How can creation week be literal 24 hour days?

[BobRyan]

Is this addressed to me? I ask because I notice that you have only reiterated your interpretation and neglected my responses and questions....

you seem to have made the argument that if we ignore the details of God's own summary of Creation in Ex 20:11 where He Himself says that the days are the same as those at Sinai - we might be able to insert a lot of creativity and mountains of inference to try and reach a different conclusion. You are free of course to choose that option.

But given that God already gave us the obvious iron clad association between the week of Genesis 1 and the week at Sinai in Exodus 20... seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors to ignore what God already solved for us.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Certainly it is true that what you point out is a possible solution for "Another light source" in the universe other than our sun.

I had another read of Genesis last night. It seems to me that some of the statements are not in actual chronological order. It says at the same time He said "let there be light" it says that he divided between the light and darkness. Perhaps this was more an intentional statement which will become a reality once He had set the sun and moon in their places and lit up the sun, so the light was divided into night and day.

Another possible explanation could be that when we look at the night sky, we see a division between light and dark when we look at the stars, the milky way, and the vast regions of darkness in space. But I would favour my first idea. But we can never be absolutely sure, because the account gives us only the bare bones of information.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

1. Two great lights were made on day 4 .. not 'a zillion and two'. The stars were already there.
2. The 24 hour unit of time for our day comes from the rotation of the planet which did not change between day 1 and day 7 or between day 1 and day 4.

It also comes from having a light source on one side of the planet while it is rotating --- not on both sides at once. The idea that God could create the Sun and Earth but could not figure out another source of light other than the fusion of hydrogen (and so He would be stuck for a light source until day-4) is not entirely rational.

I already said what I thought it was in a previous post.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Bless you too and thank you. Please help my ignorance : is it a general principle that when you write in capitals you are shouting. If that were to be the case: How do you emphasis you point?
Cheers

I use bold. Some use a different colour, like red. Very effective.

 

[BobRyan]

I already said what I thought it was in a previous post.

And thanks for doing that.

 

[Jamsie]

you seem to have made the argument that if we ignore the details of God's own summary of Creation in Ex 20:11 where He Himself says that the days are the same as those at Sinai - we might be able to insert a lot of creativity and mountains of inference to try and reach a different conclusion. You are free of course to choose that option.

But given that God already gave us the obvious iron clad association between the week of Genesis 1 and the week at Sinai in Exodus 20... seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors to ignore what God already solved for us.

There is nothing in the text that states "week", nothing that states consecutive days, it is reasonable to understand that in the final analysis 6 days (plus seventh) equals what became termed as a week.

Further, it appears you have no response to the details of Genesis 1 that were detailed to you. The constant reliance only on Exodus 20 without any thought given to what is explicitly involved in the Genesis narrative renders any considered conclusions incomplete.

 

[BobRyan]

Ex 20
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 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.

There is nothing in the text that states "week", nothing that states consecutive days,

I find your logic "illusive" just then. Though I do admit that text does not use the English word "Week".

Ex 16
11 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “I have heard the grumblings of the sons of Israel; speak to them, saying, ‘At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God.’”
...
22 Now on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for each one. When all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses, 23 then he said to them, “This is what the Lord meant: Tomorrow is a sabbath observance, a holy Sabbath to the Lord. Bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over put aside to be kept until morning.” 24 So they put it aside until morning, as Moses had ordered, and it did not become foul nor was there any worm in it. 25 Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will be none.”
27 It came about on the seventh day that some of the people went out to gather, but they found none. 28 Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My instructions?


So then many good examples of a 7 day week - where the english term "week" is not there. Still ... easy for the reader to see it.

it is reasonable to understand that in the final analysis 6 days (plus seventh) equals what became termed as a week.

Shoots your argument in the foot since Moses writing in Exodus 20 and referencing the 7 days of creation week - as the 7 days at Sinai -- would obviously be taken as the week you finally admit to -- by Moses' readers and hearers.

Exegesis demands that the obvious intended meaning of the writer to his audience determine the meaning of the text ... and you seem to have already admitted that -- while claiming you don't accept the writer's meaning.??

Further, it appears you have no response to the details of Genesis 1 that were detailed to you.

On the contrary I repeatedly point out two key details for Genesis 1
1. God himself summarized it in Ex 20:11 in the very form you may be denying.
2. The requirement for a day needs only a rotating planet -- which you also reject
3. It also requires a light source other than fusion of Helium for days 1-3 -- which you also reject?

 

[Jamsie]

I find your logic "illusive" just then. Though I do admit that text does not use the English word "Week".

So then many good examples of a 7 day week - where the english term "week" is not there. Still ... easy for the reader to see it.

Shoots your argument in the foot since Moses writing in Exodus 20 and referencing the 7 days of creation week - as the 7 days at Sinai -- would obviously be taken as the week you finally admit to -- by Moses' readers and hearers.

Exegesis demands that the obvious intended meaning of the writer to his audience determine the meaning of the text ... and you seem to have already admitted that -- while claiming you don't accept the writer's meaning.??

First, let us establish that there is no definitive, absolute, or incontrovertible interpretation of Genesis 1 and creation. Biblical scholars disagree and a number of valid interpretations exist, and of course some that do not rise to the level of considered criticism. I would think most would agree that Genesis was not intended to detail how God created with any scientific specificity but rather to repudiate other near eastern cosmologies, and firmly establish God as the sole creator. There is no definitive or explicit scripture regarding Gen. 1:3 but scholars disagree, nor have I specifically addressed "light".

What I attempted to show was that the text clearly establishes the days by God's spoken (whether audible or by thought) commands/fiats. This you have not responded to at all. Given that the command days total six and would have been grounded in God's time, then it is possible that the week was later established based on the six days of fiats. (Some suggest and would ask the question as to when the seventh day ended?) What I would admit is that a number of possibilities exist however, again what you haven't addressed is the structure and text details that I posted, and as to whether they have a bearing on how Genesis is interpreted. ​

On the contrary I repeatedly point out two key details for Genesis 1
1. God himself summarized it in Ex 20:11 in the very form you may be denying.
2. The requirement for a day needs only a rotating planet -- which you also reject
3. It also requires a light source other than fusion of Helium for days 1-3 -- which you also reject?

1. We have addressed Exodus 20 time and again, you claim "week" and I suggest 6 days that become a week. The 6 days have not changed, it is simply how one addresses those days based on the information in the Genesis text that you won't address.

2. Where did I reject the requirement for a day/rotating planet? You will find that I did not, but you will find I use "command or fiat" to address the days...exactly how they are addressed in the Genesis text.

3. Can you please show where I made a comment rejecting a "a light source other than fusion of Helium"?

My basic point has always been with attention to what the text states in terms of fiats, processes that require time, and differentiating between the words command and made. None of these issues have you responded to as I have clearly laid out. What I am suggesting is that the details from the scripture should inform us to arrive at any reasoned interpretation.

 

[Jamsie]

I find your logic "illusive" just then. Though I do admit that text does not use the English word "Week".

My logic, such as it is, has been concerned with the structure of Genesis, addressing the details within, and using a plain reading of the text discussed. My logic tells me that without the details as outlined in Genesis any interpretation of "time" is incomplete.

Again, can you direct your attention to what I have written, and comment as to exactly where my logic is "illusive"?:

***********

1. "And God said,..." quite plain in that it establishes that creation was actualized by God's fiat/command, nothing else. (As noted "On each day it is clear that God has not Done something but rather to have Said something, not to have Made something but to have Commanded something.")

2. "And God made,..." is therefore clearly parenthetical or explanatory since the spoken command was all sufficient. One would need to deny the efficacy of God's command to alter the text or refute His power to accomplish his purpose with simply a word.

3. Only in Gen. 1:3 does the text state an immediate fulfillment - "And God said, Let there be light and there was light". We also know from the verses that the "day one" or "first day" was referring to the command or fiat.

4. One will note that subsequent to Gen. 1:3 all of the following commands are directed to created matter. The text does not say "And God said, Let there be vegetation and there was vegetation..." or "And God said, Let there be living creatures and there was living creatures". What is evident is that God commands or authorizes the separation/water/land as a mediate instrument for His purposes. (God set in motion at the beginning all of the "laws" for the "incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced".)

5. If "And God said,..." is the sole and only operative agent then clearly the designation of "day one" or "first day" relates directly to the commands, thus command or fiat days. There is no "stretch" or "twist" or "adding" to the text as that is quite explicitly what the passage states.

6. One would need to deny where the commands are directed so as to not logically conclude that we have 5 days of mediate creation. The commands succinctly command the various created matter to initiate a God ordained process to accomplish His will/purpose. Therefore there is no reason to conclude that the mediate creative fiats would require time for to be accomplished. Just as they are today and throughout history, unless one chooses to put an infinite God inside some sort of finite time box.

7. As the structure of Genesis 1 shows the days are based on the commands or fiats. In terms of time no definitive reference is made other then each day's fiat. So the time spans can be indefinite or too they may overlap allowing the processes He input through his fiats to be fulfilled. Therefore, there are six creative days, plus the seventh which total what we now call a week. There is no dismissal of Exodus 20:11 as there would literally be "..in six days ...". Again, the completion relates to the processes invoked based on the assurance that what God commands comes to pass.

*The sixth day remains a question as to time: "So Gen. 1:27 creation of "male and female", then 2:15 God put man in the garden to "work and care", compare Gen. 1:31 to Ge. 2:18. Gen.2:19 naming of the animals, the Gen. 2:22 has Eve, and Adam uses the word "pa‛ămâh" which hints at "at last" or "now" which one would infer a passage of time. Would there not be some passage of time for Adam to work and care for the plants, etc. if not why would he need a `ezer - helper? Would it be a "stretch" to believe that Adam must have had some interaction with the variety of animals, birds, etc. in order to name them, if they were named meaningfully ...and would not that require time? So given the mediate nature of creation how is equating days to commands so far fetched...the Bible is quite clear that each day (5 days) is a command day that involves process."

 

[BobRyan]

My logic, such as it is, has been concerned with the structure of Genesis,

And if you ignore God's own summary of the statement in Genesis 1-2,
And also ignore exegesis entirely - so that you can ignore the fact that Moses is handing this text to Israel at Sinai and the "definition of terms" is what they would have used - - not some massive inference and guess-work that some later reader might insert into the text 4000 years later.

Well then -- just maybe you could come up with a new meaning entirely contradictory to what God said of it in His own summary of the event.

Which is a point where we might both agree.

Again, can you direct your attention to what I have written, and comment as to exactly where my logic is "illusive"?:

I show that explicitly with two very clear references to "six days" where you claim that if "week" is not in the text then you are free to imagine that the six days are not consecutive nor even a reference to six days in a week.

Take the very detail that you point to "no mention of week" and show that your detail is the same in Genesis 1, and Exodus 16, and Exodus 20... which is where I think we all find your logic a bit illusive.

1. "And God said,..." quite plain in that it establishes that creation was actualized by God's fiat/command

Does not say "and then nothing happened other than God speaking".
Does not say "and what God spoke was not fully accomplished on that day even though He said it was"

I think we can both agree on that.

, nothing else. (As noted "On each day it is clear that God has not Done something

That is extreme imagination. And without it your entire case goes up in smoke.

"For in six days the LORD MADE" is the very thing you claim He did not do.
You wrench-bend that into "For in six days God SAID... yet MADE nothing"

God speaks -- and it is so.

The whole point in both Genesis 2:1-3 and in Exodus 20:8-11 is that God "completed" His work in those consecutive 24-hour days and then rested ... stopped... ended .. His work of creation. And in that same way mankind was to complete our work .. finish.. done.. in 6 days and then rest on the 7th day.

Rather than "man should in like manner talk-about the work he will do for six days then stop and rest.. the 7th day of each week".

 

[Jamsie]

And if you ignore God's own summary of the statement in Genesis 1-2, And also ignore exegesis entirely - so that you can ignore the fact that Moses is handing this text to Israel at Sinai and the "definition of terms" is what they would have used - - not some massive inference and guess-work that some later reader might insert into the text 4000 years later.
Well then -- just maybe you could come up with a new meaning entirely contradictory to what God said of it in His own summary of the event.
Which is a point where we might both agree.

Take the very detail that you point to "no mention of week" and show that your detail is the same in Genesis 1, and Exodus 16, and Exodus 20... which is where I think we all find your logic a bit illusive.

There is no new meaning the Bible says 6 days, it does not say a defined 6 consecutive day week. It says 6 days, and it is not at all contrary to understanding that the 6 days of commands at a point represent a week.

Your references to six days is exactly that six days...which could or could not be 6 command days (as the Bible explicitly states) and come to by virtue of the days represent a week.

Gen. 1, Exodus 16 or 20 state the very same thing 6 days...absolutely no expansion or further detail as to anything else. So your point is simply redundant as to any complete explanation. Again, what you neglect is the details that have been shown and in fact are clearly stated in Genesis. What does let the land/water produce mean?

Does not say "and then nothing happened other than God speaking".Does not say "and what God spoke was not fully accomplished on that day even though He said it was"
I think we can both agree on that. That is extreme imagination. And without it your entire case goes up in smoke.

This I explained and you avoided. The only "imagination" involved is not reading what the Bible clearly states and is confirmed elsewhere as to "And God said,..." - (Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5). I believe the smoke is illusory on your part as to what scripture pointedly states.

If as the Bible plainly states that the word of God is the sole operative agent of creation then by any logic what follows must be explanatory. God made statements following His command are an explanation of that command that God made ...how?...by His fiat. You would have to suggest that God's command was insufficient, and I don't believe you are suggesting that?

If God's command/fiat is all sufficient and the sole operative agent then the "evening and morning - the day" relates to the command. That is not "illusive" logic but rather the plain reasoned reading of the text. The further point you won't address is that the command is mediate it is not direct to fulfillment.

The text in Gen. 1:3 is "And God said, Let there be light and there was light". The subsequent 5 days could simply state "And God said, Let there be vegetation and there was vegetation..." or Let there be living creature and there was living creatures" but this is clearly avoided. Rather we have a direct command that is mediate - "And God said, Let the water... or Let the land produce or bring forth...".

What happened after the command is that it was fulfilled according to God's direct fiat to pre-existing matter. Not imagination, not illusive logic but what scripture states. Since it is clear that the mediate command was to a process then the time frame for that process is what is in question.

"For in six days the LORD MADE" is the very thing you claim He did not do. You wrench-bend that into "For in six days God SAID"

Now you are "wrench-bending", so we should simply dismiss "And God said,...." along with Psalm 33:6, Hebrews 11:3, and 2 Peter 3:5? The statement "For in six days the Lord MADE..." is quite easily answered by How? And if you refer to Genesis 1 it is quite clear that the how is by spoken command, with made statements being explanatory. As noted above and previous, you must deny that God's spoken command was insufficient.

"On each day it is clear that God has not Done something but rather to have Said something, not to have Made something but to have Commanded something."

Please show me how this is not what Genesis states?

 

[Jamsie]

I find your logic "illusive" just then. Though I do admit that text does not use the English word "Week".

One point that you should consider before simply evading what has been written concerning the creation narrative. The thoughts on the subject are certainly not my own but an accumulation of considerable study of Genesis 1-2. As you should be aware Biblical scholars have written extensively on interpreting Genesis offering a collection of lucubrations quite differing and varied in their conclusions. To dismiss the thoughts I've posted as "illusive", "wrench-bent", or "imaginative" serves little purpose.

St. Augustine "repeatedly urges restraint, flexibility, openness to new interpretations, and openness to new knowledge that may provide insight into the text."

St. Augustine wrote that "...in matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision ... we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture"

He further noted with what should be understood today: "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

"There is in this chapter, as I understand it, a mingling of the logical and chronological orders; so that each new subject is taken up in its proper chronological order, and the discussion on it is completed; but the writer does not intend us to understand that everything related to it was completed before the first stage in the next process began." Albertus Pieters, Professor of Bible

"These great lines of narrative, in like manner, include minor lines, whenever the history falls into several threads, which must all be taken up one after another, in order to carry on the whole concatenation of events. These come out in paragraphs, and even shorter passages, which necessarily overlap one another in point of time. The striking peculiarity of Hebrew composition is aptly illustrated by the successive links in the genealogy of the fifth chapter, where the life of one patriarch is brought to a close before that of the next is taken up, though they actually run parallel for the greater part of the predecessor’s life. It furnishes a key to much that is difficult in the narrative." Dr. James Murphy, Professor of Hebrew

I offer this to simply note that if one is not able to address the questions posed or see from the text from which they are directly taken what has been proposed it is of little benefit to attempt to somewhat ad hominem the writer/poster. Again, these thoughts that I've posted are gathered from Biblical scholars, Hebrew scholars, Christian scientists, etc. and are not so easily dismissed. I understand the somewhat unfortunate rigidity with which many in the YEC camp approach a different perspective, but Augustine addressed that well about 1500 years ago...……..

 

[BobRyan]

My logic, such as it is, has been concerned with the structure of Genesis,

And if you ignore God's own summary of the statement in Genesis 1-2,
And also ignore exegesis entirely - so that you can ignore the fact that Moses is handing this text to Israel at Sinai and the "definition of terms" is what they would have used - - not some massive inference and guess-work that some later reader might insert into the text 4000 years later.

Well then -- just maybe you could come up with a new meaning entirely contradictory to what God said of it in His own summary of the event.

Which is a point where we might both agree.

Again, can you direct your attention to what I have written, and comment as to exactly where my logic is "illusive"?:

I show that explicitly with two very clear references to "six days" where you claim that if "week" is not in the text then you are free to imagine that the six days are not consecutive nor even a reference to six days in a week.

Take the very detail that you point to "no mention of week" and show that your detail is the same in Genesis 1, and Exodus 16, and Exodus 20... which is where I think we all find your logic a bit illusive.

1. "And God said,..." quite plain in that it establishes that creation was actualized by God's fiat/command

Does not say "and then nothing happened other than God speaking".
Does not say "and what God spoke was not fully accomplished on that day even though He said it was"

I think we can both agree on that.

, nothing else. (As noted "On each day it is clear that God has not Done something

That is extreme imagination. And without it your entire case goes up in smoke.

"For in six days the LORD MADE" is the very thing you claim He did not do.
You wrench-bend that into "For in six days God SAID... yet MADE nothing"

God speaks -- and it is so.

The whole point in both Genesis 2:1-3 and in Exodus 20:8-11 is that God "completed" His work in those consecutive 24-hour days and then rested ... stopped... ended .. His work of creation. And in that same way mankind was to complete our work .. finish.. done.. in 6 days and then rest on the 7th day.

Rather than "man should in like manner talk-about the work he will do for six days then stop and rest.. the 7th day of each week".

There is no new meaning the Bible says 6 days,

Exactly - six days of work.. then rest on the 7th day.

To re-imagine that as "six days of talking about work but not actually doing anything.. then resting on the 7th day as if you had actually completed your work in that six days" -- is a foreign concept to the Bible.

it does not say a defined 6 consecutive day week.

Until you read it - as we see in both Exodus 16 and Exodus 20 where the word "consecutive" and the word "week" does not show up - but the reader instantly gets that detail all the same.

Your references to six days is exactly that six days...which could or could not be 6 command days

Not even remotely a bend-and-wrench of the text that is possible since by the 7th day all work was done.

 

[Jamsie]

And if you ignore God's own summary of the statement in Genesis 1-2,
And also ignore exegesis entirely - so that you can ignore the fact that Moses is handing this text to Israel at Sinai and the "definition of terms" is what they would have used - - not some massive inference and guess-work that some later reader might insert into the text 4000 years later.

Well then -- just maybe you could come up with a new meaning entirely contradictory to what God said of it in His own summary of the event.

Which is a point where we might both agree.



I show that explicitly with two very clear references to "six days" where you claim that if "week" is not in the text then you are free to imagine that the six days are not consecutive nor even a reference to six days in a week.

Take the very detail that you point to "no mention of week" and show that your detail is the same in Genesis 1, and Exodus 16, and Exodus 20... which is where I think we all find your logic a bit illusive.




Does not say "and then nothing happened other than God speaking".
Does not say "and what God spoke was not fully accomplished on that day even though He said it was"

I think we can both agree on that.



That is extreme imagination. And without it your entire case goes up in smoke.

"For in six days the LORD MADE" is the very thing you claim He did not do.
You wrench-bend that into "For in six days God SAID... yet MADE nothing"

God speaks -- and it is so.

The whole point in both Genesis 2:1-3 and in Exodus 20:8-11 is that God "completed" His work in those consecutive 24-hour days and then rested ... stopped... ended .. His work of creation. And in that same way mankind was to complete our work .. finish.. done.. in 6 days and then rest on the 7th day.

Rather than "man should in like manner talk-about the work he will do for six days then stop and rest.. the 7th day of each week".



Exactly - six days of work.. then rest on the 7th day.

To re-imagine that as "six days of talking about work but not actually doing anything.. then resting on the 7th day as if you had actually completed your work in that six days" -- is a foreign concept to the Bible.



Until you read it - as we see in both Exodus 16 and Exodus 20 where the word "consecutive" and the word "week" does not show up - but the reader instantly gets that detail all the same.



Not even remotely a bend-and-wrench of the text that is possible since by the 7th day all work was done.

 

[BobRyan]

One point that you should consider before simply evading what has been written concerning the creation narrative. The thoughts on the subject are certainly not my own but an accumulation of considerable study of Genesis 1-2.

One point that you should consider before simply evading what has been written by God concerning the creation narrative in His own summation of it in Exodus 20:11 -- The thoughts on the subject are certainly not my own but rather the explicit statement of God Himself in Exodus 20:11

As you should be aware God wrote this with his own hand in Exodus 20:11 and spoke it audibly to the congregation.

St. Augustine "repeatedly urges restraint, flexibility, openness to new interpretations, and openness to new knowledge that may provide insight into the text."

Augustine argues the opposite point from you. He argues that getting all the real-WORK done in 6 literal days is WAYY TOO LONG for God... and that God must therefore have done the entire thing -- fully finished in a moment of time. He concludes that his bend-and-wrench does not actually fit the content of the text but that he can not explain how infinite God would have taken so long to accomplish all the work - so God must have done it in real-time in an instant of time.

Your appeal to the self-conflicted and oft-conflicted ramblings of the ancients is not at all impressive when compared to your consistent requirement to ignore God's own summation of the event in Exodus 20:11

 

[BobRyan]

Ex 20
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 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.


Ex 16
11 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “I have heard the grumblings of the sons of Israel; speak to them, saying, ‘At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God.’”
...
22 Now on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for each one. When all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses, 23 then he said to them, “This is what the Lord meant: Tomorrow is a sabbath observance, a holy Sabbath to the Lord. Bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over put aside to be kept until morning.” 24 So they put it aside until morning, as Moses had ordered, and it did not become foul nor was there any worm in it. 25 Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will be none.”
27 It came about on the seventh day that some of the people went out to gather, but they found none. 28 Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My instructions?

Genesis
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

So then many good examples of a 7 day week - where the english term "week" is not there. Still ... easy for the reader to see it.

If as the Bible plainly states that the word of God is the sole operative agent of creation then by any logic what follows must be explanatory.

If as the Bible states the work was fully completed by the 7th day then by any logic what follows each statement on each day -- is the completion of the work as stated each day such that by the 7th day it is done.

You would have to suggest that God's command was insufficient,

nonsense.

The argument that when God SAYS "in six days the Lord MADE..." we should then wildly imagine to ourselves that it would be "suggesting God's word is insufficient" to actually believe that "in six days the Lord MADE..." is an argument I find hard to take seriously


Are you really suggesting that?

============== question for you --

you have given me the 'easy task' of just believing "that in six days the LORD MADE ... and that by the 7th day all the work was done.

You on the other hand have left yourself with the very difficult task of trying to re-work the text so that to believe "that in six days the Lord MADE.." and then rested at the completion of all the work on the 7th day -- is not correct at all and one must imagine "in six days the Lord made nothing".

So here is my question for that steep uphill slogging you have assigned yourself... what is your incentive for all that gymnastics and creativity??

 

[Jamsie]

I show that explicitly with two very clear references to "six days" where you claim that if "week" is not in the text then you are free to imagine that the six days are not consecutive nor even a reference to six days in a week.

No, you have shown no such thing clearly...you simply are incapable of realizing that six days factor into our week but not necessarily at the beginning to God's week.

Does not say "and then nothing happened other than God speaking". Does not say "and what God spoke was not fully accomplished on that day even though He said it was". I think we can both agree on that. That is extreme imagination. And without it your entire case goes up in smoke.

"For in six days the LORD MADE" is the very thing you claim He did not do.
You wrench-bend that into "For in six days God SAID... yet MADE nothing"​

Again, please try and resist your urge to create a straw man. What I claim is exactly what you refuse to see in scripture that "And God said,..." is the sole operative agent. So what you choose to wrench-bend is the scripture that supports my contention, along with the Genesis narrative. So you reject Psalm 33:6, Hebrews 11:3, and 2 Peter 3:5 which plainly support that God simply spoke. And you fail to comprehend that what would follow would by logical necessity be explanatory, that you can't grasp what is clearly stated is not my contention going up in "smoke", but yours.

Did you notice in the narrative that the passage could just as easily have read "And God made vegetation...or living creatures...etc." BUT it doesn't it says God spoke. If you choose look up the two words in the Hebrew or from the English translation and use a dictionary … are said and made synonyms? There is your answer!

I can appreciate your inability to see beyond the surface and address much of the Genesis narrative.​

God speaks -- and it is so.

Exactly, and that is where you fail to read the narrative. What is so? Why not address the comparison between Gen. 1:3 and Gen. 1:9, Gen. 1:11, Gen. 1:24 ...because it does not say what you want it to say. Obviously to anyone who give a modicum of delicacy to the narrative the verbiage was quite capable of explicitly stating immediate creation but it does not. And again I notice you don't address mediate creation that is also quite explicitly stated...by the direction of the command.

The whole point in both Genesis 2:1-3 and in Exodus 20:8-11 is that God "completed" His work in those consecutive 24-hour days and then rested ... stopped... ended .. His work of creation. And in that same way mankind was to complete our work .. finish.. done.. in 6 days and then rest on the 7th day.

What you fail to address is that again said and made are not synonyms, though you strain to make them so. What was completed was God's command to "Let the land bring forth or produce vegetation/living creatures/ etc. That is what the Bible states though you appear to reject that God's spoken commands were all sufficient and that he had to have "made" directly, when actually the narrative clearly states that He spoke a process and through that process made...to not see that is to wrench-bend scripture.

Not even remotely a bend-and-wrench of the text that is possible since by the 7th day all work was done.

And what you again fail to see from the text is the fact that the work was God's spoken commands, nothing else required.

The six day disagreement is pointless simply because you need to fit God into a finite box whereas I can understand the possibility that the command days total six, that can be over time, and comprise the "work" week.

 

[Jamsie]

So here is my question for that steep uphill slogging you have assigned yourself... what is your incentive for all that gymnastics and creativity??

It is only an uphill slogging when one is involved in the labor of researching and studying scripture, reading various theologians, and after years being convinced of a particular point of view. It isn't a difficult task for one to simply skip along with their inculcation and be myopic to considered other views.

You feel quite comfortable sitting at the base of the hill, but perhaps at some point you might too seek to make the effort to take a deeper look at Genesis one, and peer beneath the surface. It seems you must reject certain scriptures to keep your eyes on the surface...…….

 

[Jamsie]

Augustine argues the opposite point from you. He argues that getting all the real-WORK done in 6 literal days is WAYY TOO LONG for God... and that God must therefore have done the entire thing -- fully finished in a moment of time. He concludes that his bend-and-wrench does not actually fit the content of the text but that he can not explain how infinite God would have taken so long to accomplish all the work - so God must have done it in real-time in an instant of time.

Your appeal to the self-conflicted and oft-conflicted ramblings of the ancients is not at all impressive when compared to your consistent requirement to ignore God's own summation of the event in Exodus 20:11

That you consider St. Augustine's thoughts to be "self-conflicted and oft-conflicted ramblings of the ancients" speaks volumes. Augustine, Aquinas, and others are as relevant today as they were then...sad you neglect to understand that. The point being made was not Augustine's specific view but his addressing the overall understanding of Genesis. (I guess you would have had to read with a little more care as opposed to simply try and pick some things apart) The further point is simply that Theologians, Professors of Hebrew, Scientists with a Christian worldview, can come to very different conclusions and many lay people are simply myopic to anything that shakes their pre-suppositions based on early indoctrination. Not surprised that you missed the point of that post....evidently many Bible scholars are given to wrench-bending...

 

[BobRyan]

That you consider St. Augustine's thoughts to be "self-conflicted and oft-conflicted ramblings of the ancients" speaks volumes.

Thanks for that.

Augustine was a persecutor, and the father of generations of persecutors. "Augustine of Hippo did not shrink from giving a dogmatic basis to what had come to be the practice of the church, and even professed to find warrant for it in Scripture. 'It is, indeed, better that men should be brought to serve God by instruction than by fear of punishment, or by pain. But because the former means are better, the latter must not therefore be neglected. Many must often be brought back to their Lord, like wicked servants, by the rod of temporal suffering, before they attain the highest grade of religious development. . . . The Lord himself orders that guests be first invited, then compelled, to his great supper.' And Augustine argues that if the State has not the power to punish religious error, neither should it punish a crime like murder. Rightly did Neander say of Augustine's teaching, that it 'contains the germ of the whole system of spiritual despotism, intolerance, and persecution, even to the court of the Inquisition.' Nor was it long before the final step was taken in the church doctrine of persecution

In any case how nice that you highly affirm the guy that says your "did nothing in 6 days" idea is sooo wrong that in fact God did it all in less than 6 days. I find your position there less than consistent in that you affirm the guy that says you are even more wrong than I would claim.