Do you believe in a literal 7 day creation?

[Didaskomenos]

Who said anything about allegory? Parables are allegory, but not myth. A myth is a story that seeks to express the meaning about things without having to know the historical or scientific particulars. Very different from allegory.

 

[Everglaze]

Hmm,

considering that "time" in our logic doesn't exist to God. To God, it's eternal/eternity. I believe in the 6-day creation and that God created the 7th day for resting. Nothing is impossible with God, whereas with man, this may seem so.

God views the whole universe or earth in a single picture, there are no timelines.

And to top it off, I don't see God being a liar.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Hmm,

considering that "time" in our logic doesn't exist to God. To God, it's eternal/eternity. I believe in the 6-day creation and that God created the 7th day for resting. Nothing is impossible with God, whereas with man, this may seem so.

God views the whole universe or earth in a single picture, there are no timelines.

And to top it off, I don't see God being a liar.

What bearing do these thoughts have on theistic evolution? The discussion at hand has nothing to do with God not being able to do anything he wants in seven days. It has nothing at all to do with God lying. So what does this post have to do with?

 

[Vance]

I don't understand why would a non-literal presentation just an "impression"? You are still saying that God can not tell us essential messages in any other manner than literal. Again, what of Psalms, Song of Solomon and Job? To my reading, Genesis 1 and 2 have much more in common with those in language and style than in the histories. And, no, it is not a trust issue. Whether God is telling us something using history or allegory, it is still God speaking and we must accept it and follow His teaching. Are you saying that you will be less inclined to accept a message given by God via an allegory than literal history? If so, why?

It is still all trust in God, so trust is not the issue at all.

Again, it is not as if everyone who reads it sees it as presenting a history, so that it benig something else would seem like God was fooling us. No, I keep having to repeat that people have been reading it non-literally since the very earliest times. In fact, the literal reading only became predominant after the Reformation.

God speaks through a wide variety of literary forms. Literal history is only one of them. To me, Genesis 1 and 2 don't read as history at all. It reads MUCH more like poetry, symbolism and allegory. It would be odd to think that it is any less "true" or any less a powerful statement by God for that.

 

[gluadys]

. As for the Hebrews polytheism, this is a much debated point. I agree that it seems clear from the early OT times that the writers of the text believed that other gods existed, there was a point at which they shifted to believe that there was only one God, and the others were false. Where that point was is a hotly debated topic even among Fundamentalist scholars (as my education in fundamentalist schools revealed). And, it may be that some of God's chosen leaders knew and understood this, but the people themselves were not always convinced.

There is an interesting passage near the end of Jeremiah. He was not deported to Babylon, but some Jews who chose voluntary exile in Egypt forced him to accompany them.

He was horrified, after all the preaching and prophesying he had done, which had so tragically come to pass, to find some of the women making cakes for the Queen of Heaven.

"Don't you understand?!?" he said in effect. "It was because of idolatry like this that God visited judgment on us."

But the women had a different explanation. "We had no trouble" they said, "until we listened to you and stopped making cakes for the Queen of Heaven. Since then everything has gone from bad to worse."

A brief insight into the differences between the views of the prophets which have been preserved for us, and the alternate views that were also current.

As I understand it, the pre-exilic view of the Israelites is often called "henotheism". That is they believed Israel's God was one and supreme, but they did not deny the existence of other gods for other peoples. And clearly there is a progression in thought from this henotheistic position to a clear and firm monotheism within the OT.

 

[gluadys]

Glaudys wrote:
<<
People suggest allegorical meaning and legend to creation. Such downgrade suggested for scripture doesn't seem consistent with many aspects of scripture:

Why do you call it a "downgrade"?

Isn't it this perspective that a non-literal interpretation somehow doesn't measure up the real reason behind adhering to a literal interpretation, even when it doesn't fit?

The difference in a non-literal approach is that it gives literal and non-literal interpretations an equal value without proclaiming one is superior to the other. So we don't feel we are in any way downgrading scripture when we decide a certain passage is probably best read as non-historical, or as a mix of historical and non-historical elements.

If God inspires a writer to convey his teachings in poetic or semi-fictional form, what would make that writer's work less valuable, less inspired, or less true than the work of one whom God commissioned to be a historian?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Time to point out an obvious (to me) point again.

The earth was not made in six days. Consequently, if the only feasable interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is literal, then Gesesis 1-3 is simply wrong.

What those who argue for literality are actually doing is arguing for Genesis being false.

 

[mikesw]

I enjoy the poetry, the psalms, the parables. I understand the truth expressed throughout the scripture in whatever form expressed.

But what I can't see is that there is some sort of allegorical presentation in Genesis 1 or 2. I haven't heard of some interpretation of these chapters or some significance.
Is there something in the content that suggests a symbolic presentation?

Where does the message change from poetry into history?

 

[FreeSpiritFaith]

yes because I have seen God's miracles and know His power, and creating the world and everything in existance would not be hard for God at all.

 

[Vance]

yes because I have seen God's miracles and know His power, and creating the world and everything in existance would not be hard for God at all.

Of course not. This is not a question of what God could do, since we all agree He could have just said "boo" and it would all have come into existence. He is God, after all.

No, the question is not what He could do, but what He did do.

God need not have taken any time at all, but He described it as having taken place over a period of time. He did not have to use material to make Man, but He describes the creation of Man as a process, one involving the earth itself. God does not need rest, but the Scripture says that He rested. So, even with a literal reading, God did much more than was required of an omnipotent God. He allowed the process to occur over a period of time, and used materials. The question is whether these descriptions of this time and these processes should be read in its simplest, plainest meaning, or whether they are representative or symbolic or more complex and involved processes over a longer period of time.

Another thought. God does not have a human body with lungs and a mouth, but He described the process of infusing His Spirit into Mankind (one definition of "Adam") as "breathing". So, we know that at least part of the language He used to describe these processes is representative of something else (what God actually did to infuse His Spirit, which we probably could not understand being mere humans). The best way to describe it to us was as breath, even though it was not literal breath out of a literal mouth from literal lungs. So, if God is using figurative and symbolic language here, why not elsewhere in these same verses?

 

[California Tim]

It's clear what the author of Genesis wished to convey concerning the "days" of creation. He obviously understood them to be literal 24 hour days. Take a look:

• Day 1 - "And God called the light 'day' [yom] and the darkness he called 'night.' So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIRST DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:5)
  
  Day 2 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SECOND DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:8)
  
  Day 3 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the THIRD DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:13)
  
  Day 4 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FOURTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:19)
  
  Day 5 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIFTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:23)
  
  Day 6 - "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SIXTH DAY [yom]." (Genesis 1:31)
  
  Day 7 - "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] from all His work which He had done." (Genesis 2:1-2)

Why even mention an "evening" and 'morning" of each day? Is God an author of confusion? A master manipulator? I guess the only question anyone could have is whether or not God inspired the author of Genesis to record His accurate account of creation. IF a person holds steadfastly to the concept of Biblical authority, authenticity and innerrancy, then it is illogical to conclude the days of creation were anything but literal 24 hour days.

Here are some more reasons to doubt "Theistic Evolution" in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1156384-theistic-evolution-incompatable-with-scripture.html

 

[Didaskomenos]

It's clear what the author of Genesis wished to convey concerning the "days" of creation. He obviously understood them to be literal 24 hour days.

How many times do I need to say this? Do you even read our posts? We're not arguing day-age theory. The days are unarguably, unquestionably 24 hour periods. And the good Samaritan was definitely from Samaria! But neither are historical accounts.

Why even mention an "evening" and 'morning" of each day? Is God an author of confusion?

No, laziness is the author of confusion. Don't blame God just because you can't (or won't bother to) comprehend something.

I guess the only question anyone could have is whether or not God inspired the author of Genesis to record His accurate account of creation. IF a person holds steadfastly to the concept of Biblical authority, authenticity and innerrancy, then it is illogical to conclude the days of creation were anything but literal 24 hour days.

Oh, brother. All truth in the Bible has been given authority by God. Biblical authenticity? The Bible is definitely authentic (but an authentic what?). The Bible is inerrant in its teachings. But it wasn't ever trying to teach us the history and science behind the creation. It was trying to teach us theological truth, such as the fact that God created the world, and that mankind is sinful.

 

[California Tim]

How many times do I need to say this? Do you even read our posts? We're not arguing day-age theory. The days are unarguably, unquestionably 24 hour periods. And the good Samaritan was definitely from Samaria! But neither are historical accounts.

Not only do I read them, I read them literally:
Are we even talking about the same thread? Here are a few excerpts:

The earth was not made in six days. Consequently, if the only feasable interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is literal, then Gesesis 1-3 is simply wrong.

Is there something in the content that suggests a symbolic presentation?

The question is whether these descriptions of this time and these processes should be read in its simplest, plainest meaning, or whether they are representative or symbolic or more complex and involved processes over a longer period of time.

Just to show a few. If you would like a few more from this thread, let me know. I'm not sure where this attack came from.

 

[Vance]

No, you are missing his point entirely. There is a difference between a day-age view and a non-literal view of the Genesis 1 account. The day-age view is that the text should be read literally, but that "yom" means something other than the 24-hour period. The non-literal view is that the writer, when using the word "yom" may, indeed, be using it in the 24-hour sense, but that it is a non-literal presentation.

Let's say there is a word which can mean tree or bush, and two people are arguing over whether a writer meant a tree or a bush in his description of something. Someone else comes along and says that the writer may have used the word in the "tree" sense, but that it was not a reference to a literal tree, but an allegorical or symbolic tree.

Personally, while I think the day-age theory has some merit, I am more convinced that the author is using "yom" in it's 24-hour sense, but doing so in a figurative or symbolic manner.

 

[California Tim]

No, you are missing his point entirely. There is a difference between a day-age view and a non-literal view of the Genesis 1 account. The day-age view is that the text should be read literally, but that "yom" means something other than the 24-hour period. The non-literal view is that the writer, when using the word "yom" may, indeed, be using it in the 24-hour sense, but that it is a non-literal presentation.

Let's say there is a word which can mean tree or bush, and two people are arguing over whether a writer meant a tree or a bush in his description of something. Someone else comes along and says that the writer may have used the word in the "tree" sense, but that it was not a reference to a literal tree, but an allegorical or symbolic tree.

Personally, while I think the day-age theory has some merit, I am more convinced that the author is using "yom" in it's 24-hour sense, but doing so in a figurative or symbolic manner.

I must admit, that concept seems a bit fuzzy. You advance the idea that the days of creation in Genesis are literal in print but that the entire account is figurative. This has to be the most innovative attempt at avoiding taking a position on the matter I have yet encountered. Now we say "the days are indeed literal" but the author did not realize the entire account was symbolic.

Let me ask you these questions that must be accounted for in this dilema. Was Adam a real person? When did physical death enter the equation where mankind was concerned, and how does it reconcile with the figurative interpretation of Genesis? And finally, if Genesis is to be symbolic, why is it not indicated clearly elswhere in scripture? Even when Jesus spoke in parables, He indicated it clearly.

 

[Vance]

I must admit, that concept seems a bit fuzzy. You advance the idea that the days of creation in Genesis are literal in print but that the entire account is figurative. This has to be the most innovative attempt at avoiding taking a position on the matter I have yet encountered. Now we say "the days are indeed literal" but the author did not realize the entire account was symbolic.

No, that is not it either. And, btw, the viewpoint I am presenting is actually not novel at all, but has been consistently held by Christians since the early Church fathers. Check out the wonderful quote by C.S. Lewis in the "Lewis Update" thread. Basically, you need to look at my example of the tree. When the writer (God inspiring) wrote the account of Genesis, he was not presenting a literal, historic or scientific account, but a poetic overview of the process, using symbolic and figurative language to convey the important theological truths. So, whether the word "yom" was used in the "period of time" sense or the "24-hour" sense becomes irrelevent since the entire account is a powerfully poetic presentation of God's creative work. As a literary devise, my guess is that he was using the 24-hour sense, in the same way a poet could have been using the word "tree" in the figurative sense in my example.

Let me ask you these questions that must be accounted for in this dilema. Was Adam a real person? When did physical death enter the equation where mankind was concerned, and how does it reconcile with the figurative interpretation of Genesis? And finally, if Genesis is to be symbolic, why is it not indicated clearly elswhere in scripture? Even when Jesus spoke in parables, He indicated it clearly.

Adam? May have been a literal human figure, or it may be symbolic of "mankind" (since the word "Adam" can mean "mankind").

For those who believe mankind evolved, physical death was always present. Spiritual death comes through mankind's rejection of full communion with God in favor of selfish desires (sin, the Fall). Lastly, why would their be a problem of Jesus, Paul or Peter referring to the Truths presented in Genesis even if those truths were presented figuratively? If Adam is known to be symbolic of mankind, then a later reference to Adam would be understood that way as well.

Again, you react as if your literal interpretation was, and has been, the only standard interpretation of Genesis in Christian history. Theologians as early as St. Augustine and more recently (as shown by the C.S. Lewis quote) have read these texts non-literally. It has only been in the last couple hundred years that the strictly literal reading has become predominant (and even then not a vast majority). It is a pretty safe bet that the majority of Christians worldwide (although not in the Fundamentalist-heavy U.S.) read Genesis 1 and 2 non-literally.

Maybe you should read the thread "What is Theistic Evolution" which may be a page or two back to get a better idea of what you are arguing against.

 

[gluadys]

Why even mention an "evening" and 'morning" of each day?

And preceeded in each case by "And God saw that it was good".

It is a repetitive refrain. Very common in hymns and poetry. One of the signs Genesis 1 is intentionally poetic.

 

[California Tim]

And preceeded in each case by "And God saw that it was good".

It is a repetitive refrain. Very common in hymns and poetry. One of the signs Genesis 1 is intentionally poetic.

First of all, it is important to consider the original text when determining whether or not a passage is intended to be poetic. The english translation may indicate one thing while the Hebrew another. I will quote an excerpt on an excellent refutation on the idea that Genesis was to be considered poetic or figurative (with a link to the article). It does a thorough job of enlightening those unsure of the proper interpretation of Genesis from a Biblical point of view. (some of the links are broken):

The first five books of our Bible are referred to by Jews as the Torah -- the Law. The Torah begins with Genesis. As the foundation for all their law, Genesis is not considered by the Hebrews to be poetic, but factual. Genesis is the foundation for the other four books of the Law. All Scripture writers who referred to Genesis referred to it as actual history to be believed, not as a metaphor or a myth. Jesus also referred to the Genesis narrative a number of times, and always as literal truth.

Another indication of the intent of Genesis is in its linguistic style. Hebrew poetry is noted for its uses of parallelism [http://www.cresourcei.org/parallel.html], which you can also find explained here [http://www.messiahskingdom.com/hermeneutics/hpoetrylit.html ] and here [http://www.storm.ca/~sabigail/articles/poetry1.htm]. Forms of Hebrew poetry can be found here: http://www.clark.net/pub/dsmith/church/ot_poetry/reference1.html. None of these forms is found in Genesis. Instead you will find that "history and narrative is actually the simplest form of Biblical literature to interpret. It is straight forward because it is usually the description, and sometimes commentary, on historical events in the Bible." [http://www.messiahskingdom.com/hermeneutics/narrativelit.html]

The normal order for a Hebrew narrative sentence is

Conjunction--Verb--Subject--Object.

The order in poetic writing is

Subject--Verb--Object

-- the same as we see it in normal English. The difference is quite obvious in the Hebrew.

"While the Hebrew language may seem frightening to some, it really is not. The style of writing of Genesis 1 is historical, using the waw-consecutive to express consecutive action (waw = and). Biblical historians use this style to: "express actions, events, or states, which are to be regarded as the temporal or logical sequence of actions, events, or states mentioned immediately before." (Ref. 7) What this means for Genesis 1 is that God describes a sequence of events that occur one after the other throughout the creation week. We see this sequence reflected in the English as 'And God said,' 'And there was,' or 'And it was,' with which each verse in Genesis I begins. Each occurrence signifies that some action followed another in a real time sequence." [ E. Kautzsch, Genesius' Hebrew Grammar, 2nd edition revised by A.E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), p. 133.] by James Stambaugh. ICR Impact #251. [http://ldolphin.org/waw.html] {note: the waw-consec doesn't always imply actions in sequence - it can also be used to expand on an event just mentioned.].

Simply, and again, Genesis is written as narrative literature in the Hebrew and should be accepted or rejected on its own terms. As part of the law, and, in fact, the foundational book of the Torah, to have thought the Hebrews considered it anything but historical truth would be to indicate they had no basis for their Law. The grammar and syntax of Hebrew poetry and Hebrew narrative are quite different, and Genesis is Hebrew narrative. It was quoted as authoritative by later writers of the Bible and referred to as historical truth by the Lord Jesus Christ. Any other consideration of Genesis requires tearing it out of its historic and literary context.

​

Source: http://www.ldolphin.org/genmyth.html

 

[gluadys]

First of all, it is important to consider the original text when determining whether or not a passage is intended to be poetic.

No, the technical features of Hebrew poetry define a text as "poetry" in a formal sense. But a text need not be poetry to be poetic. On the other hand it can lack features normally associated with poetry and still be poetry.

An English sonnet is a well-defined poetic form, but a passage of prose can also be poetic. Free verse has no well-defined poetic form, but it is still poetry.

The line between poetry and prose is more subtle than the presence or absence of technical features usually associated with poetry.

 

[California Tim]

No, the technical features of Hebrew poetry define a text as "poetry" in a formal sense. But a text need not be poetry to be poetic. On the other hand it can lack features normally associated with poetry and still be poetry.

An English sonnet is a well-defined poetic form, but a passage of prose can also be poetic. Free verse has no well-defined poetic form, but it is still poetry.

The line between poetry and prose is more subtle than the presence or absence of technical features usually associated with poetry.

You did not read the article I take it. Let me rebound a question oft asked of the YEC'er: What would it take for you to admit you could be wrong? What evidence? More precisely, what scripture is missing to convince you of the obvious?

I might summarize all the above with the following question:

Do you test the physical evidence by Biblical standards, or do you test Biblical standards by physical evidence?​