The Six Days Are Inconsequential

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Whatever a person believes about the historical Adam and Genesis 2-5...

The six days are completely inconsequential to the rest of theology. Belief or non-belief in them has absolutely no bearing on the rest of theology.

Moreover, I submit that a chronological historical rendering of the Genesis 1 poem is bad exegesis. It's based on a nineteenth century injunctive to read all things considered truth as facts (historical or scientific).

Literalistic exgesis of Genesis 1 fails to take into account it's larger purposes of emphasizing monotheism, emphasizing the orderly nature of the universe, emphasizing the purposefulness of creation, emphasizing the goodness of creation, and emphasizing the Sabbath ritual- all themes considerably more important to ancient Israelites and the interreligious conflicts with their neighbors (who were polytheists, saw creation as a disorderly mistake, and mocked the Sabbath) than any physical cosmology.

 

[Mallon]

I would say that whether or not the earth was actually created in six 24-hour days is inconsequential to our faith. But I wouldn't say that that figure is without theological meaning. It provides the basis for our rest on the Sabbath (the 7th day, that is).

 

[crawfish]

I would agree. In fact, I'd say that view is a more literal reading of the story than a "factual" reading, in that it follows the original author's intentions far more closely.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I would say that whether or not the earth was actually created in six 24-hour days is inconsequential to our faith. But I wouldn't say that that figure is without theological meaning. It provides the basis for our rest on the Sabbath (the 7th day, that is).

Yes, a fair distinction.

 

[Assyrian]

And the Sabbath itself is just a shadow of the things to come, whose substance belongs to Christ Col 2:17.

 

[juvenissun]

Whatever a person believes about the historical Adam and Genesis 2-5...

The six days are completely inconsequential to the rest of theology. Belief or non-belief in them has absolutely no bearing on the rest of theology.

Wrong, wrong wrong. Absolutely wrong. It lays the foundation of Christian theology. Without it, Chritianity would EASILY become, or simply is, a cult.

For the most, it sets the relationship between God and His creations. Another interested two: It sets the relationships between human and other creatures. And it sets the relationships between man and woman.

Many seemingly unsolvable problems in the society today would easily find THE answer in the six verses.

I am not sure AiG people are doing a good job in science education (may be they are). But their Back to Genesis idea is absolutely right.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Wrong, wrong wrong. Absolutely wrong. It lays the foundation of Christian theology. Without it, Chritianity would EASILY become, or simply is, a cult.

For the most, it sets the relationship between God and His creations. Another interested two: It sets the relationships between human and other creatures. And it sets the relationships between man and woman.

Many seemingly unsolvable problems in the society today would easily find THE answer in the six verses.

I am not sure AiG people are doing a good job in science education (may be they are). But their Back to Genesis idea is absolutely right.

Woah woah woah. Wrong, wrong, wrong indeed.

Did I ever say anything about the creation of humans? Of course humans are created purposefully in the image of God.

I'm talking about the actual six day- not the whole Genesis creation/antediluvian account.

Can you even name one thing a belief in six days actually gives you?

I'm not talking about evolution. I expressly opened up my OP saying I was not discussing the personage of Adam.

I'm talking about what would really, honestly change in Christian theology if the six days were non-chronological and poetic? Not if the truths they express (monotheism, purpusefulness and orderliness of creation, the grounding of the Sabbath in the very fabric of spacetime.... and, if you wish, that humans are created in the image of God and made male for female and visa versa), but the actual idea that these were accomplished in six literal days some six thousand years ago.

How does belief that the accomplishments of God in Genesis 1 were performed in the chronological order of a literalistic reading of the Genesis 1 poem affect any other area of Christian theology?

 

[CSchultz]

Although I believe and profess that there is great significance in the 6 literal day creation, and that if we begin to deny ANY part of Gods Word, will will eventually find that we have denied it all.

I had a professor in one class, who asked all of us to hold up our bibles.

He said; "Pick up your bibles holding the first two chapters of Genesis between your left thumb and forefinger, and the reast of the bible with your other hand.....

NOW,..... Which part of the bible do each of you think that God wants us to concentrate on?

In other words, Satan can even use the "TRUTH" to distract us from the "MEANING"

I've never forgotten that lesson.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Although I believe and profess that there is great significance in the 6 literal day creation, and that if we begin to deny ANY part of Gods Word, will will eventually find that we have denied it all.

I had a professor in one class, who asked all of us to hold up our bibles.

He said; "Pick up your bibles holding the first two chapters of Genesis between your left thumb and forefinger, and the reast of the bible with your other hand.....

NOW,..... Which part of the bible do each of you think that God wants us to concentrate on?

In other words, Satan can even use the "TRUTH" to distract us from the "MEANING"

I've never forgotten that lesson.

Make no mistake, I'm not denying the truth of God's Holy Scriptures.

I'm questioning the authenticity of a historical and chronological exegesis of a poetic passage, which seems more consonant with Israelite concerns in theme rather than context.

 

[theFijian]

I suppose the question (from my understanding of the OP) could be framed this way: Did the world need to be created in six days for Christ to be an acceptable sacrifice and to die for our sins?

 

[juvenissun]

Whatever a person believes about the historical Adam and Genesis 2-5...

The six days are completely inconsequential to the rest of theology. Belief or non-belief in them has absolutely no bearing on the rest of theology.

OK, my misunderstanding. Sorry.

Days and nights, light and dark cycles, is a natural time unit. Before any timing device was made, it is the most convenient time unit. This is one.

I do not really understand how is calendar made, but the seven-day cycle of a week is still used even today. The system must be scientifically wonderful and fits any concerned astronomical processes. It is wonderful that this was figured out at the beginning of the Holy Book so long ago. Would a 4-day or 2-day creation be as meaningful? I guess not.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

OK, my misunderstanding. Sorry.

Days and nights, light and dark cycles, is a natural time unit. Before any timing device was made, it is the most convenient time unit. This is one.

I do not really understand how is calendar made, but the seven-day cycle of a week is still used even today. The system must be scientifically wonderful and fits any concerned astronomical processes. It is wonderful that this was figured out at the beginning of the Holy Book so long ago. Would a 4-day or 2-day creation be as meaningful? I guess not.

I believe the Babylonians had an eight-day cycle.

Anyway, no worries about the misunderstanding. More of the discussion here in OT surrounds evolutionary biology but as I know next to nothing about any sort of science, my focus is the exegesis.

 

[Iosias]

The six days are completely inconsequential to the rest of theology. Belief or non-belief in them has absolutely no bearing on the rest of theology.

Rubbish. How we read them determines how we read the rest of Scripture. If we interpret them poetically then why not the gospels and end up like Origen. If they are myth then why not the rest of Scripture? The fact is that Genesis is an historical book about beginnings.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Rubbish. How we read them determines how we read the rest of Scripture. If we interpret them poetically then why not the gospels and end up like Origen. If they are myth then why not the rest of Scripture? The fact is that Genesis is an historical book about beginnings.

Reductio ad naseum.

If we interpret them historically, then we could end up taking Psalms and prophecy historically, and end up just like dispensationalists.

It's not applying a blanket form of exegesis to passages that don't harmonize well with modern science; I couldn't care less about science, and I know virtually next to nothing about it. But Genesis 1 does not bear the markings of a historical account; it has stranzas and a refrain just like a poem (a Sabbath hymn of the tabernacle, perhaps?), and is oriented toward broad theological themes (monotheism, goodness of creation, Sabbath, etc.). Not to mention the fact that it was written before narrative history as a genre was even on the radar.

 

[Iosias]

But Genesis 1 does not bear the markings of a historical account

Well I disagree completely.

it has stranzas and a refrain just like a poem

No it does not. I am not sure where you have got this from

The Genesis account is not poetry but prose. As Edward J Young writes:

Genesis one is not poetry or saga or myth, but straightforward, trustworthy history, and, inasmuch as it is a divine revelation, accurately records those matters of which it speaks. That Genesis one is historical may be seen from these considerations: (1) It sustains an intimate relationship with the remainder of the book. The remainder of the book (i.e., The Generations) presupposes the Creation Account, and the Creation Account prepares for what follows. The two portions of Genesis are integral parts of the book and complement one another. (2) The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking. There are poetic accounts of the creation and these form a striking contrast to Genesis one. (Studies in Genesis One)
​

 

[crawfish]

Genesis 1 IS poetry.

Look at the text:

"And God said...and it was so"
"aAnd there was evening, and there was morning—the nth day".

Patterns. Repeated text. These are verbal hooks that indicate a poem.

Note the break when man is created:

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

This is a break in the pattern - there are lots of songs that use this method (verse/stanza/verse/stanza/break/stanza - I have no idea what this is called). It indicates a part that should be paid particular attention to - the key verse of the poem.

There is no other "prose text" in Genesis that looks like this. Even if you can't match it to other poetic forms, you also cannot match it to other prose forms. It stands alone in its own unique format.

 

[crawfish]

In fact, I just thought of an example of the above. Listen to Harry Chapin's, "Cat's in the Cradle'. You get a few verse/chorus patterns like this:

My child arrived just the other day
He came to the world in the usual way
But there were planes to catch and bills to pay
He learned to walk while I was away
And he was talkin' 'fore I knew it, and as he grew
He'd say "I'm gonna be like you dad
You know I'm gonna be like you"

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man on the moon
When you comin' home dad?
I don't know when, but we'll get together then son
You know we'll have a good time then

At the end of the song, he has a short break from that pattern with the following verse:

And as I hung up the phone it occurred to me
He'd grown up just like me
My boy was just like me

In this song, that slight change-up is used to stress the morale of the song. It's quite effective.

If Genesis 1 is NOT poetry, then you need to explain why it's using such poetic forms.

 

[seekingmyLord]

Literalistic exgesis of Genesis 1 fails to take into account it's larger purposes of emphasizing monotheism, emphasizing the orderly nature of the universe, emphasizing the purposefulness of creation, emphasizing the goodness of creation, and emphasizing the Sabbath ritual- all themes considerably more important to ancient Israelites and the interreligious conflicts with their neighbors (who were polytheists, saw creation as a disorderly mistake, and mocked the Sabbath) than any physical cosmology.

I respectfully disagree with this part and I also think those themes are still considerably important because of conflicts with the Pagan beliefs of today.

On the other hand, I do agree with you, in part. I choose to believe in YEC, but if the Lord later reveals that it was not six literal days, I don't think it is going to make me feel betrayed because I accepted the story literally. Nor, do I believe that someone must believe in YEC to be a Christian.

However, one of the Sunday School favorites is: In the beginning... and children take it to be quite literal. I remember, at thirteen years old, a youth pastor telling us that he did not believe in the Genesis story literally and I then found myself beginning to wonder what other parts of the Bible where being taught to little children that were no more true than stories read in children's library books. So, in a way, it does have a significance in shaping how one will perceive the Bible as a whole and that can definitely have a bearing on the rest of theology.

At least, that has been my experience.

 

[mark kennedy]

Whatever a person believes about the historical Adam and Genesis 2-5...

There is not one but ten historical narratives. Interpreting Genesis 1 figuratively would not be a cause of any great concern for me if the other historical narratives were not called into question as a result. The fact is that Adam and Eve are taken as metaphor, the Flood of Noah, The confusion of tongues at Bable and the question the comes to mind is where does it end? As a matter of fact I rarely see the slightest interest on these boards in the Bible as history of any kind.

What you are suggesting and seemingly prepared to defend, is a dangerous precedence. If, at least, the historical content of the New Testament is affirmed and defended with conviction I would not give Genesis one a second thought.

The fact is the primary issue is that modernist interpretations will even go so far as to make God into a metaphor. Don't take my word for it, ask the TEs that populate these threads where they stand on the supernatural work of God in redemptive history and whether or not many, if not most, of the miracles presented as historical narratives really happened.

The six days are completely inconsequential to the rest of theology. Belief or non-belief in them has absolutely no bearing on the rest of theology.

It may well have no bearing on the rest of redemptive history but it has a profound influence on theology. The phrase, 'In the beginning God' sets foundational doctrines emanating throughout Scripture, echoed in the opening chapter of John and magnified in the sweeping judgments of Revelations.

Moreover, I submit that a chronological historical rendering of the Genesis 1 poem is bad exegesis. It's based on a nineteenth century injunctive to read all things considered truth as facts (historical or scientific).

I know you are Orthodox in your beliefs not that I pretend to know all of the particulars. I will ask you this, in the tradition you have embraced who among the Church Fathers affirmed a figurative meaning? I only ask because this interpretation is conspicuously absent from the Churches teaching and doctrine from Paul until the later part of the 19th Century.

Literalistic exgesis of Genesis 1 fails to take into account it's larger purposes of emphasizing monotheism, emphasizing the orderly nature of the universe, emphasizing the purposefulness of creation, emphasizing the goodness of creation, and emphasizing the Sabbath ritual- all themes considerably more important to ancient Israelites and the interreligious conflicts with their neighbors (who were polytheists, saw creation as a disorderly mistake, and mocked the Sabbath) than any physical cosmology.

That is not only untrue but astonishingly narrow. Literal days do not reflect at all on the nature, character or attributes of the Unity or Diversity of God. I have no idea what this business of the Sabbath has to do with anything so feel free to elaborate at will.

Now to the main point, a figurative interpretation of Genesis, particularly the opening chapters is unheard of in the New Testament and the Apostolic Church. Defending the nature and character of God in the Incarnation and Trinitarian doctrine of the Godhead was central. I am aware of no complaints on the part of the early Christians with regards to a literal reading of Genesis one. The only exception I am aware of was borderline Gnosticism and it was unrelated to the doctrine you perceive is threatened.

If exegetical considerations are your concern then perhaps we can break out on the study tools and have a look at this issue you raised. Other then that I find your assertion a matter of opinion resting entirely on a modernist interpretation.

Your thought...

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[laptoppop]

I know you are Orthodox in your beliefs not that I pretend to know all of the particulars. I will ask you this, in the tradition you have embraced who among the Church Fathers affirmed a figurative meaning? I only ask because this interpretation is conspicuously absent from the Churches teaching and doctrine from Paul until the later part of the 19th Century.

Here are a bunch of YEC quotes from the early Church Fathers:
http://www.creationism.org/articles/EarlyChurchLit6Days.htm