Literary Framework View & Exodus 20:11

[9Rock9]

So, after doing some research on the various viewpoints about Genesis 1, I think I lean towards the literary framework view.

In case you are unfamiliar with the literally framework perspective, it advocates the idea that the creation week of Genesis 1 is about putting the things there were created into typological or topical categories rather than presenting a sequential order for creation.

I think it allows one to reconcile Genesis 1 with modern scientific consensus, which is why I find it appealing.

That said, I do have one stumbling block that keeps me from being completely convinced. Mostly, a particular verse, Exodus 20:11, which seems to reinforce the idea that the creation week was actually over the course of six days. Also, it is the basis of the six days of working and resting on the Sabbath, and our weeks have seven days.

What are your thoughts on this, and if you hold to a literary framework view, how do you reconcile it with this verse?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I watched this documentary on Exodus, years back and found it to be interesting
and explains much about the Book of Exodus, and why archeologists have never
found artifacts to support the enslavement of Jews in Egypt, and their flight from
Ramses. I know the author is controversial, especially on his documentary about Jesus,
but I'll leave that for now.

When the video comes up in YouTube, it will give you a warning that the documentary
can be offensive to some and you must hit continue to see it all. It's an hour and
a half documentary, so give it time to watch.

(119) The Exodus Decoded - History Documentary - YouTube

 

[JAL]

So, after doing some research on the various viewpoints about Genesis 1, I think I lean towards the literary framework view.

In case you are unfamiliar with the literally framework perspective, it advocates the idea that the creation week of Genesis 1 is about putting the things there were created into typological or topical categories rather than presenting a sequential order for creation.

I think it allows one to reconcile Genesis 1 with modern scientific consensus, which is why I find it appealing.

That said, I do have one stumbling block that keeps me from being completely convinced. Mostly, a particular verse, Exodus 20:11, which seems to reinforce the idea that the creation week was actually over the course of six days. Also, it is the basis of the six days of working and resting on the Sabbath, and our weeks have seven days.

What are your thoughts on this, and if you hold to a literary framework view, how do you reconcile it with this verse?

I'm OEC (Old Earth Creationist).

In my view, Christ wanted to lay down a six-day work-week as a model for us to emulate.

Genesis 1 isn't primarily dealing with sunlight (24 hour days). Over the 4 billion years of the earth's creation, He shined His facial Light into the galaxy seven times, and quenched it six times, to create seven Galactic Days. Meanwhile His facial light also functioned as a kind of a tiny candle in the galaxy for planet Earth - it provided 24 hour days/nights, and photosynthesis to the plants, until the sun was set in place on the fourth Galactic Day.

BTW, 2 Corinthians 4:6 seems to confirm that Genesis 1 features the Light of Christ's face.

The seventh Daylight is everlasting, for example the divine Light illuminates the heavenly city (compare Revelation 1:16, "His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance", with Rev 22:

4They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light.

In fact Rev 21:

23The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, after doing some research on the various viewpoints about Genesis 1, I think I lean towards the literary framework view.

In case you are unfamiliar with the literally framework perspective, it advocates the idea that the creation week of Genesis 1 is about putting the things there were created into typological or topical categories rather than presenting a sequential order for creation.

I think it allows one to reconcile Genesis 1 with modern scientific consensus, which is why I find it appealing.

That said, I do have one stumbling block that keeps me from being completely convinced. Mostly, a particular verse, Exodus 20:11, which seems to reinforce the idea that the creation week was actually over the course of six days. Also, it is the basis of the six days of working and resting on the Sabbath, and our weeks have seven days.

What are your thoughts on this, and if you hold to a literary framework view, how do you reconcile it with this verse?

Yeah, that's one way of looking at it and if that works for you, go with it. I have a similar approach to that, so take heart in that not all of us brethren feel that we have to read Genesis 1 in some kind of ultra-literal way in order to appreciate it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Mostly, a particular verse, Exodus 20:11, which seems to reinforce the idea that the creation week was actually over the course of six days.

I don't see how repeating an allegory in scripture converts it to a literal history.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't see how repeating an allegory in scripture converts it to a literal history.

Yeah, I agree with you. It's a little quirky, but like a lot of theoretical interpretations of Genesis 1, it's interesting.

I prefer the Cosmogonic explanation of Conrad Hyers instead, but the Literary Framework Model gives one something to think about where early Israelite writing is concerned.

Literary Framework Interpretation | Evidence Unseen

 

[JAL]

I don't see how repeating an allegory in scripture converts it to a literal history.

I'm very impressed by the OP's concern with Ex 20:11. That passage potentially has enormous bearing on historical and geological debates (and even on the very nature of God), depending on how one reads it.

Since most Christians overlook that significance, I'm impressed with the OP.

I'm not sure whether I myself want to invest the time to elaborate further, however.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not sure whether I myself want to invest the time to elaborate further, however.

Jesus said it was simple.

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. [38] This is the greatest and the first commandment. [39] And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

Get that right, and you've got it right.

Yes, if you keep those commandments, you will do what God says you must do in order to spend eternity with Him.

 

[JAL]

Jesus said it was simple.

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. [38] This is the greatest and the first commandment. [39] And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

Get that right, and you've got it right.

Yes, if you keep those commandments, you will do what God says you must do in order to spend eternity with Him.

Oh, so the main topic of this thread is "How to get saved". Weird - somehow I thought it had something to do with Exodus 20:11. My mistake.

 

[JAL]

So, after doing some research on the various viewpoints about Genesis 1, I think I lean towards the literary framework view.

In case you are unfamiliar with the literally framework perspective, it advocates the idea that the creation week of Genesis 1 is about putting the things there were created into typological or topical categories rather than presenting a sequential order for creation.

I think it allows one to reconcile Genesis 1 with modern scientific consensus, which is why I find it appealing.

That said, I do have one stumbling block that keeps me from being completely convinced. Mostly, a particular verse, Exodus 20:11, which seems to reinforce the idea that the creation week was actually over the course of six days. Also, it is the basis of the six days of working and resting on the Sabbath, and our weeks have seven days.

What are your thoughts on this, and if you hold to a literary framework view, how do you reconcile it with this verse?

As noted earlier, I think that Exodus 20:11 is significant. I'm convinced it implies six long days and thus an old earth. I went into detail in two posts 295 and 296 on another thread.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Genesis 1 isn't primarily dealing with sunlight (24 hour days). Over the 4 billion years of the earth's creation, He shined His facial Light into the galaxy seven times, and quenched it six times, to create seven Galactic Days. Meanwhile His facial light also functioned as a kind of a tiny candle in the galaxy for planet Earth - it provided 24 hour days/nights, and photosynthesis to the plants, until the sun was set in place on the fourth Galactic Day

This seems like a contradiction here. At first your saying that a day is a billion years then you change to say that a day is 24 hours. So your changing the definition of the word “day” here. Your explanation is inconsistent.

 

[JAL]

This seems like a contradiction here. At first your saying that a day is a billion years then you change to say that a day is 24 hours. So your changing the definition of the word “day” here. Your explanation is inconsistent.

Genesis 1:3 defines a day as a period of light alternated with periods of darkness called "nights". This allows for both:
- our normal use of the term day as 24 hour days
- the six days of Genesis totaling the 4 billion years of the earth's creation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Genesis 1:3 defines a day as a period of light alternated with periods of darkness called "nights". This allows for both:
- our normal use of the term day as 24 hour days
- the six days of Genesis totaling the 4 billion years of the earth's creation.

Ok so you just interchange the definition of the word day is you see fit. Perhaps the earth had the appearance of being 4 billion years old the day it was created. I mean for example let’s say that God was going to create a rock and we were to examine that rock to see how old it is. Would that rock appear to be made that day or would it appear to be much older than it actually is? Well seeing that, according to what we know about rocks, that it’s impossible for a rock to be created in one day obviously we would assume that it is much older than it actually is. So it would seem impossible to us for a rock that was created in one day to have been made in such a short amount of time but that would still not negate the fact that it was created in one day.

 

[JAL]

Ok so you just interchange the definition of the word day is you see fit. Perhaps the earth had the appearance of being 4 billion years old the day it was created. I mean for example let’s say that God was going to create a rock and we were to examine that rock to see how old it is. Would that rock appear to be made that day or would it appear to be much older than it actually is? Well seeing that, according to what we know about rocks, that it’s impossible for a rock to be created in one day obviously we would assume that it is much older than it actually is. So it would seem impossible to us for a rock that was created in one day to have been made in such a short amount of time but that would still not negate the fact that it was created in one day.

Scripture implies an old earth for reasons explained in three recent posts 295, 296, and 306 on another thread. On this point, science merely confirms what biblical scholars should have realized 2,000 years ago.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Scripture implies an old earth for reasons explained in three recent posts 295, 296, and 306 on another thread. On this point, science merely confirms what biblical scholars should have realized 2,000 years ago.

Those are weak arguments implying that if God had not labored intensively that it would diminish the merits of His labor. When Jesus healed the blind, the sick, the paralyzed, etc did He labor intensively? We’re the merits of those labors diminished? Furthermore God being omnipresent and omnipotent is outside of time anyway so if He labored for all eternity it would be instantaneous to God because He exists simultaneously in ALL TIME. So if laboring for all eternity would be instantaneous for God what effect does that have on the merit He would receive from us? Also this isn’t actually biblical evidence supporting an old earth it’s just an exegesis creating a false narrative. It’s not actual verses implying that creation took more than 6 literal days.

 

[JAL]

As explained, there is only one possible definition of merit.

Those are weak arguments implying that if God had not labored intensively that it would diminish the merits of His labor. When Jesus healed the blind, the sick, the paralyzed, etc did He labor intensively? Were the merits of those labors diminished?

If those skills cost Him nothing in labor/suffering over time to acquire, they would merit no praise because, as explained, there is only one possible definition of merit. To prove this, consider two sons:
....(1) The first is born with the highest IQ in the world. Never works a day in his life. He's rich because he was smart enough to seize upon a couple of investments even as a child. Laziest sloth you've ever met, although highly skilled.
....(2) The second son is born with a low IQ but works diligently - struggles day and night - for many decades to become successful.

Which of these two sons merits more praise?

Furthermore God being omnipresent and omnipotent is outside of time anyway so if He labored for all eternity it would instantaneous to God because He exists simultaneously in ALL TIME.

You're missing the point. I just proved that the Greek philosophical theory of atemporality contradicts the biblical God. The biblical God has merit, hence labors/suffered over time. He is IN time, just like we are.

So if laboring for all eternity would be instantaneous for God what effect does that have on the merit He would receive from us?

No labor over time, no meriting of praise.

Also this isn’t actually biblical evidence supporting an old earth it’s just an exegesis creating a false narrative. It’s not actual verses implying that creation took more than 6 literal days.

Does God merit praise for creating in six days? Yes. More praise than we who labor/suffer 50 years? Yes. More praise than the angels who labored/suffered against the agony of temptation and NEVER SINNED? Yes. Then it must have been six LONG days of labor/suffering. The conclusion is irresistible.

 

[BNR32FAN]

As explained, there is only one possible definition of merit.
If those skills cost Him nothing in labor/suffering over time to acquire, they would merit no praise because, as explained, there is only one possible definition of merit. To prove this, consider two sons:
....(1) The first is born with the highest IQ in the world. Never works a day in his life. He's rich because he was smart enough to seize upon a couple of investments even as a child. Laziest sloth you've ever met, although highly skilled.
....(2) The second son is born with a low IQ but works diligently - struggles day and night - for many decades to become successful.

Which of these two sons merits more praise?

You're missing the point. I just proved that the Greek philosophical theory of atemporality contradicts the biblical God. The biblical God has merit, hence labors/suffered over time. He is IN time, just like we are.

No labor over time, no meriting of praise.


Does God merit praise for creating in six days? Yes. More praise than we who labor/suffer 50 years? Yes. More praise than the angels who labored/suffered against the agony of temptation and NEVER SINNED? Yes. Then it must have been six LONG days of labor/suffering. The conclusion is irresistible.

What verse are you referring to when you say that God merits our praise?

 

[BNR32FAN]

As explained, there is only one possible definition of merit.
If those skills cost Him nothing in labor/suffering over time to acquire, they would merit no praise because, as explained, there is only one possible definition of merit. To prove this, consider two sons:
....(1) The first is born with the highest IQ in the world. Never works a day in his life. He's rich because he was smart enough to seize upon a couple of investments even as a child. Laziest sloth you've ever met, although highly skilled.
....(2) The second son is born with a low IQ but works diligently - struggles day and night - for many decades to become successful.

Which of these two sons merits more praise?

You're missing the point. I just proved that the Greek philosophical theory of atemporality contradicts the biblical God. The biblical God has merit, hence labors/suffered over time. He is IN time, just like we are.

No labor over time, no meriting of praise.


Does God merit praise for creating in six days? Yes. More praise than we who labor/suffer 50 years? Yes. More praise than the angels who labored/suffered against the agony of temptation and NEVER SINNED? Yes. Then it must have been six LONG days of labor/suffering. The conclusion is irresistible.

You skipped a question. Did Jesus’ healing merit praise? Were those labors burdensome?

 

[BNR32FAN]

As explained, there is only one possible definition of merit.
If those skills cost Him nothing in labor/suffering over time to acquire, they would merit no praise because, as explained, there is only one possible definition of merit. To prove this, consider two sons:
....(1) The first is born with the highest IQ in the world. Never works a day in his life. He's rich because he was smart enough to seize upon a couple of investments even as a child. Laziest sloth you've ever met, although highly skilled.
....(2) The second son is born with a low IQ but works diligently - struggles day and night - for many decades to become successful.

Which of these two sons merits more praise?

You're missing the point. I just proved that the Greek philosophical theory of atemporality contradicts the biblical God. The biblical God has merit, hence labors/suffered over time. He is IN time, just like we are.

No labor over time, no meriting of praise.


Does God merit praise for creating in six days? Yes. More praise than we who labor/suffer 50 years? Yes. More praise than the angels who labored/suffered against the agony of temptation and NEVER SINNED? Yes. Then it must have been six LONG days of labor/suffering. The conclusion is irresistible.

Then what your saying is that when Jesus resurrected Lazarus from the grave it didn’t merit any praise. But the scriptures say otherwise. People were praising Jesus before His crucifixion at His triumphant entry. Was that praise unmerited? No one knew that He was going to be crucified for them.

 

[JAL]

What verse are you referring to when you say that God merits our praise?

Do you feel He is undeserving of our praise? Is that your reading of Scripture? Certainly a lazy sloth would be undeserving of praise.