Creation in six days, yet slow change and great limitation for everything now on earth...

[JAL]

As it is - you are introducing the odd one-off idea that if an infinite being does anything at all that is wonderful and amazing --it is not to be praised unless he "suffers" while doing it.

Infinitude is an incoherent postulation. It's a nonsense claim. No existing reality can be meaningfully described as infinite since infinity is not a specific number. It also leads to logical problems such as:

...(1) Love intervenes kindly, to reduce suffering. Infinite love, therefore, translates to infinite atonement, thereby precluding hell even for the devil.

....(2) Can an infinitely powerful God crave more power? Obviously, No. By that same token, can an infinitely self-sufficient God crave ANYTHING - suffer any unfulfilled wants, desires, needs? Obviously, No. Therefore it would be impossible for Him to WANT to create this world for His good pleasure.

 

[Job 33:6]

It is unlikely that Moses stupidly forgot everything written in Genesis 1 when he wrote chapter 2.

I'm an OEC. I believe in six literal days - six long Daylights stretching at least the 4 billion years of the earths creation, perhaps even the full 13 billion years.

Genesis 1 is probably more of a topical account than a chronological one. A topical statement mentions each topic only once, "This week I cooked meals, did laundry, washed my vehicles, and took out the garbage," and thus:
...(1) There is no definitive chronology here.
...(2) How many times did I do each of those things? Unknown.


Genesis 1 is topical because:
...(1) God says, Let there be light - once? Or 7 times? Presumably at LEAST seven times but only mentioned once. See item 2 above.
...(2) WHEN are each of His statements fulfilled? Unknown chronology.


Genesis 2 is almost certainly topical as well because, for one thing, the six days are here subsumed into the "day" (the period) of creation (Genesis 2:4).

At verse 5, the Hebrew word can mean earth or land:

"5 And no plant of the field was yet in the [land]".

What land? Moses is zooming in on Adam and Eve. The "land" probably refers to their immediate vicinity (perhaps a small region containing the Garden of Eden).

"5 And no plant of the field was yet in the [land]...there was not a man to till the ground".

This refers to farming. That's the CONTEXT of the Genesis 2 narrative. When we get to verse 9:

"9 And out of the ground made Jehovah God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight"

You say this contradicts the Genesis 1 account? Three problems:
...(1) You can't necessarily pull a verse out of a farming context and apply it to all creation.
...(2) Genesis 1 is probably more topical than chronological.
...(3) As you know, a statement in Hebrew like "God did X" could mean, "God (previously) HAD done X". Here again, no definitive chronology.


Correct. The seventh Daylight is everlasting in my literal reading.



I categorically reject that notion. An indefatigable God is a Platonic fabrication contradicted by the Incarnation where God (Jesus) grew weary.


False dichotomy. The term "day" can summarize an entire period. "In the day when Britain ruled the nations..."


Yes, God has anchored the stars in a solid dome in my literal reading. You don't really want to take Newton's theory of gravity literally, do you? Newton himself didn't, as I'm sure you know.

Conclusion: Moses uses topical language to summarize the creation in Genesis 1. He again uses topical language in Genesis 2 to re-summarize, adding this time a few more details by zooming in on Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Edin.


This post was just from a cursory glance at the text. These days my health is too poor to do any research. Chances are if I missed anything, however, some literal apologist already covered it.

And I'm not insisting that Genesis 1 is literal. I'm merely OPINING that it is. Reasonable arguments exist on both sides of the debate.

You've decided upon a non-literal reading. Fine. In that case I trust you've fully prayed about whether you should really be trying to establish biblical contradictions in the minds of God's people.

Genesis 1 has no chronology? And God said "let their be light" 7 times?

I don't know what Bible you guys are reading, but I grossly disagree with this analysis.

Though I do agree with your interpretation of God anchoring stars in the solid dome raqia.

 

[JAL]

Genesis 1 has no chronology? And God said "let their be light" 7 times?

I don't know what Bible you guys are reading, but I grossly disagree with this analysis.

Though I do agree with your interpretation of God anchoring stars in the solid dome raqia.

That's not precisely what I said. What I said is that the chronology isn't perfectly clear/definitive because the chapter is probably more topical than chronological. Historically the church's biggest mistake, in my view, is Sola Scriptura - the assumption that we can reliably interpret the text without Direct Revelation. That was never God's intent (see 1 Corinthians 14:1).

And God said "let their be light" 7 times?

According to Isaiah 55:11, God speaks/releases the divine Word (in this case as Light) EVERY TIME He does a miracle. The divine Word returns to Him after the work is done. Each night, then, there would be a return of the Light to God. That makes for 7 separate utterances/speeches/releases.

I don't know what Bible you guys are reading

I'm pretty sure it's the same one.

 

[Job 33:6]

That's not precisely what I said. What I said is that the chronology isn't perfectly clear/definitive because the chapter is probably more topical than chronological. Historically the church's biggest mistake, in my view, is Sola Scriptura - the assumption that we can reliably interpret the text without Direct Revelation. That was never God's intent (see 1 Corinthians 14:1).


According to Isaiah 55:11, God speaks/releases the divine Word (in this case as Light) EVERY TIME He does a miracle. The divine Word returns to Him after the work is done. Each night, then, there would be a return of the Light to God. That makes for 7 separate utterances/speeches/releases.


I'm pretty sure it's the same one.

Light is not the divine word. Light is a product of the word, it is light which results in daytime. Isaiah 55 has nothing to do with creation.

 

[JAL]

Light is not the divine word. Light is a product of the word, it is light which results in daytime. Isaiah 55 has nothing to do with creation.

The Light radiating from Christ's face is NOT the divine Word?

After Moses spoke with the Lord face to face on the mountain, and his face was ablaze with this physical Light, bear in mind Paul's sequence in 2 Corinthians:
...In 2Cor 3, Paul identifies that Light as the Glory of the Lord.
...In 2Cor 4, Paul identifies that Light with the radiance in the Lord's face, and even refers it back to Genesis 1, "Let there be light".

The Glory of the Lord is not natural, created light. That Light is the divine Word.

Paul is actually testifying to his own experience. He saw the Lord on the Road to Damascus - and what he SAW was, first and foremost, brilliant Light. Of course we cannot currently see/survive it in unshaded fullness:

"He lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see" (1 Tim 6:16).

Hence we cannot see His face in this life, unless shaded.

 

[JAL]

Isaiah 55 has nothing to do with creation.

Wow. Couldn't be more mistaken. God sends forth the divine Word to do His work. Every time God spoke in Genesis 1, it was a sending forth of the (spoken) divine Word as the Breath of His mouth (Psalms 33:6).

"By the [spoken] word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth."

 

[Job 33:6]

The Light radiating from Christ's face is NOT the divine Word?

After Moses spoke with the Lord face to face on the mountain, and his face was ablaze with this physical Light, bear in mind Paul's sequence in 2 Corinthians:
...In 2Cor 3, Paul identifies that Light as the Glory of the Lord.
...In 2Cor 4, Paul identifies that Light with the radiance in the Lord's face, and even refers it back to Genesis 1, "Let there be light".

The Glory of the Lord is not natural, created light. That Light is the divine Word.

Paul is actually testifying to his own experience. He saw the Lord on the Road to Damascus - and what he SAW was, first and foremost, brilliant Light. Of course we cannot currently see/survive it in unshaded fullness:

"He lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see" (1 Tim 6:16).

Hence we cannot see His face in this life, unless shaded.

I'm not going to debate over something that is clearly a subjective matter.

I still don't see any connection here and the idea that God might have been saying "let there be light" or producing light in some kind of repetition each day, 7 times.

If Genesis wasn't chronological, then it wouldn't chronologically list days in order of 1 through 7.

 

[JAL]

If Genesis wasn't chronological, then it wouldn't chronologically list days in order of 1 through 7.

When we creationists take the text literally, evolutionists complain, "It's just an allegory." Yet here you are arguing for a more literal reading.

I'm not going to debate over something that is clearly a subjective matter.

Agreed. It's hard to gauge how literally to take some texts. That's why I say there are good arguments on both sides.

I still don't see any connection here and the idea that God might have been saying "let there be light" or producing light in some kind of repetition each day, 7 times.

A few things to bear in mind.
...(1) Scripture seems clear that His face radiates Light. What part of His face? Could that include His mouth too? Certainly. When He speaks, He exhales the divine Word (Isaiah 55:11) as the divine Breath/Wind (Psalms 33:6), which can then assume any form/shape including Light. For example the divine Breath/Wind assumes the forms of Smoke and Fire from His nostrils (Psalms 18:8), and we know His Fire radiates Light (Exodus 13:21).

...(2) Isaiah 55:11 is clear that He speaks/releases this divine Breath/Wind to perform His miracles, for example the parting of the Red Sea by a physical Wind. (The waters didn't divide instantly/magically but were rather slowly pushed apart by the Wind over the course of an entire evening).

"At the blast of Your nostrils the waters piled up...10But You blew with Your breath, and the sea covered them."(Ex 15).

So again, it stands to reason - it is at least PLAUSIBLE - that 7 miraculously long days of Light amounts to 7 separate utterances /releases. The releases TRANSLATE IN ENGLISH to "Let there be light" expressed 7 times. Also, even non-verbal communication can be translated into English.

You say you are unable to connect these dots. Are you sure you're being open-minded about this? I mean, this isn't rocket science. It's not like reading one of your science textbooks.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are many reasons why a 6-day 24-hour literalist approach is simply untenable and is self-contradicting. And quite frankly, it does a disservice to scripture by ignoring all the parallels to ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Ugaritic texts.

Today's winner

 

[The Barbarian]

When we creationists take the text literally, evolutionists complain, "It's just an allegory." Yet here you are arguing for a more literal reading.

Consistency in creationist arguments would be a definite improvement, yes. Granted that there is considerable variation in creationist explanations for these problems, and some of them have worked very hard to make a logically consistent literalist narrative of the two conflicting stories.

But so often, we hear "it's all literal, except where it isn't."

 

[JAL]

Consistency in creationist arguments would be a definite improvement, yes. Granted that there is considerable variation in creationist explanations for these problems, and some of them have worked very hard to make a logically consistent literalist narrative of the two conflicting stories.

But so often, we hear "it's all literal, except where it isn't."

Complained the guy who takes Genesis literally only when he finds a verse favoring evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Complained the guy who takes Genesis literally whenever he finds a verse favoring evolution.

There is no literal verse in Genesis that favors evolution. Perhaps you've confused abiogenesis with evolution, again? If you learn nothing else here, learn that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. If God just poofed the first living things (which was Darwin's assumption) evolution would work exactly the same way.

 

[JAL]

There is no literal verse in Genesis that favors evolution. Perhaps you've confused abiogenesis with evolution, again? If you learn nothing else here, learn that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. If God just poofed the first living things (which was Darwin's assumption) evolution would work exactly the same way.

You've claimed that Scripture supports your views. What verses?

 

[The Barbarian]

You've claimed that Scripture supports your views.

On evolution? Show us that. Far as I know, the Bible doesn't take a stand one way or the other on evolution. Again, it seems you've confused abiogenesis with evolution.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The first five books of the Pentateuch were written some 500 years after the remaining
books. In other words, Moses who is thought to be the author, had the remaining books
committed to memory before he began to write the first five.

The creation story wasn't meant to be a scientific history of creation, but the relationship
of the creature to the Creator, God and the reason why the world experiences so much
suffering.

God in his mercy and humility, took on flesh in Christ and brought salvation to the
world.

As Fr Richard Rohr said, "God did not send Jesus into the world to change His mind about
man, but to change man's mind about God."

 

[JAL]

On evolution? Show us that. Far as I know, the Bible doesn't take a stand one way or the other on evolution. Again, it seems you've confused abiogenesis with evolution.

Do you have verses supporting ANY of your views in these areas? Or were you just blowing smoke on other threads where you seemed to so allege?

I assumed you had some verses in mind when you seemed to make statements to that effect.

 

[The Barbarian]

On evolution? Show us that. Far as I know, the Bible doesn't take a stand one way or the other on evolution. Again, it seems you've confused abiogenesis with evolution.

Do you have verses supporting ANY of your views in these areas?

For some reason, God didn't think it was important to say much about how new taxa appear. However, He does says that non-living matter produced living things, which confirms the evidence for abiogenesis. But AFAIK, there's nothing in the Bible that confirms or denies evolution.

I assumed you had some verses in mind when you seemed to make statements to that effect.

You want me to prove that the Bible doesn't mention evolution? Wouldn't it be for you to show us that it does?

You are aware that there are lots of things that are true, that aren't mentioned in the Bible, right?

 

[JAL]

The disconnect is confusing language from you. You make statements like this:

On evolution? Show us that. Far as I know, the Bible doesn't take a stand one way or the other on evolution.

And others like this:

He does says that non-living matter produced living things, which confirms the evidence for abiogenesis. But AFAIK, there's nothing in the Bible that confirms or denies evolution.

This makes it difficult sometimes to understand you.

 

[JAL]

Again, it seems you've confused abiogenesis with evolution.

You tend to accuse me of that, but I don't think I'm the only one at fault here. Standard dictionary definitions blur the distinction - as probably a LOT of biology classes. This is unfortunate, because the Christian feels he's being told that everything happened without any likelihood of God's hand.

Standard dictionary definition of abiogenesis:

"The original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances."

 

[The Barbarian]

Again, it seems you've confused abiogenesis with evolution.

You tend to accuse me of that, but I don't think I'm the only one at fault here.

It's true. A lot of people who are unfamiliar with biology make the same mistake.

Standard dictionary definitions blur the distinction

Yes, that's why you should always look up technical terms in scientific dictionaries.

as probably a LOT of biology classes

Might be. My daughter once had a creationist biology teacher. It was an embarrassment.

This is unfortunate, because the Christian feels he's being told that everything happened without any likelihood of God's hand.

As you learned, it's not in biology textbooks. And it's not in any public school curricula I've ever seen. And I've had to review a good number of them.

"The original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances."

This was Darwin's beef with the term "evolution", which really means "change." Hence we can speak of the evolution of language, stellar evolution, and so on, which have nothing to do with biological evolution. If this is confusing for you (and it is for many creationists) use Darwin's term: "descent with modification."

Remember what biological evolution is? "A change in allele frequencies in a population over time." Remember that, and the confusion goes away.