

 

[Vance]

But you are saying it. You are saying that those who do not believe as you do (since it *is* crystal clear to you) are simply not Spirit-led and filled. That is exactly what you are saying.

And No, you take it for what you believe it to be, which may or may not be what it "is".