public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,955
12,031
East Coast
✟826,952.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
"This has already been stated by other authors, and is well known. A proof for this, namely that the phrase "God said" in the first chapter of Genesis, must be taken in the figurative sense "He willed," and not in its literal meaning, is found in the circumstance that a command can only be given to a being which exists and is capable of receiving the command. Compare, "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth" (Psalm 33:6). "His mouth," and "the breath of his mouth," are undoubtedly figurative expressions...The meaning of the verse is therefore that they exist through his will and desire." (Moses Maimonides The Guide for the Perplexed Chapter LXV)

As I have argued elsewhere, the opening chapters of Genesis cannot be wholly taken in a literal sense without embracing absurdity.
It is not possible to take all of the creation account in Genesis literally.

Let's assume that God literally spoke and creation came into being. Does God have a mouth? Who heard what was said? Does God have ears? In other words, does God have parts? It cannot be that God has parts, for God is One. If God has parts, then God is a composite being, composed by that which is smaller than the whole, which is absurd. So, if God does not have a literal mouth, then God did not speak literal words, and so not all of the opening chapter of Genesis 1 should be taken literally.

But, if not all of Genesis 1 should be taken literally, why should other parts like "day" be taken as a literal 24 hour period? There is no reason to take "day" as a literal 24 hour period, for to the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day (2 Peter 3:8).

So, should "God said" be taken literally or figuratively? Why?
 

royal priest

debtor to grace
Nov 1, 2015
2,666
2,655
Northeast, USA
✟181,424.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
But, if not all of Genesis 1 should be taken literally, why should other parts like "day" be taken as a literal 24 hour period?
The time structure God's Creative work is the basis for the fourth commandment:
Exodus 20:8-11
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,955
12,031
East Coast
✟826,952.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The time structure God's Creative work is the basis for the fourth commandment:
Exodus 20:8-11
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

So, would you say all of Genesis 1 should be taken literally?
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,955
12,031
East Coast
✟826,952.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yes, I understand it to be literal.
Otherwise, I would need to discount its witness as it is presented throughout the rest of the Bible.

I understand. Would you say the Creator has a mouth and a pair of ears, so that the Creator is a composite being, constituted by parts like us?
 
Upvote 0

royal priest

debtor to grace
Nov 1, 2015
2,666
2,655
Northeast, USA
✟181,424.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I understand. Would you say the Creator has a mouth and a pair of ears, so that the Creator is a composite being, constituted by parts like us?
I believe God is a Spirit without body, parts, and passions.
Yet, God has manifested a voice which had been heard which we clearly see in many parts of Scripture. Also, regarding the voice of God, many theologians see a wonderful connection of the voice of God and the second person of the Trinity. The Son of God is explicitly referred to in the NT as the Word of God. This is especially so in the Gospel according to John chapter 1 as the Apostle, not only refers to the Son as the Word, but distinguishes Him as the Creative agent of the Trinity: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,955
12,031
East Coast
✟826,952.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I believe God is a Spirit without body, parts, and passions.
Yet, God has manifested a voice which had been heard which we clearly see in many parts of Scripture. Also, regarding the voice of God, many theologians see a wonderful connection of the voice of God and the second person of the Trinity. The Son of God is explicitly referred to in the NT as the Word of God. This is especially so in the Gospel according to John chapter 1 as the Apostle, not only refers to the Son as the Word, but distinguishes Him as the Creative agent of the Trinity: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

This is good, and with much of it I agree.

So, it seems we have two options:
1. "God said" refers to a manifestation not a literal speaking, since God is Spirit. If this is the case, then "God said" is to be taken as figurative and not literal.
2. "God said" refers to the 2nd Person ("Word") and not literal speaking, since God is Spirit. If this is the case, then "God said" is to be taken as figurative and not literal.

Whichever is the case, not all of Genesis 1 is to be taken as literal.
 
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,638
5,588
Utah
✟709,653.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
"This has already been stated by other authors, and is well known. A proof for this, namely that the phrase "God said" in the first chapter of Genesis, must be taken in the figurative sense "He willed," and not in its literal meaning, is found in the circumstance that a command can only be given to a being which exists and is capable of receiving the command. Compare, "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth" (Psalm 33:6). "His mouth," and "the breath of his mouth," are undoubtedly figurative expressions...The meaning of the verse is therefore that they exist through his will and desire." (Moses Maimonides The Guide for the Perplexed Chapter LXV)

As I have argued elsewhere, the opening chapters of Genesis cannot be wholly taken in a literal sense without embracing absurdity.
It is not possible to take all of the creation account in Genesis literally.

Let's assume that God literally spoke and creation came into being. Does God have a mouth? Who heard what was said? Does God have ears? In other words, does God have parts? It cannot be that God has parts, for God is One. If God has parts, then God is a composite being, composed by that which is smaller than the whole, which is absurd. So, if God does not have a literal mouth, then God did not speak literal words, and so not all of the opening chapter of Genesis 1 should be taken literally.

But, if not all of Genesis 1 should be taken literally, why should other parts like "day" be taken as a literal 24 hour period? There is no reason to take "day" as a literal 24 hour period, for to the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day (2 Peter 3:8).

So, should "God said" be taken literally or figuratively? Why?

If one would take the Genesis account using the thousand-day year principle then it would need to be applied to the entire 7-day creation event.

I do take the Genesis account literally ... 7 days (sundown to sunrise = 1 day)

In the Genesis account each day is described as "the evening and the morning" (that does not mean according to our 24-hour time keeping system. (it is sundown to sunrise)

The evening and the morning is consistent with the keeping the 7th day Sabbath of the Lord. The 7th day Sabbath was created by Him for mankind.

If one considered and applied the 1,000/day-year principle to the creation week (or something else) ... that would make no sense at all as nobody would know what day to keep (the 7th day Sabbath).

Part of the 10 commandments ...

Exodus 20:8
Berean Study Bible
Remember (from creation) the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.

So ... in the beginning each day being created (evening to morning) sets up and maintains the 7th day Sabbath of the Lord.

God speaking things into existence ...

We really do not know if God has a physical form or not ... and if He does what that form might look like. He may or may not have a physical form of some type ... and/or if not perhaps has the ability to appear in a physical form of His choosing. We just flat out have no idea.

One might say no physical form .... because of Him being omnipresent ... however, the Holy Spirit is omnipresent and in the trinity is taken as a person of the trinity ... separate yet one with God. So is His Holy Spirit actually HIM being omnipresent everywhere? If so ... then why is the Holy Spirit referred to part of the three?

1 Corinthians 2:9–10, Paul speaks about the things which “eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man.” Then he continues, “But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.

Spoke things into existence .... could be literal or not .... we just don't know.

"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth" (Psalm 33:6). "His mouth," and "the breath of his mouth," are undoubtedly figurative expressions...

Maybe .... maybe not .... however if we take them literally (of which I do) God isn't going to hold that against us .... because that is the information that He has given us. ;o)

The point He wants us to understand is .... He created everything in the universe ... us understanding exactly how He did that is not disclosed.

Human understanding the depth of Almighty God? .... impossible ;o) Could be why He puts things in simple human terms so we have a better idea about it ;o) But really that's all we have ... ideas about it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,955
12,031
East Coast
✟826,952.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If one would take the Genesis account using the thousand-day year principle then it would nee to be applied to the entire 7-day creation event.

I do take the Genesis account literally ... 7 days (sundown to sunrise = 1 day)

In the Genesis account each day is described as "the evening and the morning" (that does not mean according to our 24-hour time keeping system. (it is sundown to sunrise)

The evening and the morning is consistent with the keeping the 7th day Sabbath of the Lord. The 7th day Sabbath was created by Him for mankind.

If one considered and applied the 1,000/day-year principle to the creation week (or something else) ... that would make no sense at all as nobody would know what day to keep (the 7th day Sabbath).

Part of the 10 commandments ...

Exodus 20:8
Berean Study Bible
Remember (from creation) the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.


So ... in the beginning each day being created (evening to morning) sets up and maintains the 7th day Sabbath of the Lord.

God speaking things into existence ...

We really do not know if God has a physical form or not ... and if He does what that form might look like. He may or may not have a physical form of some type ... and/or if not perhaps has the ability to appear in a physical form of His choosing. We just flat out have no idea.

One might say no physical form .... because of Him being omnipresent ... however, the Holy Spirit is omnipresent and in the trinity is taken as a person of the trinity ... separate yet one with God. So is His Holy Spirit actually HIM being omnipresent everywhere? If so ... then why is the Holy Spirit referred to part of the three?

1 Corinthians 2:9–10, Paul speaks about the things which “eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man.” Then he continues, “But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.

Spoke things into existence .... could be literal or not .... we just don't know.



Maybe .... maybe not .... however if we take them literally (of which I do) God isn't going to hold that against us .... because that is the information that He has given us. ;o)

The point He wants us to understand is .... He created everything in the universe ... us understanding exactly how He did that is not disclosed.

Human understanding the depth of Almighty God? .... impossible ;o) Could be why He puts things in simple human terms so we have a better idea about it ;o) But really that's all we have ... ideas about it.

These are really helpful thoughts. I appreciate your willingness to allow that we just don't know. I also agree that whatever position we hold regarding God's essential nature, God will not hold that against us. That's a helpful point to make, I think.

The only thing that gives me pause is your willingness to allow that God might have a physical form. That the 2nd person became incarnate, sure. Or, that God manifested in a physical form, sure. But the possibility that God is in a physical form, by nature? Well, you already pointed to the problem that presents for omnipresence. There would certainly be others, as well. Nonetheless, a very interesting take. Thank you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,955
12,031
East Coast
✟826,952.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What about it does not seem literal to you?

I take a literal speaking, for instance, to include mouth, vocal cords, the movement of air, all of which produce sound. Isn't that what you would take literal speaking to mean?

If we take "God said" literally, then we mean God used God's mouth, pushing air through to produce sounds like "Let there be..." Isn't that literal?
 
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,638
5,588
Utah
✟709,653.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
These are really helpful thoughts. I appreciate your willingness to allow that we just don't know. I also agree that whatever position we hold regarding God's essential nature, God will not hold that against us. That's a helpful point to make, I think.

The only thing that gives me pause is your willingness to allow that God might have a physical form. That the 2nd person became incarnate, sure. Or, that God manifested in a physical form, sure. But the possibility that God is in a physical form, by nature? Well, you already pointed to the problem that presents for omnipresence. There would certainly be others, as well. Nonetheless, a very interesting take. Thank you.

well ... if He didn't have a physical form of some type in the beginning ... He certainly does now --- Jesus ;o) Like I said ... many things we don't know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,955
12,031
East Coast
✟826,952.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
God literally spoke and it was, but that doesn't mean that it fit OUR IDEA of how that happens.

This is an interesting approach. What does it mean to say something is literal if it doesn't fit our experience of literal things like speaking?

Usually, when we say something is like something else, but not exactly the same, we mean it is figurative. ;)

Are you saying in a figurative sense, God literally spoke and it came into being?
 
Upvote 0

Charlie24

Newbie
Oct 17, 2014
2,306
963
✟103,731.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
"This has already been stated by other authors, and is well known. A proof for this, namely that the phrase "God said" in the first chapter of Genesis, must be taken in the figurative sense "He willed," and not in its literal meaning, is found in the circumstance that a command can only be given to a being which exists and is capable of receiving the command. Compare, "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth" (Psalm 33:6). "His mouth," and "the breath of his mouth," are undoubtedly figurative expressions...The meaning of the verse is therefore that they exist through his will and desire." (Moses Maimonides The Guide for the Perplexed Chapter LXV)

As I have argued elsewhere, the opening chapters of Genesis cannot be wholly taken in a literal sense without embracing absurdity.
It is not possible to take all of the creation account in Genesis literally.

Let's assume that God literally spoke and creation came into being. Does God have a mouth? Who heard what was said? Does God have ears? In other words, does God have parts? It cannot be that God has parts, for God is One. If God has parts, then God is a composite being, composed by that which is smaller than the whole, which is absurd. So, if God does not have a literal mouth, then God did not speak literal words, and so not all of the opening chapter of Genesis 1 should be taken literally.

But, if not all of Genesis 1 should be taken literally, why should other parts like "day" be taken as a literal 24 hour period? There is no reason to take "day" as a literal 24 hour period, for to the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day (2 Peter 3:8).

So, should "God said" be taken literally or figuratively? Why?

Literally!

vs.2, And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

vs. 3 And God said, let there be light....

God was speaking to the person of the Holy Spirit who carried out the commands.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,955
12,031
East Coast
✟826,952.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Literally!

vs.2, And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

vs. 3 And God said, let there be light....

God was speaking to the person of the Holy Spirit who carried out the commands.

So, God has a mouth, which literally spoke a command that the Holy Spirit heard with literal ears and then went to work? Is that what you are saying?
 
Upvote 0

Charlie24

Newbie
Oct 17, 2014
2,306
963
✟103,731.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
So, God has a mouth, which literally spoke a command that the Holy Spirit heard with literal ears and then went to work? Is that what you are saying?

He didn't have to say it, He probably just thought it, and it was done.

Furthermore, we are created in His image. Why would He not have a literal mouth, literal ears?

Jesus left this earth and sat down at the right hand of God. Does God have a literal hand?
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

royal priest

debtor to grace
Nov 1, 2015
2,666
2,655
Northeast, USA
✟181,424.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I take a literal speaking, for instance, to include mouth, vocal cords, the movement of air, all of which produce sound. Isn't that what you would take literal speaking to mean?

If we take "God said" literally, then we mean God used God's mouth, pushing air through to produce sounds like "Let there be..." Isn't that literal?
The Bible doesn't tell us how He said it, but we do know that He spoke to the prophets at various times with audible speech without the use of a mouth. Sometimes He used the mouth of a physical being, and sometimes He spoke through visions, but sometimes He communicated speech without mention of physical means such as with Moses.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,660
9,972
78
Auckland
✟375,561.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"This has already been stated by other authors, and is well known. A proof for this, namely that the phrase "God said" in the first chapter of Genesis, must be taken in the figurative sense "He willed," and not in its literal meaning, is found in the circumstance that a command can only be given to a being which exists and is capable of receiving the command. Compare, "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth" (Psalm 33:6). "His mouth," and "the breath of his mouth," are undoubtedly figurative expressions...The meaning of the verse is therefore that they exist through his will and desire." (Moses Maimonides The Guide for the Perplexed Chapter LXV)

As I have argued elsewhere, the opening chapters of Genesis cannot be wholly taken in a literal sense without embracing absurdity.
It is not possible to take all of the creation account in Genesis literally.

Let's assume that God literally spoke and creation came into being. Does God have a mouth? Who heard what was said? Does God have ears? In other words, does God have parts? It cannot be that God has parts, for God is One. If God has parts, then God is a composite being, composed by that which is smaller than the whole, which is absurd. So, if God does not have a literal mouth, then God did not speak literal words, and so not all of the opening chapter of Genesis 1 should be taken literally.

But, if not all of Genesis 1 should be taken literally, why should other parts like "day" be taken as a literal 24 hour period? There is no reason to take "day" as a literal 24 hour period, for to the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day (2 Peter 3:8).

So, should "God said" be taken literally or figuratively? Why?

Hi there,

When the Father spoke the words at Jesus baptism "This is my beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased" Do we dismiss this as not literal as well?

By extension do we then consider the event of the baptism as figurative also?

That is the reasoning you seem to be applying to Genesis.

Does God have a mouth? - YES.

Did Jesus (as God) pre-exist the creation? YES

Did Jesus speak to His people in the wilderness? YES

You see the terms Father and Son are anthropomorphic but adequate and sanctioned by God to describe the Mystery and Glory behind them. This is a Glory that we will ponder on forever in eternity. Those terms and the term 'mouth' will never fully describe the source Glory of the Word of God, but the term is adequate for our understanding.

To write off Genesis and not factual on the basis that the terms used don't embrace the entire meaning of the Mysteries of God is folly.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,955
12,031
East Coast
✟826,952.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
He didn't have to say it, He probably just thought it, and it was done

If that's the case then it wasn't literal, which is what Maimonides was saying.

Furthermore, we are created in His image. Why would He not have a literal mouth, literal ears?

Image could refer to something other than physical attributes, such as having intellect and will or being relational.

Jesus left this earth and sat down at the right hand of God. Does God have a literal hand?

I would say not. I would say, sitting down at the "right hand" indicates one who has the authority and "ear" of the ruler, as it did in ancient royal courts. It's figurative.
 
Upvote 0