The Six Days Are Inconsequential

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Well I disagree completely.



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)
​

I see absolutely no analysis of the actual text in this citation. Just pronouncements from on high.

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.

Now see, that's analysis of the text. That's exactly what I'm talking about when I mention refrains "And God said let there be x, and there was x... and God said let x give forth y, and x did give forth y... and God said it was good... and there was evening and there was morning, the a day."

You wouldn't use those kinds of repetitions if you were writing a historical account. You probably can't find those techniques them anywhere in the Former Prophets.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

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.

Although I'd prefer to discuss this with you over a series of PMs so as not to derail the thread, let me give you an answer that might innitially seem far more radical than any of the other theisitic evolutionists on the board (of whom you know I'm one of the most conservative):

It ends at 2 Kings 25. Allow me to explain.

I subscribe to a conservative version of the documentary hypothesis, which places the composition of J and E during the reigns of the Judges (and J likely in the south, E in the north, all under the divine hand), synthesized into JE during the reigns of David and Solomon (all under the divine hand), with P the continuous condification of Levite practices since the time of the Exodus and D-law a rediscovered Mosaic manuscript during the renovation of the temple under Josiah. Then during the Babylonian Exile Israelites seeking to preserve their heritage (much as they founded the institution of the synogogue) composed the D-history, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. These were then all redacted into a single document upon the return of the Jews under the leadership of Ezra the scribe- possibly even described in Ezra 8.

Long story short- the narrative portions of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings consist of a single official rendering of the history of the Israelites, composed over the ages under sovereign, divine guidence.

And it gets progressively more historical as it goes along. It starts off generally symbolic (but with a historic core) and ends are almost entirely historic (with the occasional symbolic element).

There, that's where it ends.

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.

But under the framework exegesis of Genesis 1, whereby the rendering is a non-chronological framework consisting of realms (day/night, sky/water, land) in days 1-3 and corresponding creature-kings (sun/moon, birds/fish, animals/humans) in days 4-6 in no way eliminates the theological themes.

Indeed, it enhances them. It makes clear that those themes are the primary message of Genesis 1: themes of monotheism, the purposefullness of creation, the orderliness of creation, the idea that the Sabbath is ingrained in the very fabric of spacetime, the image of God in humanity, the goodness of creation.... these themes remain because a framework interpretation doesn't just say "oh it's a metaphor" and throw it out; it says "this is very careful writing, very poetic, very beautiful.... and it is particurally cautious to enhance these particular themes."

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.

Augustine did not believe in six literal days. Neither did Anselm or Abelard.

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.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that thinking that conveying the idea that creation was accomplished in six literal days in that particular order misses the entire point of the passage- emphasizing monotheism, the purposefullness of creation, etc....

As for the Sabbath- the Sabbath was and remains the core feature of Jewish life and worship. Scripture, in turn, focuses on the fact that all creation is in worship (or should be in worship) of the creator because that's what it was created to do. The six days emphasize the seventh day, the day of the week on which the Jews practiced the Sabbath; it emphasizes that worship is the culmination of creation; it emphasizes that humans, the pinnicle of the created order, lead all creation into the seventh day to fullfill the purpose of creation, worship of God.

 

[Iosias]

Genesis 1 IS poetry.

Show me how that is the case from Hebrew poetry! Yes is seems poetic in one sense but then that is how the KJV translators wrote it...the fact is however there is no evidence of Hebraic poetry in the text.

You read poetry into the texts. They are narrative pure and simple.

 

[Iosias]

I see absolutely no analysis of the actual text in this citation. Just pronouncements from on high.

The analysis preceded the quote which was a summary from a Professor of Old Testament well versed in Hebrew and Hebraic poetic forms and who concluded that "The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking." and that whilst "There are poetic accounts of the creation...these form a striking contrast to Genesis one."

You wouldn't use those kinds of repetitions if you were writing a historical account.

Assumption. God is telling us the order in which he created the heavens and the earth and all that therein is.

 

[seekingmyLord]

SO.......it is my observation, from the turn in the discussion, that the six days are not inconsequential to the rest of theology and that how one believes the creation story has a bearing on the rest of theology.

Anyone else agree?

 

[theFijian]

You wouldn't use those kinds of repetitions if you were writing a historical account.

Assumption

No, not an assumption. It is consonant with other forms of Hebraic poetry we find in scripture.

 

[crawfish]

Show me how that is the case from Hebrew poetry! Yes is seems poetic in one sense but then that is how the KJV translators wrote it...the fact is however there is no evidence of Hebraic poetry in the text.

You read poetry into the texts. They are narrative pure and simple.

That's how nearly all translators write it. I know nothing about anicent Hebrew: however, I did hear from this expert that he sees the original text as a form of poetry in one of the "Great Courses" lectures.

I admitted there is no evidence of it being Hebrew poetry in any known form. It is also a fact that it is written in a form unlike any known prose in the bible as well. This, the former fact does not preclude it from being poetry in its own form. In either case, its style stands out in dramatic fashion, making it unique in scripture.

If it makes you feel better, it being poetry would not necessarily take away from its literalness.

 

[crawfish]

SO.......it is my observation, from the turn in the discussion, that the six days are not inconsequential to the rest of theology and that how one believes the creation story has a bearing on the rest of theology.

Anyone else agree?

Agree with the first part. They ARE important, in that they set the stage for the Sabbath that would become such an important part of Hebrew society.

Disagree with the second part; you can come to the same conclusions with a literal or non-literal reading of the story.

 

[Digit]

Gah, there are too many threads demanding attention, and unfortunately or maybe fortunately in your eyes this just takes a back seat. Needless to say I don't agree with the OP, but then there are only so many ways of saying the same thing again and again.

Digit.

 

[Mallon]

Show me how that is the case from Hebrew poetry!

I don't speak or read Hebrew, but according to a few Bible scholars I've read who do know Hebrew (Rev. Chris Smith, Dr. Meredith Kline), the following poetic structures are in Genesis:

• Strophes (“God said… God made… God called… God saw…”) punctuated by a repeated refrain (“and there was evening and there was morning, the Nth day.”)
• Alliteration (repetition of consonant sounds)
• Assonance (repetition of vowel sounds)
• Parallelism/repetition of meaning: “God made man in his own image; in the image of God he created him” (Gen 1:27).

Take that as you will.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I don't speak or read Hebrew, but according to a few Bible scholars I've read who do know Hebrew (Rev. Chris Smith, Dr. Meredith Kline), the following poetic structures are in Genesis:

• Strophes (“God said… God made… God called… God saw…”) punctuated by a repeated refrain (“and there was evening and there was morning, the Nth day.”)
• Alliteration (repetition of consonant sounds)
• Assonance (repetition of vowel sounds)
• Parallelism/repetition of meaning: “God made man in his own image; in the image of God he created him” (Gen 1:27).

Take that as you will.

Alliteration and assonance, eh?

I'll have to remember that.

Yeah, you wouldn't expect to find strophes, refrains, alliteration, assonance, and parallelism in a historical narrative. Even assuming that in fact, a literal, six-day creation happened, Genesis 1 is just not how you'd expect to find it recorded.

 

[Jadis40]

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?

The answer to that question, in my mind, is a resounding no.

 

[mark kennedy]

Although I'd prefer to discuss this with you over a series of PMs so as not to derail the thread, let me give you an answer that might innitially seem far more radical than any of the other theisitic evolutionists on the board (of whom you know I'm one of the most conservative):

It ends at 2 Kings 25. Allow me to explain.

I subscribe to a conservative version of the documentary hypothesis, which places the composition of J and E during the reigns of the Judges (and J likely in the south, E in the north, all under the divine hand), synthesized into JE during the reigns of David and Solomon (all under the divine hand), with P the continuous condification of Levite practices since the time of the Exodus and D-law a rediscovered Mosaic manuscript during the renovation of the temple under Josiah. Then during the Babylonian Exile Israelites seeking to preserve their heritage (much as they founded the institution of the synogogue) composed the D-history, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. These were then all redacted into a single document upon the return of the Jews under the leadership of Ezra the scribe- possibly even described in Ezra 8.

Long story short- the narrative portions of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings consist of a single official rendering of the history of the Israelites, composed over the ages under sovereign, divine guidence.

And it gets progressively more historical as it goes along. It starts off generally symbolic (but with a historic core) and ends are almost entirely historic (with the occasional symbolic element).

There, that's where it ends.



But under the framework exegesis of Genesis 1, whereby the rendering is a non-chronological framework consisting of realms (day/night, sky/water, land) in days 1-3 and corresponding creature-kings (sun/moon, birds/fish, animals/humans) in days 4-6 in no way eliminates the theological themes.

Indeed, it enhances them. It makes clear that those themes are the primary message of Genesis 1: themes of monotheism, the purposefullness of creation, the orderliness of creation, the idea that the Sabbath is ingrained in the very fabric of spacetime, the image of God in humanity, the goodness of creation.... these themes remain because a framework interpretation doesn't just say "oh it's a metaphor" and throw it out; it says "this is very careful writing, very poetic, very beautiful.... and it is particurally cautious to enhance these particular themes."



Augustine did not believe in six literal days. Neither did Anselm or Abelard.



That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that thinking that conveying the idea that creation was accomplished in six literal days in that particular order misses the entire point of the passage- emphasizing monotheism, the purposefullness of creation, etc....

As for the Sabbath- the Sabbath was and remains the core feature of Jewish life and worship. Scripture, in turn, focuses on the fact that all creation is in worship (or should be in worship) of the creator because that's what it was created to do. The six days emphasize the seventh day, the day of the week on which the Jews practiced the Sabbath; it emphasizes that worship is the culmination of creation; it emphasizes that humans, the pinnicle of the created order, lead all creation into the seventh day to fullfill the purpose of creation, worship of God.

That is the old JEPD hypothesis that has been thoroughly discredited. This leaves everything from the ministry of Elisha to the creation of the world to speculation and conjecture as to what actually happened. If you are the most conservative then I am left with only one conclusion, nothing of the foundational historical narratives exist for the Theistic Evolutionist. None of the New Testament writers take a view remotely similar to this ill conceived modernist interpretation. I knew something was wrong when the New Testament testimony of Paul, Luke and Christ himself were rationalized away with regards to Adam being specially created. It is small wonder that Theistic Evolutionists do not want to talk about the historicity of Scripture since they have abandoned the concept with regards to the Old Testament.

Frankly, I don’t care who you think wrote it. How much of this do you think really happened?

“The Lord appeared to Abram” (Gen. 12:7)
“The Lord plagued Pharaoh” (Gen. 12:17)
“The battle of Siddam” (Gen 14:8)
“Melchizedek King of Salem” (14:18)
The angel of the Lord near Shur (16:7)
“God destroyed the cites of the plain (19:29)
Abraham was 100 yrs old when Isaac was born (21:5)
The covenant with Abimelech in Arabia (Gen 21:21)
The test at Mt Moriah (22:12)

The list goes on; the miracles of Jacob, Joseph in Pharaohs court, Israel delivered from Egypt through 9 plagues and the Passover, the Exodus, Moses and Israel at Sinai; Oholiab and the Tabernacle, fire from before the Lord (Lev 9:24) and the judgment of Nadab and Abihu; The conquest of Canaan; Gideon and Samson; Hannah and Samuel; Saul; David, and a rather lengthy list of kings. How much of this do you think actually happened and as a bonus question, how many of these people are simply beautifully written fictional metaphors?

Do you expect me to believe that the historical narratives of the Old Testament are not foundational to New Testament theology? You have got to be putting me on!

 

[Vambram]

That is the old JEPD hypothesis that has been thoroughly discredited. This leaves everything from the ministry of Elisha to the creation of the world to speculation and conjecture as to what actually happened. If you are the most conservative then I am left with only one conclusion, nothing of the foundational historical narratives exist for the Theistic Evolutionist. None of the New Testament writers take a view remotely similar to this ill conceived modernist interpretation. I knew something was wrong when the New Testament testimony of Paul, Luke and Christ himself were rationalized away with regards to Adam being specially created. It is small wonder that Theistic Evolutionists do not want to talk about the historicity of Scripture since they have abandoned the concept with regards to the Old Testament.

Frankly, I don’t care who you think wrote it. How much of this do you think really happened?

“The Lord appeared to Abram” (Gen. 12:7)
“The Lord plagued Pharaoh” (Gen. 12:17)
“The battle of Siddam” (Gen 14:8)
“Melchizedek King of Salem” (14:18)
The angel of the Lord near Shur (16:7)
“God destroyed the cites of the plain (19:29)
Abraham was 100 yrs old when Isaac was born (21:5)
The covenant with Abimelech in Arabia (Gen 21:21)
The test at Mt Moriah (22:12)

The list goes on; the miracles of Jacob, Joseph in Pharaohs court, Israel delivered from Egypt through 9 plagues and the Passover, the Exodus, Moses and Israel at Sinai; Oholiab and the Tabernacle, fire from before the Lord (Lev 9:24) and the judgment of Nadab and Abihu; The conquest of Canaan; Gideon and Samson; Hannah and Samuel; Saul; David, and a rather lengthy list of kings. How much of this do you think actually happened and as a bonus question, how many of these people are simply beautifully written fictional metaphors?

Do you expect me to believe that the historical narratives of the Old Testament are not foundational to New Testament theology? You have got to be putting me on!

Everytime I read where a Christian and a Bible-believer attempts to discredit and/or dilute the Book of Genesis, the rest of the Penateuch, and now, many other historical chapters of Scripture, ... well, this born-again believer, who by faith knows that the original manuscripts of the Scriptures were divinely & plenary inspired by the Lord God of the universe, .. I am just baffled as to why Christians want to dilute the Bible.

 

[Mallon]

well, this born-again believer, who by faith knows that the original manuscripts of the Scriptures were divinely & plenary inspired by the Lord God of the universe

Is it just me, or are most YECs here "born-again" believers? The numbers just seem disproportionate. Might be worth a poll!

 

[crawfish]

Everytime I read where a Christian and a Bible-believer attempts to discredit and/or dilute the Book of Genesis, the rest of the Penateuch, and now, many other historical chapters of Scripture, ... well, this born-again believer, who by faith knows that the original manuscripts of the Scriptures were divinely & plenary inspired by the Lord God of the universe, .. I am just baffled as to why Christians want to dilute the Bible.

This born-again believer is a bit baffled as to why you think we're diluting it.

 

[Assyrian]

That is the old JEPD hypothesis that has been thoroughly discredited. This leaves everything from the ministry of Elisha to the creation of the world to speculation and conjecture as to what actually happened. If you are the most conservative then I am left with only one conclusion, nothing of the foundational historical narratives exist for the Theistic Evolutionist.

Is that the conclusion you had before you read this thread? The view of TEs you trot out at every opportunity? Surely saying "I am left with only one conclusion" is a bit of an overstatement when you started with only one conclusion?

None of the New Testament writers take a view remotely similar to this ill conceived modernist interpretation. I knew something was wrong when the New Testament testimony of Paul, Luke and Christ himself were rationalized away with regards to Adam being specially created.

I remember you trying to support that before. Nevermind this is about the six days not Adam.

 

[shernren]

Frankly, I don’t care who you think wrote it. How much of this do you think really happened?

“The Lord appeared to Abram” (Gen. 12:7)
“The Lord plagued Pharaoh” (Gen. 12:17)
“The battle of Siddam” (Gen 14:8)
“Melchizedek King of Salem” (14:18)
The angel of the Lord near Shur (16:7)
“God destroyed the cites of the plain (19:29)
Abraham was 100 yrs old when Isaac was born (21:5)
The covenant with Abimelech in Arabia (Gen 21:21)
The test at Mt Moriah (22:12)

The list goes on; the miracles of Jacob, Joseph in Pharaohs court, Israel delivered from Egypt through 9 plagues and the Passover, the Exodus, Moses and Israel at Sinai; Oholiab and the Tabernacle, fire from before the Lord (Lev 9:24) and the judgment of Nadab and Abihu; The conquest of Canaan; Gideon and Samson; Hannah and Samuel; Saul; David, and a rather lengthy list of kings. How much of this do you think actually happened and as a bonus question, how many of these people are simply beautifully written fictional metaphors?

Do you expect me to believe that the historical narratives of the Old Testament are not foundational to New Testament theology? You have got to be putting me on!

And how much of the character of God do we learn from the assumption that all these are factual history on top of divinely authorized communication (which no TE has ever denied)?

If you don't want constructive engagement, two can play the "you disrespect Scripture, foolish heretic!" game. After all this while I think you view Scripture as simply a meticulous almanac of Jewish history.

 

[mark kennedy]

Everytime I read where a Christian and a Bible-believer attempts to discredit and/or dilute the Book of Genesis, the rest of the Penateuch, and now, many other historical chapters of Scripture, ... well, this born-again believer, who by faith knows that the original manuscripts of the Scriptures were divinely & plenary inspired by the Lord God of the universe, .. I am just baffled as to why Christians want to dilute the Bible.

The fact is that taking everything figuratively not only dilutes the Bible, it undermines it's witness as redemptive history. The gentleman I am responding to in the above quote does not deny the Gospel, he does seem to have major issues with the historical narratives of the Old Testament up to 2Kings.

You may think there is a fair amount of hyperbole and to some extent I might be inclined to agree. It's when someone simply tosses historical narratives out with outdated theories that I am inclined to address the issue, particularly when there are theological themes at stake.

 

[mark kennedy]

And how much of the character of God do we learn from the assumption that all these are factual history on top of divinely authorized communication (which no TE has ever denied)?

How much do we learn about the theology of modernists when we assume it's not? TEs are ambiguise about the historicity of Scripture, particularly when it comes to the central feature of miracles in redemptive history.

If you don't want constructive engagement, two can play the "you disrespect Scripture, foolish heretic!" game. After all this while I think you view Scripture as simply a meticulous almanac of Jewish history.

Your right back into the mire, notice none of the particulars were even addressed. In the brief period of a couple of sentences you descended into the mock satire that has marred this discussion irreparably. Like the philosophy of Tillich TE is nothing more then dialectical humanism in pseudo-theological clothing.

Have a nice day
Mark