Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Clearly this semantic issue is not the meat of my argument, gluadys. If you continue to write this way, I will eventually lose my current respect for you. Why? Because I myself dont stoop to debates over semantics. I stick to REASONING. If youre going to make such a big issue of my choice of words, fine, strike the words discard and demote from my statements. THE FACT THAT THE REAL ARGUMENTS STILL REMAIN PROVES THAT YOUR SEMANTIC COMPLAINT WAS NEVER THE CRUX. Here are my two main arguments once again (sigh). (1) The first challenge is to show how it is hermeneutically consistent to categorize 8 invisible elements of Scripture as literal realities (such as angels) while classifying a visible element (men such as Adam and Eve) as myth. In private messages between Vance and me, every time I so much as mentioned Adam and Eve he responded with long essays aimed at mythologizing them. Recently it became apparent to me that he has not yet shown himself hermeneutically consistent in this conclusion. (2) There are three testaments, namely the Old Testament, the New Testament, and all of Nature. Many YECists say that Nature could be a metaphor for the Ancient of Days. This is called the appearance of age argument. Theistic evolutionists object that such a metaphor, if actual, has distorted history in the eyes of many - yet postulate a metaphorical Genesis which, if actual, has distorted history in the eyes of many. This is trying to have ones cake and eat it too.gluadys said:That IS the meat of your argument. That a mythological or allegorical or otherwise figurative interpretation of what you interpret as history (and note, that is ALSO an interpretation) is equivalent to discarding, demoting, demeaning, ignoring, "picking and choosing" scripture. That it is a tactic to render the scripture without force or authority, to weaken it to the point that it can be safely dropped out of sight. That is the whole foundation of the literalists' attack on non-literal interpretations of what they deem to be history.
And it is simply not true. Perhaps it is your position that only objective history can carry the authoritative voice of God. But it is not my position. So when you use words like "discard", "demote" etc. you are mis-representing my beliefs on this matter.
Cmon, Glaudys. I explicitly provided a refutation of these alleged contradictions by referring you here:Gluadys said:The contradictions between the two creation stories are endemic to the text, not a figment of fallible interpretation.
Genesis can be reconciled with science if it is not interpreted literally. It is only the literal interpretation of the text that contradicts science. Science has shown us that creation did not occur in only 6 days...Hence, any reconciliation of science with Genesis must rely to some extent on non-literal interpretation.
gluadys said:However, I would still disagree with both Tertullian and yourself. My personal approach to the nature of the soul is derived from Gen. 2:7. As the creation of Adam is described here, "soul" is not to be identified as either physical or non-physical, but as the union of both. The "breath of life" is not the soul, but that which transforms the body in such as way that it becomes a living soul. The operative word is "become". Hence, it is not proper (though common) to speak of "having" a soul, but rather of "being" a soul. Just as it is not really proper (though common) to speak of "having" a body, but of "being" a body. And likewise of "being" a spirit/breath. We are souls because we are spirit-animated bodies.
If thats the case, then a library that classifies some books as history and others as fable is arbitrary. You wouldnt even know which section to begin looking for a desired book. When Christianity classified the first 17 books of Scripture as HISTORY (versus poetry), it was not acting arbitrarily. Moreover, you cannot treat the Bible just like any other book. If we start with the assumption that the Bible alone is inspired (feel free to contest that on other threads), it is already in a special category. Hence we will need prima facie evidence for mythologizing a biblical text and not just evidence, but evidence shown to be HERMENEUTICALLY CONSISTENT.Gluadys said:To say Genesis 1-2 "was plainly intended as history" is itself a subjective interpretation and has no more justification than to say it "was plainly intended to be mythological"
No, it was not a red herring it was neither a diversion nor a mere lampooning. To see why, lets look at where Vance is taking us. To mythologize Genesis, he has to cast doubt on major NT passages traditionally presumed literal, for instance Pauls discussion of Christs atonement in Romans 5. In a private message to me, Vance commented on Romans 5 that its okay if Paul ERRED in regard to the First Adam (perhaps Paul erred in regard to the Second Adam too?). This is what Vance wrote privately to me:Gluadys said:Red herring.
Vance said:Paul was just a man. He was among the greatest of men, it is true, but his own letters show that he was sometimes petty, boastful, proud and lost his temper. He was also a brilliant thinker and a great man of God. As a great admirer of Paul, it does not disturb me at all if Paul DID consider something literal that was actually figurative, symbolic or typological.
Ok, fine. I have asked for this information again and again, on thread after thread. Show me how the chronology of Genesis 1 contradicts the fossil record. I'm not a scientist, so if you don't provide this information, I'm not likely to get it. (And please don't speak of the chronology of Genesis 2 - it doesn't have one, as I explained in the thread/link highlighted above).[Science] has shown us that neither chronology in Genesis reflects the actual order of the appearance of living species on earth.
I'm going to part company with you on this one JAL. You said:So Scripture need not be inerrant? Look, if youre going to begin mythologizing the Bible, you need to show yourself hermeneutically consistent.
I do not think you are being consistent. God is said to have created heaven and earth in six days in Exedus 20:8. I see no reason to assume that the time interval was different for the days before the sun was present. You have noted a possible source of light. The old Jewish scholars recognised this dilemma, but spoke of a day as one rotation of the earth. The same word is used for day on each of the days of chapter 1, and and the same formula is used at the end of each day, indicating there was an evening and morning.And was it a 24-hour sun? According to 2Cor 4:4-6 (cf. Rev 1:16; etc), the Sun of Genesis 1:3 was Gods glory shining in Christs face (many Bible margins connect 2Cor 4-6 DIRECTLY to Gen 1:3). His physical Light illuminated the whole galaxy, provided photosynthesis to the plants until our sun was in place on the fourth galactic day, and He suspended this galactic Light six times (whenever He wanted) to create the six galactic nights. (These galactic days have NOTHING to do with the earths local 24-hour days and nights). How much time transpired during the six days? Genesis doesnt say. Assuming the geologic column trustworthy, we could conclude 4 billion years.
Yes, in Exodus 20:8, God said He created the earth in six days. That's not the question, is it? The question is, what does "day" mean? Genesis defines day as a morning/daylight followed by an evening/darkness. I quoted Webster's Dictionary stating the same thing. WHOSE definition of day should I accept - yours? Or the Bible's? You argue that the same Hebrew word is used. Right - because the definition of day was STILL THE SAME (morning and evening). Show me where I have departed from the definition "morning and evening" or "daylight and darkness." You can't, because I haven't. If you believe in six 24 hour days, fine. But you haven't shown how my view is unbiblical. If a day can only be 24 hours, then other planets/suns CANNOT experience days and nights. In my opinion such a limitation is too stringent.Micaiah said:I do not think you are being consistent. God is said to have created heaven and earth in six days in Exedus 20:8. I see no reason to assume that the time interval was different for the days before the sun was present. You have noted a possible source of light. The old Jewish scholars recognised this dilemma, but spoke of a day as one rotation of the earth. The same word is used for day on each of the days of chapter 1, and and the same formula is used at the end of each day, indicating there was an evening and morning.
Clearly this semantic issue is not the meat of my argument, gluadys. If you continue to write this way, I will eventually lose my current respect for you. Why? Because I myself dont stoop to debates over semantics.
I stick to REASONING. If youre going to make such a big issue of my choice of words, fine, strike the words discard and demote from my statements.
To mythologize Genesis, he has to cast doubt on major NT passages traditionally presumed literal,
Vance said:Paul was just a man. He was among the greatest of men, it is true, but his own letters show that he was sometimes petty, boastful, proud and lost his temper. He was also a brilliant thinker and a great man of God. As a great admirer of Paul, it does not disturb me at all if Paul DID consider something literal that was actually figurative, symbolic or typological.
So Scripture need not be inerrant?
To say Genesis 1-2 "was plainly intended as history" is itself a subjective interpretation and has no more justification than to say it "was plainly intended to be mythological"
If thats the case, then a library that classifies some books as history and others as fable is arbitrary. You wouldnt even know which section to begin looking for a desired book.
When Christianity classified the first 17 books of Scripture as HISTORY (versus poetry), it was not acting arbitrarily.
Moreover, you cannot treat the Bible just like any other book. If we start with the assumption that the Bible alone is inspired (feel free to contest that on other threads), it is already in a special category. Hence we will need prima facie evidence for mythologizing a biblical text and not just evidence, but evidence shown to be HERMENEUTICALLY CONSISTENT.
The contradictions between the two creation stories are endemic to the text, not a figment of fallible interpretation.
Instead I have to keep BEGGING both you and Vance to respond. After five days, Im about worn out.
THE FACT THAT THE REAL ARGUMENTS STILL REMAIN PROVES THAT YOUR SEMANTIC COMPLAINT WAS NEVER THE CRUX. Here are my two main arguments once again (sigh). (1) The first challenge is to show how it is hermeneutically consistent to categorize 8 invisible elements of Scripture as literal realities (such as angels) while classifying a visible element (men such as Adam and Eve) as myth.
Genesis can be reconciled with science if it is not interpreted literally. It is only the literal interpretation of the text that contradicts science. Science has shown us that creation did not occur in only 6 days...Hence, any reconciliation of science with Genesis must rely to some extent on non-literal interpretation.
I have responded to this charge (a) on this thread (b) on the thread referenced above and (c) on numerous threads that you attended. Yet here again you deny my conclusion without examining my reasoning.
But you are using a non-literal meaning of "day" to make your reconciliation of science and Genesis.
Words, of course, have plural meanings. Some of those meanings are literal and some are not. In the case of the word "day" there are two literal meanings.
1. The period of time from sunrise to sunset (=time of light as opposed to darkness, "day" vs. "night".)
2. The period of time in which the earth completes one full turn on its axis (= a "day" as in definition 1 + a night)
All other uses of "day" are figurative.
Briefly, heres my argument yet again (sigh). As far as I can see (correct me if Im wrong), no reputable scientist would limit the literal meaning of day to 24 hours because suns and planets can vary in size.
But the definitions above did not mention 24 hours. Change the word "earth" to "planet" and they are valid no matter how long the day. btw neither the size of the sun, nor the size of the planet makes any difference. The relevant figure is the speed at which the planet rotates on its axis. Jupiter is much bigger than earth but its day is much shorter because of the speed of its rotation.
For instance Webster's includes the following possible definitions of "day."
1 a : the time of light between one night and the next b : DAYLIGHT 1, 2
2 : the period of rotation of a planet (as earth) or a moon on its axis
Genesis 1:5 uses definition #1 for day, namely a daylight/morning followed by an evening/darkness. Since our sun did not exist until day 4 of Genesis, there is no 24-hour limitation.
Hmm, same definition of "day" as I gave above. Seems I agree with Webster.
Now, it gets tricky. It depends on what time period you are basing your affirmation of literalness on, and it appears you are conflating modern understandings of literalness with ancient ones.
Let's assume the following is a literal fact:
The earth rotates on its axis, giving us alternating periods of light and dark.
Then, by definition 2, the length of the day is 24 hours, because that is the period of the earth's rotation.
This being so, it does not make any difference what the source of light is, nor that other planets have different rotation speeds. The 24 hour limit to the length of day is not set by the sun or by other planets, but by the earth itself.
However, we have a problem of a different nature here.
The biblical writer would have disputed the fact of the earth's rotation. For the biblical writer, the length of the day on earth was not set by the earth, but by something he considered to be a literal fact. Namely...
"The sun moves across the sky from east to west in the day and completes its circuit back to its eastern starting point during the night."
Assuming this movement of the sun in its circuit around the earth was literal fact, he defined "day" as the time it takes to complete one such circuit.
Now, with "day" defined by the movement of the sun instead of the movement of the earth, one can discuss whether the days prior to the creation of the sun were of the same or a different length. Note, however, that all such discussion is speculative as the text can support either assertion.
So a literal day on earth can be longer than 24 hours, if and only if, the ancient perspective on what constitutes a "day" is accepted. And that requires that the sun literally move around the earth (geo-centricity).
If we accept modern science, what constitutes a "day" is a movement of the earth, not of the sun or any other light source, and in that case a literal day is necessarily a 24-hour day.
The question is, what sun provided the six days? And was it a 24-hour sun? According to 2Cor 4:4-6 (cf. Rev 1:16; etc), the Sun of Genesis 1:3 was Gods glory shining in Christs face (many Bible margins connect 2Cor 4-6 DIRECTLY to Gen 1:3).
Why is it people have such a hard time understanding that scripture is literature, even if it is also more than literature. All the biblical writers use literary techniques for effect. This is a gross distortion of what the text says. Had you given an answer like this in my English class, you would have failed in comprehension. Rev. 1:16 uses a simile to describe Christ as he appeared in John's vision. By definition, a simile is a literary not a literal description. Paul is using an analogy, and an analogy, again by definition, is not literal.
How much time transpired during the six days? Genesis doesnt say.
Taken literally, yes it does. It is referring to what we ordinarily call a day on earth. So the time that transpired in 6 days is 6 x 24 hours. Any other interpretation is non-literal.
A LITERAL READING OF GENESIS DOES NOT REQUIRE 24 HOUR DAYS. k?
Yes, it does. Any interpretation which does not use the literal meaning of a day on earth (as set out above) is not a literal reading of the text.*
*unless, as demonstrated above, one reverts to a geo-centric view of the cosmos.
In the next quote, you do the same thing yet again! You assert your opinion on soul without addressing my REASON given on this thread for rejecting such traditional theories
In fact, I specifically sent you by private message, quite some time ago, a reference to my list of some 25 logical arguments for materialism.
Donald Bloesch ... even admits that the body cannot, logically, be the cause of corruption
The reason is simple. If we are not Adam, we didnt sin, and hence our souls should not be tainted.
Scripture asserts that (1) all have sinned (2) all are corrupt and (3) and all need a savior.
Did all the angels sin? No. If all men still had FULL freedom of choice, some would NOT sin. Yet they all do, wherefore they MUST be born sin-tainted, as Scripture asserts.
How is it that all sinned in his act (Rom 5)?
My particular materialistic model appears to be the ONLY effective solution proposed in 2000 years!
And if children are innocent, why do so many have to suffer starvation, both in the womb and in adolescence?
[Science] has shown us that neither chronology in Genesis reflects the actual order of the appearance of living species on earth.
Ok, fine. I have asked for this information again and again, on thread after thread. Show me how the chronology of Genesis 1 contradicts the fossil record. I'm not a scientist, so if you don't provide this information, I'm not likely to get it.
Unhh-unhh. Look at that text again. It does not say all sinned in Adam's act. Rather that all sinned, and Paul specifically notes that those sins were not like the transgression of Adam (v. 14)
Gluadys said:Oh,come on. Don't get into a blame the victim mentality. One of the things that makes sin sin is its harmful impact on the innocent. Children, born and unborn, suffer because the adults around them sin. Put the blame where it belongs.
Agreed. A biblical writer can probably err in minor issues of historical detail, as long as he is inerrant on the major issues (and thus I stick with literalism even in the face of most problem passages). And this is precisely what you point out in your next statement:Gluadys said:No, of course not. It needs to be truthful in its principal teachings. It does not need to be without error in every detail. In fact, if you are going to espouse a literal interpretation, you had better hope it is not inerrant, because it is in the historical and scientific details that most contradictions with extra-biblical knowledge occur. So, if you can't move to a non-literal interpretation in those instances, you have no way of upholding the more important doctrinal and moral messages as true either.
The whole gospel hinges on the justice of God. Pauls defense of Gods justice hinges on Adam, so far as I can see, indeed, so far as Christianity has held, by and large, for 2000 years. If Adam were just a minor historical detail, I would be less adamant against Vances mythologizing him and not just mythologizing him, but even insinuating that Paul may have ERRED in regard to whether Adam was a literal figure. Vance makes a statement like that, and you accuse ME of being the arrogant one? Interesting.Gluadys said:It is only if the bible is shown to be wrong in its teachings about God, creation, sin, Christ, redemption and eternal life, or equivalent matters that we have a real problem with the testimony of the bible. Not if it says the earth is fixed on foundations when it really orbits the sun.
You responded with the following patronization:JAL said:Cmon, Glaudys. I explicitly provided a refutation of these alleged contradictions by referring you here:
See the posts # 87-88, 90-94, and 102 on the following thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t1140439-how-do-you-explain-the-miracles-and.html&page=2
If the NT supports Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, I frankly don't give a hoot what your textual critics say. Moses is mentioned more often in the NT than any human being of the entire OT. If you can show me some pretty good arguments that none of these NT verses support Mosaic authorship, or show me that the NT supports multi-authorship, then I will grant some credence to the above patronization. If you can't do this, your words are falling on deaf ears. Why so? Because textual critics are not INSPIRED after the fashion of NT authors. If you place more confidence in the critics then in the NT, that's your prerogative, but this would seem to entail cannonizing the writings of the critics.Gluadys said:Did you say someplace how old you are? Doesn't matter really. Just that being young is a good justification for being a novice. And those posts show you are a real novice on the debates about the composite origin of Genesis.
You are making the typical assumptions of a novice that when speaking of two different creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, scholars are referring to such disparities in vocabulary and style as might occur in the works of one writer as s/he writes on different topics or for a different purpose.
But the actual differences go far beyond that. There is no question, from the perspective of comparative linguistics and textual analysis, that:
a) Gen. 1:1-2:4a and Gen. 2:4b through to the end of chapter 4 are written by different writers entirely.
b) Furthermore, the writer of 2:4b ff wrote 2-5 centuries before the writer of Gen. 1:1-2:4a.
c) Nor are these the only passages written by either writer. Other sequences in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers were also composed by these same writers, and linguistic and textual analysis allows us to distinguish which is which. (A third writer also wrote parts of these books as well.)
To even begin to understand the force of the arguments which led to these conclusions, you would need to be able to read ancient Hebrew fluently and have a good working knowledge of linguistics, archeology, ancient social organization and customs, art and history of the times.
Fortunately for those of us who are not specialists in the study of ancient manuscripts, with a view to establishing dates and authors and first audiences, there are some good popularizations of the concepts involved and how they led to these conclusions. The one most readily available is Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard E. Friedman. When you have read and digested that book, we can discuss this topic again, from the basis of a shared knowledge.
JAL said:Scripture asserts that (1) all have sinned (2) all are corrupt and (3) and all need a savior.
This leaves me scratching my head. If you agree that all have sinned, Im not sure that point 2 really matters anymore. But I would here press once again, HOW could all have sinned (including every fetus) if not through Adam, specifically Adam as I peculiarly define him?Gluadys said:I agree with (1) and (3). Can you give me a reference for (2)?
JAL said:
This leaves me scratching my head. If you agree that all have sinned, Im not sure that point 2 really matters anymore. But I would here press once again, HOW could all have sinned (including every fetus) if not through Adam, specifically Adam as I peculiarly define him?
I provided some references. You indicated you didn't have time to read them.gluadys said:So, are you saying that you do not have a reference for (2)?
Oh, believe me, I am well aware that theologians make such distinctions to avoid contradiction, but the question is whether they succeed. Paul said, "All have sinned." You agreed. Now you seem to change your tune (just like these other theologians) by making the following distinction, "Even though they sinned, this is not the same as COMMITTING sin." Is it just me, or does anyone else see why this assertion is problemmatical to say the least?Sin and corruption are not the same thing. Original sin and the commission of sin are not the same thing.
Gladys said:Salient differences from biblical chronologies
(1) Earth was not the beginning of creation. Most of the heavens were created long before the earth. Stars existed long before sun, moon or earth.
(2) The creation of the earth was simultaneous with the creation of the sun and moon, as these were all generated in the formation of the solar system.
Gladys said:(3) Life appeared on earth within 1 billion years, but no complex life appeared for another 3 billion years.
(4) Animals, not plants, are the first complex life. All early life is marine life.
(5) Plants appear on land before animals. Insects and other arthropods appear on land before other animals. Birds and mammals are the last major animal groups to appear----long after marine life. So no equivalent to Gen. day 3 (in which terrestrial vegetation appears before marine creatures) or Gen. day 5 (in which marine creatures and birds appear simultaneously and before any terrestrial animals)
(6) Plants & animals do not appear in homgeneous groups. Instead of all plants appearing at the same time, all fish and all birds at the same time and all land animals at the same time, the fossil record shows some development of all groups in each time period.
(7) So marine animals (but not birds) appear before plants, but plants appear on land before any terrestrial animals. Additionally, some marine animals (e.g. modern fish) appear after both plants and animals appear on land.
(8) Amphibians appear before reptiles and reptiles before both mammals and birds. Similar sequences are found in invertebrate life. Biblical accounts have all these groups appearing simultaneously.
(9) Spore-bearing plants appear before seed-bearing plants, and seed-bearing conifers and cycads appear before flowering plants (including fruit trees and grasses) Biblical accounts have all these groups appearing simultaneously before any animal life exists.
(10) Our species is only one of several human species which have existed in history, but which, except for our own, are now extinct.
JAL said:Thanks for the response. Your attention to detail here far exceeded previous posts. I am impressed. Im going to throw out some quick responses just to get the ball rolling, but in so doing I may misrepresent you until after I have re-read your material. So my apologies in advance, and I will confess/correct any mistakes once I become aware of them.
For starters, you asked me where Scripture has mankind born in sin. I find evidence of that at Psa 51:5, Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Secondly, there are a number of verses seemingly unqualified about universal sin (Rom 3:1ff, Rom 5:1:ff). Thirdly, I pointed out that, logically, if infants are born innocent, abortion is a favor guaranteeing salvation for them. I am not ready to accept a gospel of such disturbing implications because I seek theodicy (a gospel where justice reigns).
You keep reading biological into my use of the term physical. Allow me to clarify. The term physical need not, in my opinion, be restricted to protons, neutrons, and electrons. For instance, I doubt that Big-Bang scientists would so describe matter prior to the Big-Bang. When I say physical, I merely imply tangible that and nothing more.
When I speak of a tainted soul, you accuse me of a biological taint
On the contrary, sin is rather the result of volitionally choosing to intensify desires to the point of lust, or of misdirecting desires to things prohibited. This rebellion leaves a taint (a rebellious tendency) upon the soul.
Your appeal to verse 14 is a powerful one, but its difficult to see Adams sin as MERELY individualistic for two reasons. First, look at verse 15, Through the offence of one many be dead. Look at verse 12, Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. And verse 16, For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation. Condemnation by one man? Yes.
There are two problems with this statement. First, it directly contradicts the notion of justice that children suffer for the sins of their parents.
Now for the contrast. When Paul says (repeatedly) in Romans 5 that death came to all through Adam, is this just physical death? To me, the question is perhaps moot. Why so? Because Paul repeatedly contrasts death with eternal life in these passages (not only in Romans 5 but also at 6:23). That is to say, death is the loss of eternal fellowship with the Father. Thats a pretty serious consequence of Adams sin and any system that fails to deal with it effectively is unsatisfactory in my opinion. Many atheists would reject traditional Christianity on this basis alone because it seems unjust.
On the surface, Paul seems to be taking back with the one hand what he put forth with the other (universal sin in Adam). But I dont see the need to push the verse that far. On the contrary, he is apparently CONFIRMING universal sin in Adam. That is to say, he is probably alluding here to infants, because death reigns over them even before they are old enough to have had a chance to repeat Adams sin, that is, a chance to have sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression.
The whole gospel hinges on the justice of God. Pauls defense of Gods justice hinges on Adam, so far as I can see, indeed, so far as Christianity has held, by and large, for 2000 years.
If Adam were just a minor historical detail, I would be less adamant against Vances mythologizing him and not just mythologizing him, but even insinuating that Paul may have ERRED in regard to whether Adam was a literal figure.
JAL said:After I wrote this: You responded with the following patronization:
If the NT supports Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, I frankly don't give a hoot what your textual critics say. .... The MAIN question at issue is not whether Moses wrote both Genesis 1 and 2 but whether the two passages logically contradict each other. For the third time, I ask you to address my REASONS adduced to harmonize the two passages.
Thank you for at least conceding here that a day isn't necessarily 24 hours. The 24-hour rule obviously applies to our earth and sun. The question is, when Genesis defines day and night (verse 5), did our sun yet exist? No. Did our earth exist? NO! At least, not in its present form it was water. Until the Renaissance, it was an ABSOLUTE CONSENSUS that our visible heavens (and thus probably our whole galaxy) was originally a huge body of water because God, for reasons unrevealed in Scripture, decided to form the earth from water. 2Pet 3:5 states, "Long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water" (NIV). Without an earth as such, and with no sun, I see no basis for regarding the "day" of Genesis 1:5 as 24 hours.Jupiter is much bigger than earth but its day is much shorter because of the speed of its rotation.
Is Websters dictionary insufficiently literal for your taste?gluadys said:But you are using a non-literal meaning of "day" to make your reconciliation of science and Genesis.
Words, of course, have plural meanings. Some of those meanings are literal and some are not. In the case of the word "day" there are two literal meanings.
See comments above. As I said, you are forcing our earth and sun into the formula even though Genesis features days and nights BEFORE our earth and sun.
1. The period of time from sunrise to sunset (=time of light as opposed to darkness, "day" vs. "night".)
2. The period of time in which the earth completes one full turn on its axis (= a "day" as in definition 1 + a night)
All other uses of "day" are figurative.
No, you start with something like Websters definition and then subsequently narrow it down (limit it) to our earth and sun. Thats not what Webster did. This is what Webster said.Hmm, same definition of "day" as I gave above. Seems I agree with Webster.
Now, it gets tricky. It depends on what time period you are basing your affirmation of literalness on, and it appears you are conflating modern understandings of literalness with ancient ones.
Let's assume the following is a literal fact:
The earth rotates on its axis, giving us alternating periods of light and dark.
Then, by definition 2, the length of the day is 24 hours, because that is the period of the earth's rotation.
This being so, it does not make any difference what the source of light is, nor that other planets have different rotation speeds. The 24 hour limit to the length of day is not set by the sun or by other planets, but by the earth itself.
However, we have a problem of a different nature here.
The biblical writer would have disputed the fact of the earth's rotation. For the biblical writer, the length of the day on earth was not set by the earth, but by something he considered to be a literal fact. Namely...
"The sun moves across the sky from east to west in the day and completes its circuit back to its eastern starting point during the night."
Assuming this movement of the sun in its circuit around the earth was literal fact, he defined "day" as the time it takes to complete one such circuit.
Now, with "day" defined by the movement of the sun instead of the movement of the earth, one can discuss whether the days prior to the creation of the sun were of the same or a different length. Note, however, that all such discussion is speculative as the text can support either assertion.
So a literal day on earth can be longer than 24 hours, if and only if, the ancient perspective on what constitutes a "day" is accepted. And that requires that the sun literally move around the earth (geo-centricity).
If we accept modern science, what constitutes a "day" is a movement of the earth, not of the sun or any other light source, and in that case a literal day is necessarily a 24-hour day.
JAL said:I provided some references. You indicated you didn't have time to read them.
Oh, believe me, I am well aware that theologians make such distinctions to avoid contradiction, but the question is whether they succeed. Paul said, "All have sinned." You agreed. Now you seem to change your tune (just like these other theologians) by making the following distinction, "Even though they sinned, this is not the same as COMMITTING sin." Is it just me, or does anyone else see why this assertion is problemmatical to say the least?
For instance on Pentecost the Spirit is said to be poured out on ALL flesh. All? On unbelievers?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?