If Theistic Evolution, how long did day 7 last?

[thomas_t]

when the Bible uses figurative language

however, you failed to show that, in Genesis 2:4, figurative language is involved to begin with...

 

[The Barbarian]

however, you failed to show that, in Genesis 2:4, figurative language is involved to begin with...

As St. Augustine and other early Christian fathers noted, it's logically absurd to have literal mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them.

So that's a given.

 

[The Barbarian]

When you come up with "categories" for yom in Genesis 2:4, in contrast, it's totally opposed to the original text...

As Augustine pointed out, it's perfectly consistent with the original text.[/QUOTE]

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

As St. Augustine and other early Christian fathers noted, it's logically absurd to have literal mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them.

So that's a given.

Not really.
Who here knows the actual words spoken by Yahweh Creating all things from nothing ?
Who knows Yahweh's Mind, as if to instruct Him ?

 

[thomas_t]

As Augustine pointed out, it's perfectly consistent with the original text.

perfectly? Since when does yom mean "categories"? Even your 100 opportunities of translating yom better than "day" (the original meaning) do not include "categories".
The only back-up of what you said is that Augustine said something in this regard. This doesn't make it perfect, though.
Actually, you have nothing to substanciate your notion of yom being equal to "categories".
You declare it to be so.

 

[The Barbarian]

perfectly? Since when does yom mean "categories"?

When it's used in an allegorical description. As you now realize, the fact that the allegory includes mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them, makes this quite clear.

The text itself rules out a literal reading of the days of Genesis.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As St. Augustine and other early Christian fathers noted, it's logically absurd to have literal mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them.

So that's a given.

Not really.

It's right there in Genesis. No way to deny it.

Who here knows the actual words spoken by Yahweh Creating all things from nothing ?

In fact, being a spirit, He didn't actually speak words. That's just a parable for His will.

Who knows Yahweh's Mind, as if to instruct Him ?

He did leave scripture to guide us, and as you see, it says that the "days" were not literal ones.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

He did leave scripture to guide us, and as you see, it says that the "days" were not literal ones.

Nope.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

In fact, being a spirit, He didn't actually speak words. That's just a parable for His will.

Nope.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It's right there in Genesis. No way to deny it.

Nope.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So that's a given.

Nope.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Actually, you have nothing to substanciate your notion of yom being equal to "categories".
You declare it to be so.

I don't know if he did, (though it seems he continues some such, yes).

But isn't that quite common on earth, so many people fall for deception ?

 

[thomas_t]

When it's used in an allegorical description. As you now realize, the fact that the allegory includes mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them, makes this quite clear.

The text itself rules out a literal reading of the days of Genesis.

According to you, it's an allegory.
In post #47 you go as far as to rule out that God spoke words at the beginning of creation. This is at odds with Genesis 1:3 - the first time God literally spoke on earth.

As @yeshuaslavejeff mentioned, there is nothing to indicate that the Almighty God is unable to speak a morning into existence. (Thank you for that one, Jeff).

Since you effectively can't rule out that God wasn't powerful enough to speak a morning into existence the way he did with light... there is no way for you to show that the whole story can't be taken literally.

Still, you feel entitled to add a word with no reference at all to the original meaning of yom (day).


Thomas

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

footnote: Yes, Just as Yahweh Created , working six days, resting sanctifying the seventh day Himself as holy, He directly identified this also with the work six days, cease work on the 7th, later given to Israel, which obviously was not "work one thousand years six times, then rest for one thousand years" (whether or not this has any relevance to some time periods besides this)

 

[The Barbarian]

According to you, it's an allegory.
In post #47 you go as far as to rule out that God spoke words at the beginning of creation. This is at odds with Genesis 1:3 - the first time God literally spoke on earth.

God is a spirit, and is eternal. He has no body to speak with, nor has He any need of words, unless He chooses to communicate with us.

As @yeshuaslavejeff mentioned, there is nothing to indicate that the Almighty God is unable to speak a morning into existence. (Thank you for that one, Jeff).

All things are possible with God, but this does not mean He is obligated to do all things.

Since you effectively can't rule out that God wasn't powerful enough to speak a morning into existence the way he did with light...

You have two major errors there. First, you're assuming that if God is capable of doing something, He must have done it. Second, it's logically absurd to suppose literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

there is no way for you to show that the whole story can't be taken literally.

Just did.

Still, you feel entitled to add a word with no reference at all to the original meaning of yom (day).

Much better theologians than you have pointed out that they can't be literal days. No point in denying it.

 

[The Barbarian]

footnote: Yes, Just as Yahweh Created , working six days, resting sanctifying the seventh day Himself as holy, He directly identified this also with the work six days, cease work on the 7th, later given to Israel, which obviously was not "work one thousand years six times, then rest for one thousand years" (whether or not this has any relevance to some time periods besides this)

Here, you're assuming that if an allegory is cited later in another chapter of the Bible, that automatically converts it to a literal history. How do you figure that?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you believe God's Word, you don't have to make any assumption.
Your thinking and posting that "an allegory is cited later" is a false premise -
and no, I did not assume that. I know that your assumption is false.

Here, you're assuming that if an allegory is cited later in another chapter of the Bible, that automatically converts it to a literal history. How do you figure that?

 

[The Barbarian]

If you believe God's Word, you don't have to make any assumption.

I just pointed out your assumption. You argued that the allegory of Genesis, if repeated later in scripture, made it a literal history.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, instead of believing God's Word as Written, you assumed your own assumption was true, when it could not be,
then you falsely claimed that I made some assumption.
Not good for you.

I just pointed out your assumption. You argued that the allegory of Genesis, if repeated later in scripture, made it a literal history.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, instead of believing God's Word as Written,

You merely substituted your reinterpretation of His word.

When an allegory is cited later in scripture, that does not convert it to a literal history.