Genesis 1 is to be taken literaly - it is the only logical option

[Thir7ySev3n]

Because it has been proven that God only knows of one source of light for Earth and that is fusion reactions 93 million miles from earth??

That is pretty much it for God - He is not capable of any other source of light on day 1 so His word is not entirely accurate on that point???

Seriously??

This is the Achilles heel of Christians who have intellectual inclinations, that time in their life when they have to make the dreaded choice between being wise in the world or rather become a fool that they may become wise (1 Corinthians 3:18). Whether they want to be wise or appear wise.

I say this from first person experience because I myself am an intellectually inclined Christian. Since I came to Christ at 14 years of age, it was only 2 months before I was deeply invested in Christian philosophy and apologetics, studying the works of the greatest Christian minds. However, I noticed there was a great divide among the Christian intellectual elite, and it always came down to this issue of Genesis 1. In this scientific (so-called) age, there is a point up the ladder that the intellectual Christian realizes they are going to have to make a choice, and their decision will define them in the public eye for the rest of their career: Do I want to be biblical or do I want to be reputable? In the world, you will not have it both ways.

So some choose the latter path and it brings us to moments like this, where wisdom is proved right by her children (Luke 7:35). They become wise in the world's eyes, but towards God remain mere infants. Thus, after years in the faith, despite every logical demonstration and implication to the contrary, the Christian (or unbeliever) can no longer understand how an eternal God of infinite power who creates and upholds all things by the power of His will (Hebrews 1:3) could ever produce light, though He Himself is light (Revelation 21:23), if He wasn't prepared to meet the specifications of a 20th century Big Bang cosmology.

"Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their craftiness,' and again, 'The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.'" (1 Corinthians 3:18-20)

 

[klutedavid]

James Barr and the majority of his peers in the "world class universities" in the area of OT studies and Hebrew were pretty much atheists "that is a given". The point is that even atheists when looking at the "literature" for the "kind of writing that it is" freely admit that the text is written as an intended historic account and that is how the readers would have had it.

The fact that they themselves "don't believe the Bible" does not matter because the only point being debated is "based on the language" ... "based on the kind of writing that it is" - is the text a historic account or is the author just trying to write a poem with no ties to actual events.

The "legal code" of Ex 20:11 make it clear this is not intended by the author as fiction.

You are confused.

Professor James Barr was not an atheist.

Professor James Barr simply pointed out that he believes in a literal translation of the text. That the text is not inerrant and he disagrees with fundamentalists.

Fundamentalism is, for Barr, finally a pathological condition of Christianity" -- a tradition of the interpretation of Scripture which not only is untenable but which also prevents a true reading of the Scriptures and a positive relationship of the movement to the rest of the church. He suggests that the heart of fundamentalism is not, as is often supposed, a commitment to a "literal" reading of the Bible but rather a commitment to a reading that preserves the Bible’s "inerrancy" in every detail, even if its literal sense must be violated. Barr then analyzes such classics of post fundamentalist biblical interpretation as The New Bible Commentary and The New Bible Dictionary (published in Britain by Inter-Varsity and in the US. by Eerdmans) to demonstrate forced harmonization, resort to non literal interpretation, and other dodges used to maintain the inerrancy assumption.
(Evangelicalism Without Fundamentalism
by Donald W. Dayton. Donald W. Dayton is associate professor of historical theology at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Lombard, Illinois.)

 

[klutedavid]

So 'my quote of Barr" in his other statementToday at 3:46 PM #26 is provided by me to get the obvious detail about the language and the "kind of literature".

But here you offer your quote of Barr on another topic -- to find out if the Bible should also "be believed"?? why does it help you to quote an atheist on the topic "yes - but should the Bible be believed"???

As if you had started a thread of the form from Barr's previous statement "well yes the Bible is written as a historic account of a real 7 day week.." but then use this second statement from Barr to get to your point about "but that does not mean we should believe it - just because it is giving that historic account is no reason to trust it or believe it... join my atheist friends and choose to disbelieve the Bible" - as if Barr's argument on that point makes your case where as his statement on the first point makes mine???

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

I am wondering if you have thought that through or are you just posting off the cuff and not trying to connect the dots on that post?

You may accept that man is infallible when writing the scripture, I don't. You may believe the Pope is infallible in council, I do not.

You accept the premise that scripture is perfect.

I do not accept that premise that the scripture is perfect and without error.

Scripture is inspired but written by men and more to the point. Scripture was written by patriotic Jews with a vested interest in proclaiming their own greatness.

God is perfect but mankind is imperfect and error prone.

 

[GodLovesCats]

What we do see is that He did it all in 7 days and that timeline itself is set in "legal" code where not myth is allowed to make the case "in law".

No, the Bible does NOT say God did all that in 7 days. It is very clear about that.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Seriously Bob, you need to understand what the words fact and fiction mean before even hinting facts are fiction and vice versa. So far is is obvious all you want to do is deny the facts without a scientific basis. At least use real facts based on scientific research by paleontologists in your rebuttals. If you can't do it that is your problem, not mine.

 

[Blade]

logical? We talking about man? There is SO MUCH more in there your missing. If one looks at it through mans eyes.. but through the spirit. Ask the Holy Spirit to open our eyes. Light.... hmm

 

[klutedavid]

Sounds like non fundamentalist reasoning for not believing what the bible says. As in, and for instance, their excuse to believe something like evolution.

This thread is not about evolution as evolution is a scientific theory.

The bible has been clear to me nearly always what's to be taken literally and what to not, but I would like to hear what others think is the indication Genesis should not be taken literally?

Your confused like Mr Ryan.

It is not about a literal interpretation of the scripture. It is more about whether the Bible contains errors and is mankind infallible in the recording and translation of the Bible.

The problem with deciding, without reason, something should not be taken literally is, we then move to not taking literally all of what we don't like about the bible.

Do you believe that Abraham was under the law of Moses?

Genesis 26:5
Because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”

I strongly believe that this verse was written by Jews under the law. Abraham did not have laws and certainly not statutes.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

"The only logical option" may be too strong a statement -- how about "the best logical option given all the texts".

===================================
some Christians say: "I find it very difficult to believe those who say they take all of the creation account in Genesis literally." -- but is that position logical??


We know that in Genesis 1, God separates light from darkness. God calls one Day and the other Night. This is the 1st day of the 7 day creation week we find in Genesis 1-2:3 and summarized in legal code in Ex 20:11.

But some will complain that the luminaries of the sky (Sun, moon) have yet to be created at that point -- not created on day 1 so then the question is "How could God possibly know how to have a source of light other than the fusion reactions on the sun 93 million miles (on average) from Earth?)" -- indeed "how could God possibly know"... when your objection gets to that point you know you made a wrong turn somewhere.

A literal day is, at the very least, a twenty four hour period in which the earth rotates on its axis is the time for day and night cycles to complete but to have that rotation viewed from the surface of the earth as composed of day and night we need a single-side light source... which of course some assume God would not know how to provide without the sun in place.


Let's be honest and admit that for case of those tossing out the historic reliability of the Genesis account, one has to make some massive unproven speculative assertions in the above.

1. They must "assume" God only has the capacity to know of 'one source of light' and so failing to create the sun first he is simply "mistaken" in his recollection of what He did. That is not a logical position .. as if the only source of light known to God is a fusion reaction 93 million miles from Earth.

2.They must "assume" that the rotation of the planet (no matter if it is day or night) cannot possibly be 24 hours with a light source other than the sun for the "observer" at the surface of Earth. "AS IF" the rotation of the planet had not even started 6000 years ago. That is not logical

3. They then place their own unproven assertions in the steps outlined above - and make those assumptions "the infallible rule" / foundation from which to reject the entire historic account of Genesis 1-2:3 as being "literal". Because after all what is "most true" at that point is their own own unproven assertion. That is not logical - their proposal is to munge the text into a forced symbolism where instead of day and night what we have is "God found out the difference between right and wrong" in what? in one rotation planet earth?? linking Earth's rotation with God finding out right -from- wrong is complete nonsense. It makes much more logical sense to link that rotation with "day and night".

Obviously they only go down that road because they are convinced Their unproven assertions are infallible?

Legal Code -- Ex 20: "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

=======================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

OK, this is MY OPINION only and the best way for me to understand God who invented science.
Our perspective is from earth. The first day did not include earth, it was created on the third day.
The void could be dark matter. This is what existed before the 6 days of creation. Then God created "light", not the sun. So it is the existing dark matter with God's creation of matter, energy. This is the first day. Then He separates dark matter from matter with gravity, this is the second day. Then He creates spheres, aka earth and all its creatures on it, and the rest is history.

 

[klutedavid]

OK, this is MY OPINION only and the best way for me to understand God who invented science.
Our perspective is from earth. The first day did not include earth, it was created on the third day.
The void could be dark matter. This is what existed before the 6 days of creation. Then God created "light", not the sun. So it is the existing dark matter with God's creation of matter, energy. This is the first day. Then He separates dark matter from matter with gravity, this is the second day. Then He creates spheres, aka earth and all its creatures on it, and the rest is history.

The earth existed before day one.

Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

The first day at this stage was still future.

God did not invent science.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The earth existed before day one.

Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

The first day at this stage was still future.

God did not invent science.

Yes He did created the heavens and the earth in the beginning, and the earth was formless until the third day. Before that it was formless.
Science is only that which already exists through the creation by God. Man only uncovers it.

 

[Davidz777]

Genesis 1 is science non-sense because God never intended it to be valid science given the primitive era it was delivered in. God may have given Moses a complex vision that Moses was then left to his own primitive knowledge to explain however that might come out. It certainly bore little importance to those Israelites of that time whatever he wrote down. God and his angels probably had a good chuckle. What it does communicate that is important, is that God had something to do with creation. And it makes a superb stumbling block for those atheists that are looking for reasons to dismiss the Bible thus making them the arrogant fools God can laugh at. Those sections make little difference for God's moral purposes. Some might blurt out "Why would God mislead or trick us so?", well consider it is Moses's interpretation of what God showed him so pick on Moses. "Well why would God allow Moses to trick us?" Because you fools deserve it!

It wasn't as though God was looking ahead several millennia to when man might enter a technological science age and find issues with it. God realized man given the brain he'd given them would eventually figure it out for themselves. Conversely why would God even bother to improve such obvious nonsense descriptions? To do so to even a minor level would have provided science proof of their existence in later eras that they obviously wanted to avoid. Consider if by chance the sequence of celestial creation events though simplistic just happened to align with what science now knows. In that era most humans thought the world flat. Even straightening out that the sun, planets, and the Earth itself were actually giant globes of matter would have caused myriad people to believe in God once centuries later by Galileo's time that was confirmed. They would say, how else could Moses have known the world was a globe unless God showed him? And God obviously doesn't work like that as it interferes with faith and free will. If God wanted every human to always know he exists through centuries, he could have simply plunked some incredible advance structure down along the Mediterranean Sea shores that only some far advanced beings might create, like a towering shining obelisk made from deterioration free materials with a illuminated sign "God is real". People would just point to that as something only a god might create. But that is not how God apparently wants us to believe given free will.

So you that demand Genesis 1 make science sense, consider what is really going on there as you cannot have it both ways.

 

[SkyWriting]

"The only logical option" may be too strong a statement -- how about "the best logical option given all the texts".

===================================
some Christians say: "I find it very difficult to believe those who say they take all of the creation account in Genesis literally." -- but is that position logical??


We know that in Genesis 1, God separates light from darkness. God calls one Day and the other Night. This is the 1st day of the 7 day creation week we find in Genesis 1-2:3 and summarized in legal code in Ex 20:11.

But some will complain that the luminaries of the sky (Sun, moon) have yet to be created at that point -- not created on day 1 so then the question is "How could God possibly know how to have a source of light other than the fusion reactions on the sun 93 million miles (on average) from Earth?)" -- indeed "how could God possibly know"... when your objection gets to that point you know you made a wrong turn somewhere.

A literal day is, at the very least, a twenty four hour period in which the earth rotates on its axis is the time for day and night cycles to complete but to have that rotation viewed from the surface of the earth as composed of day and night we need a single-side light source... which of course some assume God would not know how to provide without the sun in place.


Let's be honest and admit that for case of those tossing out the historic reliability of the Genesis account, one has to make some massive unproven speculative assertions in the above.

1. They must "assume" God only has the capacity to know of 'one source of light' and so failing to create the sun first he is simply "mistaken" in his recollection of what He did. That is not a logical position .. as if the only source of light known to God is a fusion reaction 93 million miles from Earth.

2.They must "assume" that the rotation of the planet (no matter if it is day or night) cannot possibly be 24 hours with a light source other than the sun for the "observer" at the surface of Earth. "AS IF" the rotation of the planet had not even started 6000 years ago. That is not logical

3. They then place their own unproven assertions in the steps outlined above - and make those assumptions "the infallible rule" / foundation from which to reject the entire historic account of Genesis 1-2:3 as being "literal". Because after all what is "most true" at that point is their own own unproven assertion. That is not logical - their proposal is to munge the text into a forced symbolism where instead of day and night what we have is "God found out the difference between right and wrong" in what? in one rotation planet earth?? linking Earth's rotation with God finding out right -from- wrong is complete nonsense. It makes much more logical sense to link that rotation with "day and night".

Obviously they only go down that road because they are convinced Their unproven assertions are infallible?

Legal Code -- Ex 20: "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

=======================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

The words used for creation are nearly 100% used for a "process" like baking a cake. There is no suggestion that "creation" is quick or instant. Nothing at all hints that.
Actually one of the definitions is "Re-Made" as in "Let us re-make man into our image."

Using "day" is a very indirect method to define "Create" or "Created" which do not suggest anything quick.

 

[DamianWarS]

And you "need" God to tell you what the source of light is ... before you can believe that He divided day and night with one rotation of the planet???

From the standpoint of exegesis - we know that Moses and his readers already were familiar with "day" and "night" and the length of time it takes for each. That is the obvious part.

Your argument is that if God does not "also tell you" the source of light - then His word cannot be trusted just as it is??

How so?

Meanwhile God's summary of it - "in legal code"

the thing with the creation account is whether you accept it as literal or not it is most responsibly interpreted as a non-literal account (even if you think it's literal) your case is a perfect example. What you suggest is that God created another unknown luminary to force a literal account claiming God doesn't have to tell us this if he did it. Bar is correct that conservatives will jump from literal to non-literal as it pleases them but they also liberally add to the account to help balance them but in doing so they are agenda-driven to rationalize the text not driven by what the text is pointing to. What does the text point to? not an alternative luminary, because the text doesn't support this nor does the rest of scripture, rather than inserting details in between the lines that shape our interpretations we should be only be reading what is revealed to us (not what is not revealed to us). What you're reading is what is not revealed to us, even if you say it was just an example you are still inserting a blank space where something unknown can be filled to rationalize the account.

non-literal accounts exist in vacuums and it doesn't matter what conflicts they present, they are "literal truth" in their vacuum and no other details matter. We see this lots in dreams with tonnes of illogical information but it doesn't matter because the details of the dream are what they are and can't be messed with or rationalized. Dreams are non-literal accounts (even if they describe things that actually happened) and they have a lot of stuff going on in them that we cannot explain nor do we have the information to explain them properly and we get a lot of "I don't know how... but it just was" type explanations. If someone were to step in and change the dream to fit a literal view there would be an objection from the dreamer saying "that's not how it went" because in vacuums all information outside the vacuum has no bearing on the details, even if this information serves to help reconcile or rationalize it the moment we suggest details outside of the accounts we miss the point of the accounts themselves (because those details don't matter).

conservatives add helpers to the accounts to rationalize them but in doing so they unknowingly are shaping a very specific narrative and closing any other views that the text actually can still support. In non-literal accounts, you can't play with the details or add to them, they are just as they are but are carefully selected and have deep meanings. This is how we should approach the creation account too, as a non-literal account. it is pre-history so we cannot responsibly "guess" at what went on and just like a retelling of a dream, we must accept the information exactly as is without the need to rationalize them. The moment we being to say "this is because there must have been [insert something in between the lines]" we betray the account.

you might argue I'm doing the same thing by rationalizing the accounts claiming things like day 1 has light without a luminary so...[insert rational conclusions heres]. Well if this was a dream would it matter? no it wouldn't and if the question was asked (if it were a dream) "where was the luminary" the answer would be "I can't explain it, the light just was" and that answer would be sufficient but what it does expose is it's a dream, not a literal account. These types of details point to a non-literal account in that we just don't read it as non-literal but it actually is non-literal just like I can make the same conclusion when someone tells me a dream.

Does this mean I deny any literal text in the bible or I turn God into a metaphor? This doesn't mean this at all and we must accept the early Genesis accounts, specifically pre-Abrahamic, have a genre that is driven by literary oral (story-telling) accounts. It is not that they are trying to make up stories, or lie, or tell metaphors, but still faithfully retell the accounts that was told to them, but the characteristics show us non-literal accounts, even if the Hebrews, even Moses, accepted them as literal, it doesn't matter, their role was simply to retell them. God told them the details with specific order and purpose for a reason and we shouldn't be looking outside the accounts to find their meanings but rather look at what is revealed to us.

Literalists often throw our strawmen staying things like "with God all things are possible so God can create everything in 6 days". This is true, but the same God where all things are possible can also produce divine truth through non-literal accounts so if God can create everything in 6 days he can also give us a 6 day account of creation that isn't actually literal yet it still is truth, a truth that transcends literal or non-literal alike.

 

[solid_core]

True - but how many laws were based on an appeal to myth/fiction of the "since the easter bunny paints the forest red - so everyone must wear red shoes" kind of Laws do you find in actual scripture... Jews or not.

Not sure what you mean.

It was given to ancient Jews only, so it was given in the style the ancient Jews were used to - stories, myths, symbolism etc. Why would God spoke to them in a totally foreign language - in a scientific language of the 21st century?

 

[DamianWarS]

This is a fascinating and (to me) a helpful approach. Thank you for sharing it. Do you have a source or further reading concerning this approach that you could suggest?

The more I revisit the creation account I feel it is one of the most underrated and intensely mysterious passages in the bible liken to other allegorical passages but because we force a literal view we miss so much the text has to offer which I feel is the more important aspect of the account.

I revisit the creation account all the time and often find new things that I didn't see before. I have read books, researched Eastern, middle eastern and ancient cultures, including learning an eastern concrete language, as well as lived among foreign cultures (including eastern) all of which have taught me my linear world view is not the only one out there and most of this time is spent deconstructing my world view so that I may welcome another and in doing so I may proclaim the gospel through this new lens. This is all geared towards understanding the creation account but it's fruit is that I approach the accounts with a different understanding.

I found a video as summary of what I have discovered to be true as well with regards to Heberic philosophy and thinking and supports a similar conclusion. I myself didn't use this video to discover these conclusions and they were a process independent of this video but it affirms the same conclusions (which tells me I'm not crazy)

a good intro book into why we should change how we approach scripture is:
Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible

But don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to deconstruct the creation account to promote evolution or discredit God. I am agnostic to what God actually did so I'm not trying to replace it with evolution I only hold the direct involvement of God during creation but how it literally happened... I don't know.

 

[SkyWriting]

A literal day is, at the very least, a twenty four hour period in which the earth rotates on its axis is the time for day and night cycles to complete but to have that rotation viewed from the surface of the earth as composed of day and night we need a single-side light source... which of course some assume God would not know how to provide without the sun in place.

A "day" is the function of the earth spinning and the light from the sun hitting only one side. Since there were no people most of the "week" and God was not standing on the equator, then "day" in Genesis has no ties to 24 hours.

There were not even humans around to give a 24 hour day perspective. And God was not standing on the earth providing a day/night perspective either.
So there is no 24 hour connection.

Plus the words used in scripture (bara) do not suggest anything quick.

 

[Erik Nelson]

"The only logical option" may be too strong a statement -- how about "the best logical option given all the texts".

===================================
some Christians say: "I find it very difficult to believe those who say they take all of the creation account in Genesis literally." -- but is that position logical??


We know that in Genesis 1, God separates light from darkness. God calls one Day and the other Night. This is the 1st day of the 7 day creation week we find in Genesis 1-2:3 and summarized in legal code in Ex 20:11.

But some will complain that the luminaries of the sky (Sun, moon) have yet to be created at that point -- not created on day 1 so then the question is "How could God possibly know how to have a source of light other than the fusion reactions on the sun 93 million miles (on average) from Earth?)" -- indeed "how could God possibly know"... when your objection gets to that point you know you made a wrong turn somewhere.

A literal day is, at the very least, a twenty four hour period in which the earth rotates on its axis is the time for day and night cycles to complete but to have that rotation viewed from the surface of the earth as composed of day and night we need a single-side light source... which of course some assume God would not know how to provide without the sun in place.


Let's be honest and admit that for case of those tossing out the historic reliability of the Genesis account, one has to make some massive unproven speculative assertions in the above.

1. They must "assume" God only has the capacity to know of 'one source of light' and so failing to create the sun first he is simply "mistaken" in his recollection of what He did. That is not a logical position .. as if the only source of light known to God is a fusion reaction 93 million miles from Earth.

2.They must "assume" that the rotation of the planet (no matter if it is day or night) cannot possibly be 24 hours with a light source other than the sun for the "observer" at the surface of Earth. "AS IF" the rotation of the planet had not even started 6000 years ago. That is not logical

3. They then place their own unproven assertions in the steps outlined above - and make those assumptions "the infallible rule" / foundation from which to reject the entire historic account of Genesis 1-2:3 as being "literal". Because after all what is "most true" at that point is their own own unproven assertion. That is not logical - their proposal is to munge the text into a forced symbolism where instead of day and night what we have is "God found out the difference between right and wrong" in what? in one rotation planet earth?? linking Earth's rotation with God finding out right -from- wrong is complete nonsense. It makes much more logical sense to link that rotation with "day and night".

Obviously they only go down that road because they are convinced Their unproven assertions are infallible?

Legal Code -- Ex 20: "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

=======================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

saint Augustine said the division alludes to the fall of the dark angels

 

[Christ is Lord]

The Bible isn’t a science textbook folks let’s not treat it as such.

 

[BobRyan]

saint Augustine said the division alludes to the fall of the dark angels

interesting and the Bible says?
(in Legal code... as we were reminded in the OP)

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible isn’t a science textbook folks let’s not treat it as such.

Sadly for that - we already know what a 7 day week is and that takes almost no science at all.

We already know that "science" can't create life on Earth
We already know that "science" can't create the incarnation of the Son of God
We already know that "science" can't cause the resurrection or ascension of Christ into heaven.

Shall we "deny ALL the Bible" any time "Science can't do that"??

Was that idea "ever a thing" in Christianity over the centuries?

Is God's Word not recording "historic fact" any time our own understanding of "science" can't do what God says He can do?

How has that logic ever been employed in the past?