An interesting analysis of the word "day" in Genesis

[Vance]

Here is an analysis of the "day" issue in Genesis. It is from an online version of the Book "A New Look at an Old Earth". While you may not agree with his entire analysis (I sure don’t agree with every conclusion in the book), it is worth reading for those interested in the subject.

http://answers.org/newlook/NLCHPTR3.HTM#Argument%204

 

[Vance]

I should point out that the reason I like to present this source, and that of Reasons to Believe ministry is that they are ANTI-evolutionist, but still accept the reality of an old universe. While I disagree with much of the teaching as a result (since I believe in evolution to a great extent), it is important for YEC's to realize that you don't have to be opposed to an old earth just because you are opposed to evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

Here is an analysis of the "day" issue in Genesis. It is from an online version of the Book "A New Look at an Old Earth". While you may not agree with his entire analysis (I sure don’t agree with every conclusion in the book), it is worth reading for those interested in the subject.

<a href="http://answers.org/newlook/NLCHPTR3.HTM#Argument%204">[url]http://answers.org/newlook/NLCHPTR3.HTM#Argument%204[/url]</a>

Three points:

1. I have seen in Hebrew where "yom" refers to periods longer than 24 hours. But this has been in connection with festivals that run over the sunset to sunset limit. It is not used in Hebrew, as far as I can tell, to refer to an "age". Do you have examples of Hebrew writings where this happens?

2. The site stated "God does not lie." Just after he says God conceals the truth! The splitting of that hair is fun to watch. However, I refer you both to Ezekial 20:25. That says pretty plainly that God lied on at least one occasion!

3. If you take the days as ages, then you run up against the problem of plants coming before the sun. Now, if you are following science at all, then all you have is starlight for the plants for photosynthesis, and this isn't enough by a long shot. So, you have to take an unplain reading and postulate ad hoc an intense, miraculous light source to keep the plants alive for the age before the sun is created. This is as contradictory to God's Creation as is 144 literal hours.

 

[Vance]

I will check into the use of the term YOM for an "extended period of time", but I have read that definition on a number of occasions. I will find the reference.

I am not all that fond of his "God makes things less than clear for our own good" argument. I think instead that He simply used a phrase that actually means what He intended, an extended period of time, since it is the truth, regardless if it is the most common use of the word. Again, I will find that reference.

On the plant issue, there are a number of theories regarding the "light" in verse 3 actually being the sun, but that it was covered to some degree (but not enough to present plant life from growing) until the fourth "age".

We must also keep in mind that the Creation ages would not necessarily be the exclusive periods when every variation of the general type first created on that day was created (if that made sense).

The author of the book cited covers this to some extent here:

http://answers.org/newlook/NLCHPTR6.HTM#Top

 

[Vance]

Here are a few occasions where YOM did not mean a 24-hour period, based on a quick check:

"the day of temptation" (Psa. 95:8), "the day of adversity" (Prov. 24:10), "the day of vengeance" (Isa. 61:2)

In any case, I think it is a fallacious argument to say that just because every other time a word is used a certain way it necessarily MUST be meant that same way here. Evidence in favor of a given interpretation, yes, but absolute requirement? No.

A hypothetical: a writer, in a given text, uses a word a number of times which has more than one meaning. He uses the word 50 times, and 49 of those times he meant one meaning, and the other one time he actually did mean another. That was his intent, and since the word can, indeed, mean either he saw no reason to point out that this one time he was using "meaning number 2".

Based on the approach that "since we know for sure that he used meaning number one the other 49 times, it is without doubt that he intended meaning number one in this 50th instance as well" would result in an absolutely wrong result. They would have misinterpreted the writer just because they followed a hard and fast rule which should never be hard and fast.

Ironically, if you apply this process to the flood story, it requires a local flood since the term "kol erets", translated in English as "the whole earth" is used dramatically more often to mean a local region or people. Only a small percentage of the time is it used to refer to the entire planet.

 

[Karaite]

Hi,

I did not follow that link, so I can't comment on the "page" itself, but I have seen much of that 'day' argument, which has never been valid, so far. And I doubt it can ever be valid, since it requires an erroneous assumption on the use of the word yom.

Now, although I am currently a YEC (at least to some extent, and in some form of it), I do not reject the idea that the Earth "might be" as or almost as old as most secular scientists (and some semi-creationist) believe it to be. However, I don't think the answer lies in the use of the word "yom", but in the overall classification of the first chapter of Genesis.

I am (with difficulty, of course) more able to accept that Genesis is metaphorical, than to take the word "yom" outside of its context, and make it mean whatever I want it to mean.

But there would still be some explaining to do, if we conclude that, indeed, the earth is as old as these people claim it to be. For this is related to the claims that the world (animal, plants, and the earth itself) was already dying--which is in direct conflict with the most important concepts in Christian theology; "through one man sin entered...through sin death." <--This is a great complication, as simple as it may seem at first thought.

For one, it means that sin is not the cause of death, despite it being stated and restated, over and over again, throughout the Scriptures. (FYI--I am referring to the idea that death was not existent before Adam's fall, but that death came as a result of Adam's sin.) If this is not true, then Jesus' role would be totally different, and difficult to understand.

How could we even be blamed for sin, when sin was intrinsic to the world into which we evolved (or appeared)? Furthermore, what would have constituted sin, in the first place? Throughout the evolutionary line, "survival" is the main theme, so killing would not be labeled as a wrong at all. We had to kill to eat, kill to clothe ourselves, kill to defend ourselves from possible or eminent threats.

Today, you can't kill, just because it is a possible threat--although that is what some think they can do, such as the US government.

What about the story of Noah? His descendants? Even Abraham becomes but a symbolic character, if we througout the beginning with Adam.

 

[lucaspa]

I am (with difficulty, of course) more able to accept that Genesis is metaphorical, than to take the word "yom" outside of its context, and make it mean whatever I want it to mean.

I agree with this. The interpretation that makes the most sense to me is one I originally read by Berhard Anderson and Nahum Sarna. Both put Genesis 1 into the historical context of when it was written -- at the end of or shortly after the Babylonican Exile. In this historical context, Genesis 1 is not a literal history but a monograph on monotheism to sustain the Hebrews at a time when they were under considerable pressure to renounce Yahweh. It is structured such that the Babylonian gods are destroyed, in sequence, by having them be created entities of Yahweh. That is, you can't have a god of agriculture (Marduk) if the agricultural plants are created by Yahweh. The sequence of created objects follows the sequence of the appearance of gods in the Enuma Elish.

The authors also retrodicted the creation of Israel by Yahweh that they had already witnessed back to the beginning of the universe. Thus, they intended yom to be a 24 hour day not because it was history, but to provide a (unnecessary) justification for the Sabbath. When Genesis 1 was written, God had already commanded the Hebrews to work 6 days and rest on the 7th. The authors of Genesis 1 therefore had God create in 6 days (work) and rest on the 7th.

But there would still be some explaining to do, if we conclude that, indeed, the earth is as old as these people claim it to be. For this is related to the claims that the world (animal, plants, and the earth itself) was already dying--which is in direct conflict with the most important concepts in Christian theology; "through one man sin entered...through sin death." <--This is a great complication, as simple as it may seem at first thought.

For one, it means that sin is not the cause of death, despite it being stated and restated, over and over again, throughout the Scriptures. (FYI--I am referring to the idea that death was not existent before Adam's fall, but that death came as a result of Adam's sin.) If this is not true, then Jesus' role would be totally different, and difficult to understand.

I reject this man-made theology that physical death came into the world thru Adam. I can't find the Biblical justification. In Genesis 2:17 it says that Adam will die "in the day" that he eats the fruit. That is, right away. Yet Adam lives for 930 years. So the passage simply can't refer to physical death. We also get Genesis 3:22 where Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden before they can eat of the Tree of Eternal Life and live forever. If they were going to live forever anyway, they wouldn't have to eat of the Tree to do so.

Paul was referring to spiritual death; contrary to this theological theory. Jesus' role has always been presented that he died for our sins. Yours and mine. The sins we commit. Not the sin Adam committed. It is plain that we all sin, and not just because Adam did. After all, most believe babies are born innocent. That can't be if you really hold to this theory that sin and death comes from Adam. So the theory contradicts with other theological theories. Besides, the Bible has several verses that specifically forbid punishing the offspring for the transgressions of the parent.

So, while spiritual death enters with Adam thru disobedience, the point of the story is that we are all Adam. Each of us, sometime in our life, disobeys God and therefore each of us needs a savior.

So, rather than seeing problems for an old earth in this, I simply see a flawed man made theological theory.

How could we even be blamed for sin, when sin was intrinsic to the world into which we evolved (or appeared)? Furthermore, what would have constituted sin, in the first place? Throughout the evolutionary line, "survival" is the main theme, so killing would not be labeled as a wrong at all. We had to kill to eat, kill to clothe ourselves, kill to defend ourselves from possible or eminent threats.

This is easy. Think about it. Remember the selfish gene. What is disobedience? Isn't it being selfish and doing what you want to do rather than what you are commanded to do or even what is good for someone else? Thus, our disobedience to God has evolved right into our genes because Darwinian evolution can't generate a totally non-selfish, altruistic individual.

What about the story of Noah? His descendants? Even Abraham becomes but a symbolic character, if we througout the beginning with Adam.

What's preventing the Noah story from being a local flood? Also, how does Abraham become symbolic? Logic says that there had to be a first member and head of the eventual tribes of Israel. Sorry, the slippery slope argument doesn't work. Each claim must be taken separately and there are ledges on the slippery slope. It's not a sheer drop.

The Flood has been radically changed by YEC in order to accomodate their theory. Instead of a gentle flood that preserves the geography of pre-Flood times (remember, the location of Eden -- pre-Flood -- is identified by post-Flood rivers), we now have a violent Flood capable of ripping up milliions of cubic miles of rock to make sedimentary rock, making many forms of sealife extinct, and even having massive movement of continents. This isn't the Biblical flood of Genesis 6-8 anymore, it's a man-made invention to serve a man-made theory.

 

[lucaspa]

Here are a few occasions where YOM did not mean a 24-hour period, based on a quick check:

"the day of temptation" (Psa. 95:8), "the day of adversity" (Prov. 24:10), "the day of vengeance" (Isa. 61:2)

I like your point that a word doesn't have to mean one thing just because it is used for that in other places.

That said, Psalm 95:8 doesn't seem to mean an age. "Don't be stubborn, as your ancestors were at Meribah, as they were that day in the desert at Massah." That seems to be a single day.

Isaiah 61:2 "he has sent me to proclaim that the day has come when the Lord will save his people and defeat their enemies"

Again, that sounds like a normal day.

Proverbs 24:10 "if you falter in the day of adversity, your strength is small"

Again, this seems a normal day. Adversity can last longer than a day, but this is a pretty standard way of saying this, where day means 24 hour day.

Sorry, Vance. As I said, your point about the usage only being possible and not absolute was very good. My trouble is simpler: the examples you gave are talking about "day" and not an unspecified "age".

Ironically, if you apply this process to the flood story, it requires a local flood since the term "kol erets", translated in English as "the whole earth" is used dramatically more often to mean a local region or people. Only a small percentage of the time is it used to refer to the entire planet.

There are bigger problems with the flood story. Starting with the fact that it is two separate stories that have clumsily been cobbled together into a single narrative. Genesis 6-8 is one of the prime evidences for the Documentary Hypothesis since the stories can so easily be separated into two complete, but different, narratives. Add to that the flood story is a plagiarism from the Babylonian story of Marduk and Unt-napushtim, and any attempt to make it literal history or world-wide becomes very problematical. It also doesn't fit very well with the rest of Judaic theology and creates some major problems for that theology.

I think the account had a purpose for the audience of the time, but that purpose has long ago been lost. I don't think we have any idea any longer as to what the intent of the authors and redactor were in including the story in Genesis. The physical evidence completely falsifies that a global flood ever happened. The theological message is a mystery.

For Karaite, the men who falsified the Flood and Flood Geology were all Christians or deists, all were creationists, and most were ministers. To say an old earth is "secular" science ignores the history of what really happened.

 

[lucaspa]

I am not all that fond of his "God makes things less than clear for our own good" argument.

yeah, I had real problems with this idea, too! This is way too close to making God a deceiver for my comfort. AS a parent I have told my kids to figure it out for themselves and failed to volunteer knowlege, but I have never deliberately obscured knowledge. I would be uncomfortable doing so because it tends to break the trust of child for parent.

I think instead that He simply used a phrase that actually means what He intended, an extended period of time, since it is the truth, regardless if it is the most common use of the word.

I agree, except I think that the intent was theological, not historical, and it was the intent of the human authors, not God's. God let the human intent stand because it did support a theological truth -- keeping the Sabbath.

On the plant issue, there are a number of theories regarding the "light" in verse 3 actually being the sun, but that it was covered to some degree (but not enough to present plant life from growing) until the fourth "age".

But that is still a transparent ad hoc hypothesis that can't be tested independently and whose only purpose is to preserve the day-age theory.

We must also keep in mind that the Creation ages would not necessarily be the exclusive periods when every variation of the general type first created on that day was created (if that made sense).

This is somewhat better, since the passage refers specifically to agricultural plants. You already know why I think this is so. So, you could have aquatic plants earlier as stated by the website. However, the thick clouds proposed at the site cause more trouble for aquatic plants because, although you might get enough sunlight thru to the land plants, it really cuts down the amount of light available to penetrate water! See, those ad hoc hypotheses end up contradicting other ad hoc hypotheses.

 

[Karaite]

Neither of the two postes above managed to respond to my objections.

I don't have the time right now, to touch on the different responses I received, but as far as Noah goes, didn't even have the flood in mind. I was referring to the years attributed to the lives of both Noah and Abraham. And, as it seems, you have answered my objections in an indirect manner.

It is clear that you do not take any of the stories in Genesis to be historical. So that pretty much answers my questions. But I will be back to respond to it later.

 

[Karaite]

I agree with this. The interpretation that makes the most sense to me is one I originally read by Berhard Anderson and Nahum Sarna. Both put Genesis 1 into the historical context of when it was written -- at the end of or shortly after the Babylonican Exile. In this historical context, Genesis 1 is not a literal history but a monograph on monotheism to sustain the Hebrews at a time when they were under considerable pressure to renounce Yahweh. It is structured such that the Babylonian gods are destroyed, in sequence, by having them be created entities of Yahweh. That is, you can't have a god of agriculture (Marduk) if the agricultural plants are created by Yahweh. The sequence of created objects follows the sequence of the appearance of gods in the Enuma Elish.

The authors also retrodicted the creation of Israel by Yahweh that they had already witnessed back to the beginning of the universe. Thus, they intended yom to be a 24 hour day not because it was history, but to provide a (unnecessary) justification for the Sabbath. When Genesis 1 was written, God had already commanded the Hebrews to work 6 days and rest on the 7th. The authors of Genesis 1 therefore had God create in 6 days (work) and rest on the 7th.

Clarification: I did not say that I take the story as metaphorical. I said that, instead of taking yom out of the context of the story, it would be better to take the whole story as metaphorical.

I take it, then, that you are a liberal christian. I find it to be a misuse of time to debate over the Scriptures with liberals, since there is never a logical ground on which you can debate. Everything is brought down into symbolic/allegorical stories, which prevent any logical conclusions--that is, because the stories are but the product of an ancient culture (according to the liberal).

However, there are some problems with the argument you presented, which I would like to address.

How could we know what part of the law was given, before the corruptions? Do we have the original copies of the law? Nope! The Exodus documents much information relating to Genesis, and in the law it says "for in six days did God create the heavens and the earth". When was this introduced into the law?

You seem to imply that the law was given by God, but how could you verify this? Or is it something to go by faith alone? How do you know that the law precedes Genesis? These are mere, and unnecessary speculations on your part. The story of Adam, Noah, and Abraham (Isaac & Jacob, as well) are all part of the entire history of the Old Testament, and into the New Testament. Mostly important in the role of Jesus Christ.

To take these characters, and even parts of the law out of it, would mean a complete denial of the Christian religion.

I reject this man-made theology that physical death came into the world thru Adam. I can't find the Biblical justification. In Genesis 2:17 it says that Adam will die "in the day" that he eats the fruit. That is, right away. Yet Adam lives for 930 years. So the passage simply can't refer to physical death.

Yes, the particular verse refers, to the death of the spiritual Adam. But it is not limited to that alone. The same as prophecies have double applications, the same this "prophecy" had a double application. If you recall, the story of Adam's creation uses both, spiritual and physical. In one, Adam was created in the "image" of God, in the other, Adam was "made out of the dust." Once Adam was formed out of dust "God breathed into his nostrils the soul (heb. Neshama) of [human] life, and man became a living being."

As you can see, there are two parts to Adam, but neither of the two was created (in concept) to die. They were to be preserved by God, as long as they remained under His guidance.

We also get Genesis 3:22 where Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden before they can eat of the Tree of Eternal Life and live forever. If they were going to live forever anyway, they wouldn't have to eat of the Tree to do so.

The tree of life does not provide an instantaneous eternal security. If God commanded man to eat of all the fruits in the garden, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then it is logical to think that the tree of life is what they ate of. (Logically, they would need to eat of it, to live; hence the name "tree of life.")

The tree was secured so that man may "no longer" reach out for it, and live forever. That is why we have man being kicked out of the Garden, and that is why we have the curse "For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

In Eve's own words, speaking to the serpent "God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' " <--Notice that it does not say 'immediate, and instantaneous death'. In this case, it seemed as if Adam and Eve had understood it to be physical death, but the fact of the spiritual side to it had eluded them. And the serpent, knowing this, used this to serve his own purpose. That is why the serpent responds "surely, you will not die."

However, the curse was not only physical, nor only spiritual; it was both! The only difference is that, 'dust returns to dust', but spirit is eternal and is subject to more rules and laws. So, the importance of the renewal of the spirit is important, while the renewal of the body, in a way, may only cause the 'eternal enslavement' of the spirit.

Paul was referring to spiritual death; contrary to this theological theory. Jesus' role has always been presented that he died for our sins. Yours and mine. The sins we commit. Not the sin Adam committed. It is plain that we all sin, and not just because Adam did. After all, most believe babies are born innocent. That can't be if you really hold to this theory that sin and death comes from Adam. So the theory contradicts with other theological theories. Besides, the Bible has several verses that specifically forbid punishing the offspring for the transgressions of the parent.

The story of Adam presents a "decaying world", from the fall on-forward. The theory of evolution presents a 'progressing world, from chaos to order'. The fall of Adam presents the reason for our decaying bodies, that is why Jesus promises a "new and perfected body". Jesus died for the sins of the world, which each individual commits, but the story of Adam explains how sin entered the world, in the first place. Our constant battle with the flesh is our battle with the old Adam (whom we are, because we were all made in the image of that first sinner), while trying to live as the born-again Adam (spiritual rebirth, through Jesus, the second Adam).

No matter what you say, what Paul is saying is that we inherited the curse of Adam, and by implication, the "guilt of his sin". While the spirit can be renewed instantaneously, as it was given death instantaneously in the first place; the body can only be renewed once the fulfillment of its curse, which when we are resurrected into new bodies.

So, while spiritual death enters with Adam thru disobedience, the point of the story is that we are all Adam. Each of us, sometime in our life, disobeys God and therefore each of us needs a savior.

How are we all Adam? The way I put it, is that we are Adam because we are made in his image, we are descendants of him, after his fall, therefore, we carry out his punishment in us. As long as humanity exists, Adam's curse will exist. For the fallen flesh continues in each and everyone of us.

This is easy. Think about it. Remember the selfish gene. What is disobedience? Isn't it being selfish and doing what you want to do rather than what you are commanded to do or even what is good for someone else? Thus, our disobedience to God has evolved right into our genes because Darwinian evolution can't generate a totally non-selfish, altruistic individual.

Not sure I understand what you are saying, and how it relates to my post.

You are saying that selfishness is instrinsic to darwinian evolution, but then you say that selfishness is a sin? Or what is it that you are saying?

Our nature is a selfish nature. How could we be guilty of sin, when our existence has only been secured by it? If we were not selfish, how then could we have managed to evolve into the advanced beings that we are?

What's preventing the Noah story from being a local flood? Also, how does Abraham become symbolic?

The ages attributed to the characters are contrary to what evolutionists say. Adam lived 900+ years, Noah 900+, Abraham 175.

Logic says that there had to be a first member and head of the eventual tribes of Israel. Sorry, the slippery slope argument doesn't work. Each claim must be taken separately and there are ledges on the slippery slope. It's not a sheer drop.

But how can you throw out Adam, Noah, and the other predecessors, when they are all traced back to in geneologies? That logic says that they had to have a predecessor, does not mean that the predecessor has to be any of these characters. Logic, if anything, would say that, these predecessors were actual characters--including Adam. Even if the story of the Garden was a metaphor, Adam has to be a real person (one man), not a group or a species. That is logic.

Logic, also, would say that, if you don't accept these geneologies, then you are better off not accepting the whole Bible and the Christian religion. For the religion is based strictly on the Bible, and the Bible is a long HISTORY of the "why's and how's" of the people through whom the religion was established.

There is no way of taking the people, out of the religion, without taking the religion* out of the religion itself.

*The religion would not be the same religion, but merely a set of 'nice values' that could be used at one's own discretion.

 

[Sinai]

I have seen much of that 'day' argument, which has never been valid, so far. And I doubt it can ever be valid, since it requires an erroneous assumption on the use of the word yom.

And what would that 'erroneous assumption" be?

Now, although I am currently a YEC (at least to some extent, and in some form of it), I do not reject the idea that the Earth "might be" as or almost as old as most secular scientists (and some semi-creationist) believe it to be. However, I don't think the answer lies in the use of the word "yom", but in the overall classification of the first chapter of Genesis.

All right, then: How do you classify the first chapter of Genesis?

I am (with difficulty, of course) more able to accept that Genesis is metaphorical, than to take the word "yom" outside of its context, and make it mean whatever I want it to mean.

Fair enough. Using just the first chapter of Genesis as your context, what is the context of yom?

But there would still be some explaining to do, if we conclude that, indeed, the earth is as old as these people claim it to be. For this is related to the claims that the world (animal, plants, and the earth itself) was already dying--which is in direct conflict with the most important concepts in Christian theology; "through one man sin entered...through sin death." <--This is a great complication, as simple as it may seem at first thought.

For one, it means that sin is not the cause of death, despite it being stated and restated, over and over again, throughout the Scriptures. (FYI--I am referring to the idea that death was not existent before Adam's fall, but that death came as a result of Adam's sin.) If this is not true, then Jesus' role would be totally different, and difficult to understand.

Are you contending that Jesus' role was to save us from physical death? Where do you find that in the scriptures?

 

[Karaite]

And what would that 'erroneous assumption" be?

That because a word is used in different ways, that it will "always mean any of, or all of those meanings."

Just because yom is used to symbolize a moment, or a long period of time, it does not mean that in every occasion that you see it used, that you are able to use all of those meanings for it. And then choose which one you like best, and go with it. You go by the context.

All right, then: How do you classify the first chapter of Genesis?

Umm...is it not obvious?

Fair enough. Using just the first chapter of Genesis as your context, what is the context of yom?

Perhaps you were trying to say something, but you got confused? Genesis 1 is the context.

Maybe you were asking what are the important factors? One would be the use of "evening and morning."

Hebrew: Vayikra Elohim La-Or yom ve'La-Choshech Kara layelah va'yehi Erev va'yehi Voker [Yom Ehad]

English: Called God the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And occured evening, and occured morning--day one.

Evening and Morning are part of the day, not an epoch. Evening and Morning is how the Hebrews count days. The day begins with the evening, and ends with the morning. The fact that it would even declare it in the same order as the Hebrew calendar does, is inevitable proof that yom (as in Yom Ehad) is not referring to anything other than a literal day.

Are you contending that Jesus' role was to save us from physical death? Where do you find that in the scriptures?

No.

 

[Vance]

The problem with your approach to the physical death *and* spiritual death is that there is nothing to back it up. You acknowledge the analysis that points to the spiritual death, but simply want to *add* that to your pre-existing theology, rather than replace it. There is simply nothing in the text that points to anything other than a spiritual "loss of communion" (death) with God.

And this follows through consistently throughout the Bible. When we accept the gift of redemption and regain that communion with God that was lost by Adam, we do indeed avoid spiritual death (we will spend eternity in that communion), but we still do not avoid physical death. This makes it clear that what was LOST by Adam was the spiritual life, because *that* is what we can regain by acceptance of the redemptive gift.

And, getting back to Adam and Eve, while Eve may not have specified that they would die immediately, you have to go back to God's own statement in 2:17. There He said that "in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die". Now, since you insist on YOM being used in a literal 24-hour sense, this means that God is telling that *something* will happen to them within 24 hours of eating the fruit (maybe even the 12 hours used in the most restrictive interpretation of YOM). They *will* die in some sense within the day. Since they did not die physically, they must have died spiritually.

And the curse does not contradict this at all. Living in Eden was without toil or hardship. It was also the separate place of the intimate communion with God (the spiritual life which was the gift of God that made us Man when it was breathed into us). The world outside the garden was harsh and difficult and because Adam had lost his communion with God (suffering spiritual death), he was being banished from the garden, out into the world in which he would toil and suffer.

Regardless of any issues regarding an old earth, the "physical death" reading of Paul just doesn't fit. This is why most Christians today believe that what is being discussed is a spiritual death.

Now, you then consider all the evidence for an old earth, an earth that includes a great deal of physical death, and this logical approach above fits without contradiction.

Now, if we are all right (meaning the majority of Christians who believe in a spiritual death), then think about all the incorrect teachings that have sprung up from the physical death theology. We have incorrect opposition to an old earth, we have the concept of a devolving earth, we have the concept that the long ages in the genealogies are a symptom of this devolution (and even that Neandertals were simply OLD h. sapiens!), etc, etc. An entire house of theological cards that get built up around what is most likely a simple misreading of the Scripture. Geocentrism all over again.

 

[Karaite]

The problem with your approach to the physical death *and* spiritual death is that there is nothing to back it up.

Quite to the contrary, it is the fact that we have all understood it like that, from the beginning. Even in the early beliefs of the Israelites, we find that the curse upon man was the return to dust.

Have you ever read the Old Testament, just as a read? If you do, you will find so many references to sin and death, in the physical manner ONLY. In fact, if it wasn't for a few references to life after death, and the references to 'mediums', we would be left with no justification at all for believing in a spiritual man.

Ecclesiastes, as used so often by Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and even by the Sadducees (in the time of Jesus) among many others, presents the view of man as a physical being, with no existence beyond his body.

If the view of the ancient was that, that man was nothing but dust, and that there was no 'conscious spirit' existing after our death, why would my assertion that the particular Scripture is speaking of both, the physical and spiritual deaths.

The only one twisting and changing the facts here is you.

You acknowledge the analysis that points to the spiritual death, but simply want to *add* that to your pre-existing theology, rather than replace it. There is simply nothing in the text that points to anything other than a spiritual "loss of communion" (death) with God.

They are both in there, and you can't separate them from eachother.

And this follows through consistently throughout the Bible. When we accept the gift of redemption and regain that communion with God that was lost by Adam, we do indeed avoid spiritual death (we will spend eternity in that communion), but we still do not avoid physical death. This makes it clear that what was LOST by Adam was the spiritual life, because *that* is what we can regain by acceptance of the redemptive gift.

Actually, as I already stated before, throughout Bible history, we find that the usual application of "sin and death" has been in the physical, and almost never (if at all) does it apply to the 'spiritual'. I can provide you with hundreds of passages, but I doubt you can provide me with even a quarter of it (if at all any).

And, getting back to Adam and Eve, while Eve may not have specified that they would die immediately, you have to go back to God's own statement in 2:17. There He said that "in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die".

Yes, when it was stated by God, it records the part where it says "day". But there is a reason why it records it, because it does want to show that it also includes the spiritual death. Furthermore, if you see how it is used, it does not say that "that same day", but it says "the day", as in, whenever you do this.

But regardless of that, the fact is that it does not present an absolute, where only the spiritual can be applied, which is what you wish it to be.

Now, since you insist on YOM being used in a literal 24-hour sense, this means that God is telling that *something* will happen to them within 24 hours of eating the fruit (maybe even the 12 hours used in the most restrictive interpretation of YOM). They *will* die in some sense within the day. Since they did not die physically, they must have died spiritually.

Read the above note.

And the curse does not contradict this at all. Living in Eden was without toil or hardship. It was also the separate place of the intimate communion with God (the spiritual life which was the gift of God that made us Man when it was breathed into us). The world outside the garden was harsh and difficult and because Adam had lost his communion with God (suffering spiritual death), he was being banished from the garden, out into the world in which he would toil and suffer.

No, the curse does not contradict the fact that God said that the day that they eat from it, that they will die.

Regardless of any issues regarding an old earth, the "physical death" reading of Paul just doesn't fit. This is why most Christians today believe that what is being discussed is a spiritual death.

Paul's sayings are only in conflict with those who have preconceptions about the world, and want to make his teachings (and the Bible in general) to fit their own beliefs.

Now, you then consider all the evidence for an old earth, an earth that includes a great deal of physical death, and this logical approach above fits without contradiction.

Now, if we are all right (meaning the majority of Christians who believe in a spiritual death), then think about all the incorrect teachings that have sprung up from the physical death theology. We have incorrect opposition to an old earth, we have the concept of a devolving earth, we have the concept that the long ages in the genealogies are a symptom of this devolution (and even that Neandertals were simply OLD h. sapiens!), etc, etc. An entire house of theological cards that get built up around what is most likely a simple misreading of the Scripture. Geocentrism all over again.

What do you mean "the majority that believe in spiritual death"? The majority of those who believe in the Bible, believe in the physical and spiritual death, not in only one.

Would you classify yourself as a Bible believing Christian?

 

[Vance]

What do you mean "the majority that believe in spiritual death"? The majority of those who believe in the Bible, believe in the physical and spiritual death, not in only one.

Would you classify yourself as a Bible believing Christian?

Of course. Do you? Where do you get off even asking such a question on this forum?! The self-righteous hubris of so many YEC's is amazing. And it is almost universal among that select group. What is ironic is that Jesus' most forceful teachings were against this very attitude.

And, yes, the majority of Christians throughout the world (based on the teachings of the denominations to which they belong, since it would be impossible to ask them all), believe that Paul is referring to a spiritual death, and NOT to a physical death. And most believe that the earth and universe are billions of years old, and most believe it is possible that God could have created through evolution. Why is it that YEC's seem to live in their own little world and assume that all other Spirit-filled Christians *must* obviously believe the same as they do?

Actually, I can answer this myself. Having grown up in a fundamentalist household (my father was an Assembly of God minister), and attending Fundamentalist Christian schools, it actually came as a surprise to me later to find that the majority of Christians were NOT fundamentalist charismatics. It really does become somewhat of a closed circle of connection, especially here in America, where the fundamentalist movement (and YEC'ism) is spreading and, while still in the significant minority, is dominating the public face of Christianity.

 

[Karaite]

Of course. Do you? Where do you get off even asking such a question on this forum?! The self-righteous hubris of so many YEC's is amazing. And it is almost universal among that select group. What is ironic is that Jesus' most forceful teachings were against this very attitude.

As usual, your type use anything but evidence.

Your argument comes from the assumption that evolution is fact, and that the earth could not be created in six days.

My argument has not been over the scientific evidences (which are reason for dispute, anyway) but I am arguing over the implications of such claims. My argument is strictly over the Scriptures, not over anything else. From the Scriptures, we are not allowed to make it all into metaphor, and just claim whatever we want.

The fact that you call the story of Genesis to be the product of some "pressure" by the exiled Jews, is evidence enough for this.

But instead you attack my person, in a way that is common among those who have no answer for the objections.

And, yes, the majority of Christians throughout the world (based on the teachings of the denominations to which they belong, since it would be impossible to ask them all), believe that Paul is referring to a spiritual death, and NOT to a physical death.

Yes, I know that Paul was speaking of spiritual death in particular, but he uses a play of words.

For sin could not be transmitted to anyone, in a spiritual manner. It could only be transmitted through the physical. That is why we have so many examples of how we have to battle with 'the sinful man' (the flesh). While the spirit says something, the flesh says the other.

That is evidenced in all of Paul's writings.

And most believe that the earth and universe are billions of years old, and most believe it is possible that God could have created through evolution.

You are wrong, once again. Most Christians believe in a young earth, and it is easy for the majority to believe this, since there is abundance of "word of Faith" teachings, and a lot of these believe that there is no evidence that will ever change their belief. I don't agree with their approach, but the fact is that they exist, and your statement above is erred.

Why is it that YEC's seem to live in their own little world and assume that all other Spirit-filled Christians *must* obviously believe the same as they do?

I don't know, why do you think they do?

Actually, I can answer this myself. Having grown up in a fundamentalist household (my father was an Assembly of God minister), and attending Fundamentalist Christian schools, it actually came as a surprise to me later to find that the majority of Christians were NOT fundamentalist charismatics. It really does become somewhat of a closed circle of connection, especially here in America, where the fundamentalist movement (and YEC'ism) is spreading and, while still in the significant minority, is dominating the public face of Christianity.

I see now, why you have become a liberal. You did not learn the Bible, you simply followed blindly. That is what it was.

I don't believe in any of that stuff those people teach, about spiritually filled, speaking in tongues, etc.

The Spirit guides (or at least moves) you, it does not take over your body.

 

[Vance]

Karaite said:


Your argument comes from the assumption that evolution is fact, and that the earth could not be created in six days.

Actually, you have not read many of the posts around here. The belief in an old earth *pre-dates* the belief in evolution. The idea that science insists on an old earth to accommodate evolutionary teaching is ignorant beyond belief. There are Christian scientists (the real types, the ones who actually have degrees from real universities and actually worked as scientists) who oppose evolution by know that the earth is billions of years old. Check out www.reasons.org for an example of one. (Of course, being an astrophycisist, he is solid on the age of the universe, but less solid on biology).

My argument has not been over the scientific evidences (which are reason for dispute, anyway) but I am arguing over the implications of such claims. My argument is strictly over the Scriptures, not over anything else. From the Scriptures, we are not allowed to make it all into metaphor, and just claim whatever we want.

Who is making it all metaphor, or whatever we want? I always start with a literal reading unless and until there is a very good reason to adopt a different reason.

The fact that you call the story of Genesis to be the product of some "pressure" by the exiled Jews, is evidence enough for this.

Who said this?

But instead you attack my person, in a way that is common among those who have no answer for the objections.

What!? You sit there are basically call us all non-Christians and you have the nerve to say I am attacking you? Shame on you.


For sin could not be transmitted to anyone, in a spiritual manner. It could only be transmitted through the physical. That is why we have so many examples of how we have to battle with 'the sinful man' (the flesh). While the spirit says something, the flesh says the other.

Our sinfulness may, indeed, be part of our physical nature (as Lucaspa explained, there is a very strong explanation for this in evolution), it is not linked with physical death. We do not die physically because we sin, we die physically even if we are washed free of all sins by God’s redemption. Jesus was sinless and His body suffered physical death. Sin without redemption equals spiritual death, it has nothing to do with physical death.


You are wrong, once again. Most Christians believe in a young earth.

Where do you get this from?



I see now, why you have become a liberal. You did not learn the Bible, you simply followed blindly. That is what it was.

Ah, but you see how foolish assumptions can make you. Your presumptiveness knows no bounds.

First, I am not a liberal, but a conservative: politically, morally and in my Christian walk.

Second, I did learn the Bible thoroughly. It was because I did NOT follow blindly that I saw through the false teachings of YEC’ism. What surprised me was not that they were not speaking the truth, but that there were so many others out there (most of Christianity) who also knew that YEC’ism was simply not true.

I don't believe in any of that stuff those people teach, about spiritually filled, speaking in tongues, etc.

Oh, I think all Christians are filled with God’s Spirit, but I don’t believe in the charismatic teachings. They are as false as YEC’ism

 

[Karaite]

Hi Vance,

I will admit to a mistake of mine. I had you mixed up with lucaspa, my bad...

That is why I mentioned the story of Genesis being an adoption of other babylonian stories, but with a Yahwist twist. That was what lucaspa had claimed earlier.

Also, that is why I called you liberal, too.

Okay, now, I will respond to your post in full. This was just a quick post.

 

[Vance]

I think this guy has some insight on this point as well:

"Death contrasted with spiritual life. The curse did, however, bring the death of Adam and his descendants. This death is discussed by Paul with an emphasis on a distinction between earthliness and heavenly nature. In 1 Cor 15:21 (discussed earlier) Paul contrasts death with resurrection. The distinction between earthly and heavenly is continued in vv. 47-50: "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." Jesus said to Nicodemus, "You must be born again ... of the Spirit" (John 3:7-8). 2 Corinthians 3:17 concludes a discourse on the glory of the new covenant by emphasizing its origin in the Spirit and by affirming that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." The nature of death introduced into the world because of Adam is therefore primarily a spiritual matter. The claim that animal death derived from the fall is not only incorrect but also involves a mistaken emphasis on the physical as opposed to the spiritual."

From here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/creature_mortality.shtml?main