In the beginning ...

[jerusalem]

In the beginning …

Let us be clear, the Bible does not assert that the Earth or life on this planet was created 6,000 years ago (as many have presumed). It does not even teach against evolution. For, although ‘creation’ is certainly taught, how God created is not explained. Creation through evolutionary processes, as one method, cannot be ruled out. We need to realize – the Bible was not written to explain scientific principles, but to convey spiritual truth. The language of metaphor, parable and poetry is the language of much that is Scripture, but it is not the language of science. Nevertheless, although it is true that the Church had applied a simplistic interpretation to the creation narratives until modern times, it is simply ridiculous to either dismiss Scripture or to deny scientific evidence because of this. Rather, as Christians, we should thank the scientific community for adding to our enlightenment, so that, being disabused of false notions, we might apprehend the truth more exactly and be more open to consider alternative perceptions.

One might hear that ‘evolution’ does not need a Creator to begin the evolutionary process – yet, even if we admit that this could be true for the material universe that we can see and observe (and this is not proven), that in itself does not mean that a creative process could not have been the catalyst to begin the evolution of life on Earth. In fact, if we use the logic of evolution (given the ‘eternity’ of time) and consider the estimated age of the visible universe to be between 13 and 14 billion years (NASA’s figures, 2010) - and the fact that man through advances in genetic sciences is said to be on the verge of becoming a creator of life HIMSELF – is it not logical to believe that a much greater Creator already exists – Someone who is far superior to man? And should this be true, is it not also most likely that such a Creator would want to involve Himself in the evolution of life on Earth to ensure that through this process ‘goodness’ here should prevail? Moreover, is it not reasonable to believe that He would also desire to create other beings in His own image and likeness? – We call Him, of course, ‘God’. Like time, we might say that his existence is without beginning and without end – ‘Eternal’.

The Bible declares that God is invisible to human observation – that He is not part of our physical world, as we know it. Yet, not so long ago, the idea that there could exist another dimension to the universe beyond that observed could have seemed a mere fancy – without any scientific support. Not so today. Through scientific observations and mathematical calculations, we know that the normal matter of the universe – everything that we can see and observe – accounts for no more than 5% of all. The rest is calculated to consist of dark (as in unknown) energy (70%) and dark matter (25%):

“More is unknown than is known [about the universe]. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe’s expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest – everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter – adds up to less than 5% of the Universe.” (science.nasa.gov)

It is the biblical view that God and angels are spirit beings inhabiting such a realm unknowable to the physical senses. This realm of God, of course, is what in English we call ‘God’s Heaven’. The biblical Holy Scriptures are said to convey God’s spiritually inspired revelation, communicated to us by the Holy Spirit of God through His prophets, setting out His purpose and will for us – that the called of God might attain to everlasting life through faith as His children, born of His Spirit, in the knowledge of His Son, Jesus Christ. This communion with God is made possible by the fact that man is not just a physical entity, but also soul and ‘spirit’ – and it is this spiritual aspect in man that allows the soul to exist beyond the grave and makes possible the ‘resurrection’ of man after death.

Blessings!

 

[miamited]

Hi 'j',

Well, just so you know, I'm not in agreement with your opening premise. I find that God did a sufficient work of explaining a fairly accurate timeline.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[jerusalem]

Thanks, Ted.

I hope that didn't prevent you reading further?

 

[miamited]

Hi 'j',

Odd question. That statement would generally not be given as a question, but since you did, I'll ask, further than what?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[jerusalem]

Sorry, I meant further than my "opening premise".

If the opening premise is wrong, whatever is built upon it collapses. So, if you felt I was wrong in my opening remarks, you might have felt your reading further to be a waste of time. - I hope not.

J

 

[disciple1938]

Your post titled in the beginning is perhaps the most relevant and well written statement I hve read so far on this forum. Thanks jerusalem.

 

[miamited]

Sorry, I meant further than my "opening premise".

If the opening premise is wrong, whatever is built upon it collapses. So, if you felt I was wrong in my opening remarks, you might have felt your reading further to be a waste of time. - I hope not.

J

Hi 'j',

Oh, no problem. Yes, I read it all.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[ChetSinger]

In the beginning …

Let us be clear, the Bible does not assert that the Earth or life on this planet was created 6,000 years ago (as many have presumed). It does not even teach against evolution. For, although ‘creation’ is certainly taught, how God created is not explained. Creation through evolutionary processes, as one method, cannot be ruled out. We need to realize – the Bible was not written to explain scientific principles, but to convey spiritual truth. The language of metaphor, parable and poetry is the language of much that is Scripture, but it is not the language of science. Nevertheless, although it is true that the Church had applied a simplistic interpretation to the creation narratives until modern times, it is simply ridiculous to either dismiss Scripture or to deny scientific evidence because of this. Rather, as Christians, we should thank the scientific community for adding to our enlightenment, so that, being disabused of false notions, we might apprehend the truth more exactly and be more open to consider alternative perceptions.

Hello! I think it does. Even if one holds to an old-earth or day-age theory regarding Genesis 1, the events in Genesis 2 take place 6,000 years ago. There's a good reason the church has taught this: that's as far back as the genealogies go.

 

[disciple1938]

What on earth does the genealogies have to do with the age of the earth? The geneologies only cover the Adamic race, not angelic races or pre-Adamic (souless) peoples created with other beasts of the field, that lived outside of Eden in the land of Nod and from where Cain found a wife. Adam was the first man with a spiritual soul...not the first man. That is why there are two words for man in the creation story. The Ish man and the Adam man. It is obvious that fallen angels occupied earth before Adam since Satan was already there waiting to tempt gods new Adam man. It is also pretty obvious that Genesis 1:1 is a complete sentence, not dependant on the verses that follow. "In beginning god created the heavens and the earth." Who can say how long occured beyond that beforeGod began preparing a place for Adam and Eve. Examination of the words darkness and light are very revealing. In Hebrew, the "darkness of ruin, blood, urine, sperm, ignorance and death was upon the face of the abyss" "God said Light! Light! and THEY became the light." (Light of wisdom, knowledge, teaching, hope, illumination, life and beauty. The light of the sun and moon came later.) I am not saying exactly what occured, but there is certainly no evidence of earth being only only seven thousand years old. Quite the contrary; it leaves many unanswered questions. It also explains a lot of other scripture to see that some major event occured between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. For instance the angel wars and the rebellion of Lucifer Satan who was supposed to be a covering angel over Earth. Just saying..I wouldn't jump the gun here without more study.

There's a good reason the church has taught this: that's as far back as the genealogies go. There is also a good reason that the earliest Bible scholars didn't believe in a 7000 year old earth. Even before Evolution became a concept they believed in an ancient earth and Cosmos.

 

[miamited]

Hi 'd',

You posted: There is also a good reason that the earliest Bible scholars didn't believe in a 7000 year old earth.

I'm hoping that you're going to provide your proof of that claim

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[disciple1938]

Hi Ted : It is a touchy subject that has been much debated, neither side having really convincing proofs;but here is what I have concerning those fathers that believed in a longer period of creation:

The early church saw the entire Old Testament as being about Jesus Christ. Every detail—not just specific prophecies—could be viewed as serving as a type or symbol of Jesus Christ. Along with a variety of other nonliteral devices, allegorical interpretation served as a way to uncover hidden Christological meanings. For example, scriptural references to wood were sometimes seen as prefiguring the cross of Christ. Point being that most of the church fathers (not just the allegorically inclined ones) viewed the Old Testament through a Christological lens. We also see this in Hilary of Poitier’s Homilies on the Psalms, where he views the psalms as primarily being about Jesus Christ and so downplays their original historical context.

Allegorical interpretation went on to dominate the theology of the Middle Ages. It was the Protestant Reformers who ultimately rejected it in favor of a literal (i.e., plain meaning) approach. If allegorical interpretation is therefore to be rejected, does this invalidate Augustine’s challenge to the calendar-day interpretation and, therefore, lend credibility to Mook’s thesis that the church fathers were predominantly young-earth creationists? No, it does not.

Legitimate (non-allegorical) concerns
While we should not follow the specific interpretations of the allegorical fathers, they do provide some valuable insights into Genesis 1 that are worth considering. In particular, they identified at least three scriptural arguments that seem to rule out the idea that the creation days could be ordinary solar days.

Nature of the first three creation days. If the Sun, Moon, and stars were not created until the fourth creation day (as popularly understood by the church fathers), then what was the nature of the first three creation “days”? How could they be ordinary solar days if the Sun did not yet exist? This question provoked more discussion and disagreement among the early church fathers than any other part of Genesis 1. Philo, Origen, and Augustine saw this as clear proof that at least the first three days could not be ordinary days.

Genesis 2:4. This verse uses the words “in the day” (KJV) to summarize all of the preceding events described in Genesis 1. This usage seems to equate the “six days” of Genesis 1 with a single day, which caused considerable confusion in the early church. Today, we understand “in the day” in this verse to refer to an indeterminate period of time (covering all the events of Genesis 1) and, therefore, longer than 24 hours.

Seventh day is not closed out. Each of the first six days is closed out with the phrase, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the X-th day” (NIV). This phrase is conspicuously absent from the seventh creation day, which indicates this “day” is still ongoing and so spans a time much longer than an ordinary solar day.20 Psalm 95:11 and Hebrews 4:1–11 further support the idea that we are still in the seventh day.21 At a minimum, this contradicts a simple calendar-day view where each day is a natural day.

So what are we to conclude from this? First, the fathers who used allegorical interpretation did have at least three significant scriptural reasons for rejecting a calendar-day interpretation. Second, it was issues like these three that led them to read Genesis allegorically because a calendar-day view seemed impossible to them. Third, recognition that the days of creation need not—or even should not—be understood as simple solar days is a tradition going back as far as Philo in the first century.

Hope this is helpful. god Bless.

 

[KWCrazy]

What on earth does the genealogies have to do with the age of the earth? The geneologies only cover the Adamic race,

However, since Adam was created on day six, the genealogies since Adam give us the approximate age of the earth.

Adam was the first man with a spiritual soul...not the first man.

Please cite the passages in the Scriptures which buoy your assertion.

It is obvious that fallen angels occupied earth before Adam since Satan was already there waiting to tempt gods new Adam man.

Arrival five days earlier hardly gives one much senority. The angels were not on earth.

It is also pretty obvious that Genesis 1:1 is a complete sentence, not dependant on the verses that follow.

That's because it's a summary sentence.

"In beginning god created the heavens and the earth." Who can say how long occured beyond that beforeGod began preparing a place for Adam and Eve.

Considering that the evening and the morning were the first day, God said it.

I am not saying exactly what occured, but there is certainly no evidence of earth being only only seven thousand years old.

Certainly there is, since the genealogies from Adam to Jesus are recorded.

For instance the angel wars and the rebellion of Lucifer Satan who was supposed to be a covering angel over Earth.

That happened before the creation of the universe. Heaven, like God, always existed.

 

[KWCrazy]

Nature of the first three creation days. If the Sun, Moon, and stars were not created until the fourth creation day (as popularly understood by the church fathers), then what was the nature of the first three creation “days”? How could they be ordinary solar days if the Sun did not yet exist?

Light existed. It shone on the earth. The earth was in rotation. Light was separated from darkness; the earth solidified. The rotation of the earth in relation to the point of light created the evening and the morning; one day.

Genesis 2:4. This verse uses the words “in the day” (KJV) to summarize all of the preceding events described in Genesis 1. This usage seems to equate the “six days” of Genesis 1 with a single day, which caused considerable confusion in the early church. Today, we understand “in the day” in this verse to refer to an indeterminate period of time (covering all the events of Genesis 1) and, therefore, longer than 24 hours.

Just as it is today, "in the day" does not mean "on the day." However, the first day, second day etc still means one day, just as it does in our language. The Bible is remarkably consistent in this.

Seventh day is not closed out. Each of the first six days is closed out with the phrase, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the X-th day” (NIV). This phrase is conspicuously absent from the seventh creation day, which indicates this “day” is still ongoing and so spans a time much longer than an ordinary solar day.

So your supposition is that God is still at rest because, having already established that the preceding days were literal days, that the Bible doesn't do the same on the seventh? God rested on the seventh day and commanded us to do the same. By your reasoning, we should never work because the seventh day of rest has never completed.

Hey, it works for me!

God Bless.

 

[jerusalem]

On the 'days' of creation:

A literal interpretation of Scripture might often seem the most natural to the casual Western reader, but the Hebrew Scriptures make great use of metaphor and poetic expression. Certain words and phrases can often have a much wider meaning in the context of a passage than that suggested by a purely literal interpretation. The word ‘day’ and the phrase ‘evening and morning’ need not suggest simply the normal 24 hour period:

Genesis 1: 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31: “And the evening (‘ereb S#6153) and the morning (boqer S#1242) were the … day (yom S#3117).”

From dusk to dawn, night to day, darkness to light, from what is unseen to what is seen – what does this suggest, if not a period of transition? It does not suggest a passage of time wherein nothing changes, but one in which change occurs gradually – as the dawning of the day from the obscurity and darkness of the night. A creative process began through which life and this world slowly emerged as we know it – that began in the ‘days’ of creation.

‘Now is the day of salvation,’ Paul wrote (2 Cor.6:2, NKJ) – not a day of twenty-four hours, but the time wherein man can attain to everlasting life through faith in Christ. Although, the physical creation of the biblical Adam could have occurred relatively suddenly – as he was a special creation – we must not limit God’s spiritual creation of man in the image of Himself to one earthly day. Nor should we think that God’s perception of time is like our own. “A thousand years to God are as yesterday or as a watch in the night” (Ps.90:4). In other words, God’s perception and use of time is different to ours: ‘…with the Lord, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (2 Pet.3:8, NKJ).

In Genesis 2:4, we read: ‘This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens …” Here, the word ‘day’ in this context clearly conveys an indeterminate length of time in which God created the universe and the conditions for life on this planet – not a day limited to just twenty-four hours.

God’s ‘days of creation’ are sequentially listed and are symbolized by the days of the week, but were not restricted to the time-frame of a week. The Sabbath, representing the ‘rest’ that God entered after He had ceased His works of creation, symbolizes the rest, not the duration of it. God’s rest continues and all who are called are urged to enter into it (see Hebrews 3:7 – 4:11): ‘For he who has entered His rest has also ceased from his works as God did from His. Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest …’ Our works, of course, are those of the flesh. These must cease if we are to truly enter into God’s Sabbath and keep it holy.

J

 

[miamited]

Hi 'j',

Ok, let's say that I'm willing to consider your understanding. You wrote: The word ‘day’ and the phrase ‘evening and morning’ need not suggest simply the normal 24 hour period:

Can you provide for me any literary writing of anyone where evening and morning was used to define a day, as seems obvious in the Genesis account, where the writer is wanting the reader to understand some other understanding of time than what would be generally understood here? It doesn't even have to be Hebrew, but if you have some Hebrew verification I'd enjoy seeing it.

You see, so many people make this claim that these things don't have to be taken literally; that Hebrew writers use allegory and simile and all the other literary forms that might preclude one from taking a literal understanding of the actual words written. I am in complete 100% agreement that writers do such things, but...

I can find all sorts of written accounts where many people have written that something 'falls like a brick' and say, "See, they don't mean that the object that fell is actually a brick". I can find all sorts of writings where one has written ' that guy is as big as an elephant' and say the same thing about that writing. So, your argument is that the word evening and morning when used immediately with the word day as a descriptive doesn't have to mean an actual literal day. Fine! Show me where anyone has ever used those words in a writing that supports your understanding. That's all.

Yes, Paul said that today is the day of salvation and we may understand that to mean that he was speaking of a span of time rather than a literal 24 hour day, but you see, Paul doesn't go on to define the word 'day' that he has used as an evening and a morning. There is a difference and I believe that God wrote the account of Genesis exactly as He did because he wants us to know that the 'day' He is speaking of is a simple and literal day which does consist of an evening and a morning.

You see, friend, God knows the beginning from the end. He knew when He caused the Holy Spirit to cause to be written these opening words of Genesis that man would forever argue that God could not possibly have done what He said He did in the span of time that He says He did it. God knew all that thousands of years ago. Now, because God knew that men would constantly and forever argue and deny the literalness of this account of the creation He, in His infinite wisdom, commanded the Holy Spirit to cause the writer to write. God did this in a day and that day is defined as an evening and a morning. A regular, ordinary day. So, your claim is that such a word with such a descriptor does not have to infer a literal day, fine, show me! find me one single author who has written one single sentence in any writing that has been written over the entire course of human existence where someone wrote the word 'day', defined that 'day' as consisting of an evening and a morning and intended that that word day mean something other than a normal and literal single rotation of the earth upon its axis. Anywhere, in any language of anyone.

I'm fairly confident that you won't agree and that's Ok with me. I'm not the one who asks you to believe. God is!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[ChetSinger]

What on earth does the genealogies have to do with the age of the earth? The geneologies only cover the Adamic race, not angelic races or pre-Adamic (souless) peoples created with other beasts of the field, that lived outside of Eden in the land of Nod and from where Cain found a wife. Adam was the first man with a spiritual soul...not the first man. That is why there are two words for man in the creation story. The Ish man and the Adam man. It is obvious that fallen angels occupied earth before Adam since Satan was already there waiting to tempt gods new Adam man. It is also pretty obvious that Genesis 1:1 is a complete sentence, not dependant on the verses that follow. "In beginning god created the heavens and the earth." Who can say how long occured beyond that beforeGod began preparing a place for Adam and Eve. Examination of the words darkness and light are very revealing. In Hebrew, the "darkness of ruin, blood, urine, sperm, ignorance and death was upon the face of the abyss" "God said Light! Light! and THEY became the light." (Light of wisdom, knowledge, teaching, hope, illumination, life and beauty. The light of the sun and moon came later.) I am not saying exactly what occured, but there is certainly no evidence of earth being only only seven thousand years old. Quite the contrary; it leaves many unanswered questions. It also explains a lot of other scripture to see that some major event occured between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. For instance the angel wars and the rebellion of Lucifer Satan who was supposed to be a covering angel over Earth. Just saying..I wouldn't jump the gun here without more study.

There's a good reason the church has taught this: that's as far back as the genealogies go. There is also a good reason that the earliest Bible scholars didn't believe in a 7000 year old earth. Even before Evolution became a concept they believed in an ancient earth and Cosmos.

If you can find church fathers who taught that pre-Adamic hominids lived on the earth earlier than 6,000 years ago, I'd like to hear about them.

 

[miamited]

Hi Ted : It is a touchy subject that has been much debated, neither side having really convincing proofs;but here is what I have concerning those fathers that believed in a longer period of creation:

The early church saw the entire Old Testament as being about Jesus Christ. Every detail—not just specific prophecies—could be viewed as serving as a type or symbol of Jesus Christ. Why do you believe this? You see, friend, you make these claims that honestly to me just seem totally outrageous. One of the early church fathers would have been Matthew, right? When he penned his account of the life of my Lord living among us he drew out several prophecies of the old covenant to support his claim that Jesus is the long awaited Jewish Messiah, but I can't honestly find any inference that he somehow thought the whole of the old covenant was about Jesus. Likewise, Paul culls several prophecies of the old covenant to teach about Jesus, but he also used many other old covenant writings to impress some of his other teachings. Certainly neither seem to push this understanding that the early church thought all of the old covenant was about Jesus. Where do you get these ideas from?Along with a variety of other nonliteral devices, allegorical interpretation served as a way to uncover hidden Christological meanings. For example, scriptural references to wood were sometimes seen as prefiguring the cross of Christ. Point being that most of the church fathers (not just the allegorically inclined ones) viewed the Old Testament through a Christological lens. We also see this in Hilary of Poitier’s Homilies on the Psalms, where he views the psalms as primarily being about Jesus Christ and so downplays their original historical context. I hope not to impugn your understanding of your Father, but all of that is quite simply a lot of words about nothing. Yes, St Hillary, as some would like to think of him, did have some rather wild ideas that tried to convolute some wordings in the psalms to make them appear to have been written about Jesus, but I don't think anyone would really know enough about the man to know whether he was or wasn't a born again believer. you see, there are many who have a great knowledge of the Scriptures but do not have any wisdom about them. Here's a little test for you. Look up a man by the name of John Shelby Spong. Imagine yourself 500 years down the road and you've come across a book that he wrote. Let me fill in some of the blanks that you will need to have filled in to understand my point.

John Shelby Spong is a proclaimed believer in the Lord Jesus. He served for many years as a bishop in the episcopal fellowship. He denies the virgin birth, the resurrection, or even a single miracle of the Scriptures. Do you know that 500 years from now someone with the same wisdom as you will hold up one of his books and say to a born again believer, "This is what people believed about Jesus in the beginning of the second century." The writings of one man will make, for someone, there reason of belief. Is that who you are?

Allegorical interpretation went on to dominate the theology of the Middle Ages. It was the Protestant Reformers who ultimately rejected it in favor of a literal (i.e., plain meaning) approach. If allegorical interpretation is therefore to be rejected, does this invalidate Augustine’s challenge to the calendar-day interpretation and, therefore, lend credibility to Mook’s thesis that the church fathers were predominantly young-earth creationists? No, it does not.

Friend, all of this talk about allegorical interpretation and what you believe is what the early church fathers believed just is not so. You are just like John Shelby Spong. He believes that what was written about Jesus resurrection was actually written, but he denies that it is an account of real, actual events that occurred. His take is much like yours. "Well, yes, these things were written, but they don't mean what you think they mean. They are allegories and writings that contain a deeper truth than what would appear as the plain surface meaning of the text. Jesus didn't really come to life, but in those days people needed something to hold on to; something to give them a cause of faith and so this allegorical account of a man Jesus being crucified and coming back to life fit that need. It's what the early church believed." Don't be fooled my friend. Do not be deceived. God's word declares that in the last days there will be an apostasy like God's people have never seen. Paul warns that a time is coming when we will not put up with sound doctrine but rather fill our itching ears with myths and fables.

Legitimate (non-allegorical) concerns
While we should not follow the specific interpretations of the allegorical fathers, they do provide some valuable insights into Genesis 1 that are worth considering. In particular, they identified at least three scriptural arguments that seem to rule out the idea that the creation days could be ordinary solar days.

Nature of the first three creation days. If the Sun, Moon, and stars were not created until the fourth creation day (as popularly understood by the church fathers), then what was the nature of the first three creation “days”? How could they be ordinary solar days if the Sun did not yet exist? This question provoked more discussion and disagreement among the early church fathers than any other part of Genesis 1. Philo, Origen, and Augustine saw this as clear proof that at least the first three days could not be ordinary days.

Oh, friend, you are ignorant of what it is that actually defines a day. God's word doesn't say anything about a solar day. God's word says a day and a day has always been defined as the length of time that it takes for a planetary body to make one complete rotation upon its axis. No sun or moon needed. You have bought into someone else's foolish argument that there cannot be a solar day without the sun and moon but nowhere does God's word give even an inkling of indication that He is speaking of something called a solar day. You don't even understand that a solar day is a term coined hundreds of years after the creation to define a different kind of day than a planetary day.
Genesis 2:4. This verse uses the words “in the day” (KJV) to summarize all of the preceding events described in Genesis 1. This usage seems to equate the “six days” of Genesis 1 with a single day, which caused considerable confusion in the early church. Today, we understand “in the day” in this verse to refer to an indeterminate period of time (covering all the events of Genesis 1) and, therefore, longer than 24 hours. That's right it does, but it doesn't say that 'in the day of an evening and a morning'. I would direct you to my answer to 'j' about this. Absolutely I agree 100% that when we come across the word 'day' we have to look for other clues that would help us to understand the time span that the word is inferring. The clue that God caused to be written to us is the very phrase, 'and there was evening and there was morning' the first day. That included definer of the word 'day' sets for us the contextual clues that are always needed to correctly define the word day. I challenged him and I now include you in that same challenge. Find one single solitary literary evidence in any language penned at anytime in history where the word day is defined as an evening and a morning and does not intend to infer to the reader a real 24 hour day.

Seventh day is not closed out. Each of the first six days is closed out with the phrase, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the X-th day” (NIV). This phrase is conspicuously absent from the seventh creation day, which indicates this “day” is still ongoing and so spans a time much longer than an ordinary solar day.20 Psalm 95:11 and Hebrews 4:1–11 further support the idea that we are still in the seventh day.21 At a minimum, this contradicts a simple calendar-day view where each day is a natural day.Why does the seventh day being closed out or not have anything to do with the previous days. I would disagree that there is necessarily anything 'conspicuous' of the 'evening and morning' phrase being absent.

So what are we to conclude from this? First, the fathers who used allegorical interpretation did have at least three significant scriptural reasons for rejecting a calendar-day interpretation. Second, it was issues like these three that led them to read Genesis allegorically because a calendar-day view seemed impossible to them. Third, recognition that the days of creation need not—or even should not—be understood as simple solar days is a tradition going back as far as Philo in the first century.

Hope this is helpful. god Bless.

Well, I'm not in agreement that your conclusions are correct, but each one must choose for himself what he believes is the truth. And be encouraged, you have the likes of John Shelby Spong in your corner.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Oh, and BTW, I'm fairly confident that we can understand that the seventh day was closed out just like the rest. God wrote about that day that He rested, yet Jesus claimed that since the creation God has been working. So it would seem that at some point that seventh day of rest did close and God went back to work.

Again, God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[yeshuasavedme]

In the beginning …

Let us be clear, the Bible does not assert ...

The Bible positively declares that:
There was no heavens before there was no earth -they were created all of a piece -Genesis 1 and Enoch.
The heavens were right "here" in the beginning, and not stretched out -to there", from "here" until day 2 of creation week, and they were the firmament stretched out between the divided in two waters/mayim, and named "sha -mayim" -the two -or cut in two- waters.

Half creation's waters/mayim are raised above the stretched out expanse/sha-mayim on day 2 of creation week of six evenings and mornings, which evenings and mornings each equal one full day of the creation week of six evenings and mornings and one rest/stop day; making a week of evenings and mornings.

Your whole assumption falls and is refuted soundly on the first two verses of Genesis 1. So your assumptions are not assumed with the Word of God for a foundation of understanding, and are worthless reasonings of unbelief and doubt of which sort was introduced in the Garden by the father of lies, Satan, when he said to Eve; "Did God really, really say....H-M-M?

God has really, really said that He did it in six evenings and mornings, and there were no heavens before there was the earth, and the heavens were not stretched out form the earth until day 2 of Creation week.

And He gives the time line completely in the Upright Record, Jasher, all the way back to Adam, the first human being made male and female and made in the exact image, like a stamped copy/topos of God the Word who was to come in flesh, and is come -Genesis 1:26, 28, Genesis 5:2, Romans 5:14.

 

[jilfe]

Hi 'j',

Yes, Paul said that today is the day of salvation and we may understand that to mean that he was speaking of a span of time rather than a literal 24 hour day, but you see, Paul doesn't go on to define the word 'day' that he has used as an evening and a morning. There is a difference and I believe that God wrote the account of Genesis exactly as He did because he wants us to know that the 'day' He is speaking of is a simple and literal day which does consist of an evening and a morning.
You see, friend, God knows the beginning from the end. He knew when He caused the Holy Spirit to cause to be written these opening words of Genesis that man would forever argue that God could not possibly have done what He said He did in the span of time that He says He did it. God knew all that thousands of years ago. Now, because God knew that men would constantly and forever argue and deny the literalness of this account of the creation He, in His infinite wisdom, commanded the Holy Spirit to cause the writer to write. God did this in a day and that day is defined as an evening and a morning. A regular, ordinary day. So, your claim is that such a word with such a descriptor does not have to infer a literal day, fine, show me! find me one single author who has written one single sentence in any writing that has been written over the entire course of human existence where someone wrote the word 'day', defined that 'day' as consisting of an evening and a morning and intended that that word day mean something other than a normal and literal single rotation of the earth upon its axis. Anywhere, in any language of anyone.
I'm fairly confident that you won't agree and that's Ok with me. I'm not the one who asks you to believe. God is!
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Amen...
　

The Bible positively declares that:
There was no heavens before there was no earth -they were created all of a piece -Genesis 1 and Enoch.
The heavens were right "here" in the beginning, and not stretched out -to there", from "here" until day 2 of creation week, and they were the firmament stretched out between the divided in two waters/mayim, and named "sha -mayim" -the two -or cut in two- waters.
Half creation's waters/mayim are raised above the stretched out expanse/sha-mayim on day 2 of creation week of six evenings and mornings, which evenings and mornings each equal one full day of the creation week of six evenings and mornings and one rest/stop day; making a week of evenings and mornings.
Your whole assumption falls and is refuted soundly on the first two verses of Genesis 1. So your assumptions are not assumed with the Word of God for a foundation of understanding, and are worthless reasonings of unbelief and doubt of which sort was introduced in the Garden by the father of lies, Satan, when he said to Eve; "Did God really, really say....H-M-M?
God has really, really said that He did it in six evenings and mornings, and there were no heavens before there was the earth, and the heavens were not stretched out form the earth until day 2 of Creation week.
And He gives the time line completely in the Upright Record, Jasher, all the way back to Adam, the first human being made male and female and made in the exact image, like a stamped copy/topos of God the Word who was to come in flesh, and is come -Genesis 1:26, 28, Genesis 5:2, Romans 5:14.

Amen...Praise God