I need a valid Genesis interpretation...

[Jatopian]

I have often used the yom defense regarding Genesis 1 - that it means "period of time". However, I noticed a pattern in the grammar: "and there was evening and there was morning, the first day". This pattern is at the end of the description of the first 6 yoms. I thought that perhaps 'evening and morning' might signify the passage of time, but "the first day" is an appositive directly afterward...
Then when giving direction on the Sabbath & the end of the week (Exodus 20:11), it seems that God Himself affirms YECism!
Or does it? I recently looked at Gap Theory again, and seems like it might work, except I seem to remember science discovering human settlements older than ~6000 years...
It begins to seem like the only option remaining is that God deceived us... unless I am missing some context or something...
Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can help me? I know this is something like a double post, but I desperately need a working interpretation, or I shall need to have this moved to 'Questions by Non-Christians'...

One last thought: Could it be that God made a pun explaining the Fourth Commandment, using both meanings of "yom"?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

As far as Exodus 20:11, I think this is establishing a memorial and so is not tied to a literal interpretation. For example, I read it much the same way as Luke 22:19. Here's both verses:

[bible]Exodus 20:11[/bible]
[bible]Luke 22:19[/bible]
In both verses, an ordinance is being instituted (the Sabbath and the Lord's Supper). In the first, creation is equated with six days and God's rest with the seventh day. In the second, bread is equated with Jesus' body which was given for us. I do not believe the bread really is Jesus' body. I think it's symbolic. Similarly, I do not believe creation really happened in six literal days; I believe the days are symbolic.

In order for us to have a way of remembering what Jesus did for us, he gave us an observance whereby we can remember his sacrifice every time we partake of a piece of bread and a cup of wine (the symbolism is detailed more fully in John 6:25-66, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious).

In order for us to have a way of remembering creation, God gave the Israelites an observance whereby they (and we) can remember God's act of creation and God's rest through our week of six days' work and a Sabbath rest (again, the symbolism is detailed more fully in Genesis 1:1-2:3, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious).

By the way, the one other passage that also talks about the six days is also clearly using non-literal language. It is Exodus 31:17:

[bible]Exodus 31:17[/bible]
Note that God isn't just said to rest, but to be refreshed. The two other places where this word occurs, it clearly refers to recuperation after fatigue (Exodus 23:12 and 2 Samuel 16:14). This does not literally apply to God, but it does apply symbolically. God's rest, although not including fatigue, is something very real. In Hebrews 4, this rest that began after the foundation of the world is said to be something that is ongoing still today, rather than being encapsulated in a single 24-hour day after six days of creation. In spite of this, God continues to work (see John 5:17). God's rest is not our rest, but it is described in human terms in Genesis 2:1-3, Exodus 20:11 and especially Exodus 31:17 because that is the kind of rest we can more easily relate to.

That's the way I approach the references to the six days outside of Genesis. For Genesis itself, I think the framework view is the most plausible interpretation.

Anyway, God bless, and I hope this issue doesn't cause you to lose your faith. If it's that serious of an issue for you, please do take the time to research deeply into the various interpretations of Genesis.

 

[Critias]

I have often used the yom defense regarding Genesis 1 - that it means "period of time". However, I noticed a pattern in the grammar: "and there was evening and there was morning, the first day". This pattern is at the end of the description of the first 6 yoms. I thought that perhaps 'evening and morning' might signify the passage of time, but "the first day" is an appositive directly afterward...

You are correct. In Hebrew grammar, when yom is used in conjuction with a number, it always means a literal 24 hour day.

Then when giving direction on the Sabbath & the end of the week (Exodus 20:11), it seems that God Himself affirms YECism!

Yes, God does affirm this, even though it is God Himself talking in Genesis 1-2.

Or does it? I recently looked at Gap Theory again, and seems like it might work, except I seem to remember science discovering human settlements older than ~6000 years...

It begins to seem like the only option remaining is that God deceived us... unless I am missing some context or something...

I assume since you have stated "the only option" is God deceiving us is because you have taken the stance that man cannot be wrong in the scientific theories he has put forth?

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can help me? I know this is something like a double post, but I desperately need a working interpretation, or I shall need to have this moved to 'Questions by Non-Christians'...

Correct me if I am wrong, but your faith is dependent on this? If so, can I ask how your relationship with Jesus Christ is - putting aside this subject?

One last thought: Could it be that God made a pun explaining the Fourth Commandment, using both meanings of "yom"?

There are numerous Church Fathers who have taken the position that yom within Genesis means a 24 hour day, but can also refer to the length of time that man will remain before the coming of Jesus Christ - 6000 years. It is like the beginning and the culmination of events in one.

There are two questions though that I have for you, one straight forward and one that truly matters:

1. Do you think it is possible that scientists have been wrong about their theories - evolution (common descent) and dating methods?

2. How is your relationship with Jesus Christ?

 

[Hawkins]

I guess it all depends on from which standpoint you want the question to be answered. A more secular answer could well be that they are the milestone dates to say that "everything runs fine, it rotates (morning and evening) the same way as expected. Job done, milestone marked".

On the other hand, a less secular answer is already there, that is, HE's omnipotent so when He said that it's done in exactly six days, it must be. What left is the question that in what way He's going to allow the event to be tracable by science (as the role of science is to *discover* what's already there).

Either way, an answer stands only under the assumption that it IS a creation event. How much meaning it bears to keep track of the progress days of a project, if you believe that the project itself never exists in the first place.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

even though it is God Himself talking in Genesis 1-2.

The POV is an observer but not YHWH.
what evidence do you have to propose that it is?

it is not in 1st person.
it speaks of God in the 3rd person.


....

 

[artybloke]

"and there was evening and there was morning, the first day".

This is just a suggestion, but:

I'm sorry I have no reference for this, but I did read some time ago that the words use also mean something like "and there was a sifting and a moving": this isn't exact as my memory isn't good for these things. It would take me a long time to find it and I don't even know if the information is still there.

However, one of the things that's interesting is that Hebrew is a relatively monosylabic language with relatively few words, so it's very much a language reliant on "puns" and "double meanings." If there is any truth to this, it could be that the writer, poet that he/she was, was aware of the double meanings inherent in the words and used them deliberately for that reason.

If anyone else has any information on this it might make an interesting discussion. It might also refresh my memory.

 

[Critias]

The Hebrew:

'Ereb = evening, night or sunset
Boqer = morning, end of night, coming of sunrise

These are quite specific words and do not mean anything else. It is correct that there are not many words within the Hebrew, therefore one word can have various different meanings. These words, however, only have these meanings.

That really is besides the fact. When Hebrew uses yom with a number, it always means a literal 24 hour day.

I have said it is God speaking because the Hebrew "God said" is the using the same phrasing as the rest of the Bible. Look at Genesis 1:14 and compare it to 1 Chronicles 28:3 or Jonah 4:9. If God isn't speaking in Genesis 1:14 then God isn't speaking in these two passages as well as the numerous others that are many to count within the Bible.

 

[artybloke]

These are quite specific words and do not mean anything else.

I don't actually believe that about most words in any language. There are only a few words that have no other meaning and they are technical jargon words like "polyvinylchloride." Words only have meaning within a context; they don't exist independently of sentences.

I know I had this info from someone who knew a lot more Hebrew than I did.

 

[Remus]

I have often used the yom defense regarding Genesis 1 - that it means "period of time". However, I noticed a pattern in the grammar: "and there was evening and there was morning, the first day". This pattern is at the end of the description of the first 6 yoms. I thought that perhaps 'evening and morning' might signify the passage of time, but "the first day" is an appositive directly afterward...
Then when giving direction on the Sabbath & the end of the week (Exodus 20:11), it seems that God Himself affirms YECism!
Or does it? I recently looked at Gap Theory again, and seems like it might work, except I seem to remember science discovering human settlements older than ~6000 years...
It begins to seem like the only option remaining is that God deceived us... unless I am missing some context or something...
Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can help me? I know this is something like a double post, but I desperately need a working interpretation, or I shall need to have this moved to 'Questions by Non-Christians'...

One last thought: Could it be that God made a pun explaining the Fourth Commandment, using both meanings of "yom"?

You shouldn’t let this part bother you too much. One thing that we have to keep in mind is there is a lot that we don’t know and a lot that we don’t understand. The age of the earth should be considered a secondary issue. Even within YEC’ism, the 6000 year figure is an approximation and could easily be stretched out to at least 10,000 years before having any issues. Additionally, the length of the “day” that is described in the creation account is not directly linked to this 6000 year figure. To say that differently, it is possible that the 6000 year figure could be wrong and the six days still be literal.

On God deceiving us; I don’t see how this could be the case. If God did create everything in six days about 6000 years ago, and if we find reason to believe otherwise, is it His fault? After all, He did tell us what He did. Personally, I don’t subscribe to the “appearance of age” idea, but it provides a good analogy. If I made a painting which I purposefully made to look old yet I told everyone that I made it recently, am I being deceptive?

I think you’re on the right path though. You’ve gone to the Bible and investigated this issue yourself. I would ask you to do the same about what comes out of the scientific community. There are many claims out there that are misleading and are easy to verify yourself. Question everything.

Hope this helps

 

[rmwilliamsll]

mods, please delete my post here.

 

[Critias]

 

[Dracil]

I'm pretty sure he said "[his] post"

 

[Critias]

happy birthday Dracil!

 

[Dracil]

Thank you Critias.

 

[shernren]

To Jatopian: do you consider / have you considered the "mythological approach" i.e. that the Genesis 1 / 2 / possibly up to 11 accounts are "origin myths" designed to explain a Jewish worldview without necessarily corresponding to any scientific / historical facts? Do you think that's a valid way to look at it?

To Remus:

The age of the earth should be considered a secondary issue. Even within YEC’ism, the 6000 year figure is an approximation and could easily be stretched out to at least 10,000 years before having any issues.

Hmm? For me quite frankly the age of the earth is a primary issue, since the theories we have about the aging of the earth are quite substantial and certainly more amenable to laboratory science and extrapolation, compared to biological theories. I'm also curious how YECs actually do that stretching. On one hand, adding 4000 years to 6000 is a percentage increase of almost 70% and I'm not sure how it can be done without seriously compromising some literal-ness in the genealogies. On the other hand, adding 4000 years against the context of a few billion doesn't help reconcile YEC theory with traditional findings & interpretations.

On God deceiving us; I don’t see how this could be the case. If God did create everything in six days about 6000 years ago, and if we find reason to believe otherwise, is it His fault? After all, He did tell us what He did. Personally, I don’t subscribe to the “appearance of age” idea, but it provides a good analogy. If I made a painting which I purposefully made to look old yet I told everyone that I made it recently, am I being deceptive?

I could agree with you, but on the other hand, the painting itself would be deceptive. My problem is not that God Himself deceived: it is that creation deceives, and since the character of a self-consistent God must always be reflected in some way in anything He does, what part of His character is reflected in Him creating a deceptive creation?

 

[Remus]

I'm also curious how YECs actually do that stretching. On one hand, adding 4000 years to 6000 is a percentage increase of almost 70% and I'm not sure how it can be done without seriously compromising some literal-ness in the genealogies. On the other hand, adding 4000 years against the context of a few billion doesn't help reconcile YEC theory with traditional findings & interpretations.

Even though there is room for adjustment in the genealogies, the 6000-year figure does not come from them solely. In fact, the genealogies only account for just over 2000 years. The rest of the time is based on the reigns of the kings, a couple other references, and on some point in history that is established from a source outside of the Bible.

I could agree with you, but on the other hand, the painting itself would be deceptive. My problem is not that God Himself deceived: it is that creation deceives, and since the character of a self-consistent God must always be reflected in some way in anything He does, what part of His character is reflected in Him creating a deceptive creation?

I'll have to speak hypothetically since, as I said, I don't subscribe to the appearance of age idea.

My wife just painted a picture frame using some strange method of using wax and two paint colors, or something like that. The end result was a frame that looks like it's old and well used. She told me what she did, but I didn’t see her do it. It probably doesn’t come a big surprise that I took her word for it and didn’t believe that the frame was actually old. Also, I really don't think the picture frame is being deceptive.

 

[shernren]

Even though there is room for adjustment in the genealogies, the 6000-year figure does not come from them solely. In fact, the genealogies only account for just over 2000 years. The rest of the time is based on the reigns of the kings, a couple other references, and on some point in history that is established from a source outside of the Bible.

Okay. My blur. I'll go study up on that and come back.

I'll have to speak hypothetically since, as I said, I don't subscribe to the appearance of age idea.

My wife just painted a picture frame using some strange method of using wax and two paint colors, or something like that. The end result was a frame that looks like it's old and well used. She told me what she did, but I didn’t see her do it. It probably doesn’t come a big surprise that I took her word for it and didn’t believe that the frame was actually old. Also, I really don't think the picture frame is being deceptive.

But I would say that maybe God wasn't telling us what He did ("Okay, Moses, this is where I stretch out the 4-dimensional spacetime membranes.") but simply that He did it, in Genesis. Anyway - it's kinda useless to ask you to defend something you don't actually subscribe to yourself. Hm.

 

[Remus]

But I would say that maybe God wasn't telling us what He did ("Okay, Moses, this is where I stretch out the 4-dimensional spacetime membranes.") but simply that He did it, in Genesis.

I suppose we could speculate about this. To continue speculating, we could say that God just "stretched out the heavens" just as He said He did. Is there any other reason for a 4th dimension other than to support the big-bang theory?

Anyway - it's kinda useless to ask you to defend something you don't actually subscribe to yourself. Hm.

I think I can defend it. It's not uncommon to argue from a different position. There's no better way to understand another position than to do that.

 

[shernren]

I suppose we could speculate about this. To continue speculating, we could say that God just "stretched out the heavens" just as He said He did. Is there any other reason for a 4th dimension other than to support the big-bang theory?

4th dimension = time.

 

[Remus]

Ah, okay. I thought you were talking about something else. My bad.