The Temple of Creation

[Keachian]

Let's switch gears a bit here, hopefully this is something we all can agree on and discuss, I would also appreciate if discussion of science stayed out of this thread.

This is a thread about the symbolism of Genesis 1 (regardless of whether it is a literal account or not) We have 7 days of creation mirroring the sabbatical week. Of these 7 days we can split them into two groups of three and a sabbath, we see in the first three days the realms of dominion being erected, now we also have when we look at descriptions of the Temple of God this idea of threes ever approaching the holy of holies. In Genesis we have light, heavens, ground. Kind of like the ground is the holy of holies, then God turns to decorate and populate the temple, again coming from the outside of this temple to the inside and he places himself in the holy of holies, us.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This, I think, is at the heart of the narrative. And this provides a beautiful look at the grand scope of biblical narrative from beginning to end.

For we see that the entire biblical narrative has been an act of redemption, of restoring all that is lost; it is a story of unfolding and ongoing creation. God's creative work being fully restored and completed on the 8th Day, when the Lord returns, when God makes all things new, and we see Holy Jerusalem touch down from heaven upon the earth, the Bride and Church of Christ adorned and filled with the glory of God in such a way that all of creation is illuminated.

The biblical narrative, to me, looks hourglass shaped, and Christ is at the very center, for it begins broad and then becomes focused upon Christ and then expands again until the end of all things. The New Testament, in a sense, is the Old Testament in reverse.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Assyrian]

If Genesis 1 is laid out like a temple, then it is not just about where God is worshipped, it is about sacrifice and redemption, and blood poured out in the Holy of Holies. I keep coming back to the seventh day, God's Sabbath rest as a picture of our redemption on the cross, the fullness still to come for us in Christ which the Sabbath is a shadow of Col 2:17. The seventh day is God's rest, that we are called to enter while we still live in a day we call 'Today' Heb 3&4.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. Refreshed literally means to get you breath back, David fleeing from Absalom, stopped at the Jordan and got his breath back. 2Sam 16:14 And the king, and all the people who were with him, arrived weary at the Jordan. And there he refreshed himself. Even ignoring the more literal meaning of refreshed getting your breath back, God does not grow weary, how could Moses say God was refreshed after a day's rest? Yet here was one day in all of history when God was still and did nothing a whole Sabbath and the next day got his breath back. It was when God the Son lay dead in a tomb all Sabbath long and rose to life the next day. If Genesis 1 describes God's temple then Christ is the High Priest and the blood he sprinkles on the mercy seat is his very own. Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

 

[juvenissun]

Let's switch gears a bit here, hopefully this is something we all can agree on and discuss, I would also appreciate if discussion of science stayed out of this thread.

This is a thread about the symbolism of Genesis 1 (regardless of whether it is a literal account or not) We have 7 days of creation mirroring the sabbatical week. Of these 7 days we can split them into two groups of three and a sabbath, we see in the first three days the realms of dominion being erected, now we also have when we look at descriptions of the Temple of God this idea of threes ever approaching the holy of holies. In Genesis we have light, heavens, ground. Kind of like the ground is the holy of holies, then God turns to decorate and populate the temple, again coming from the outside of this temple to the inside and he places himself in the holy of holies, us.

With one exception: Plants showed up on Day 3, but the "ground" is completed on Day 4.

Are you going to ignore this exception? Or do you think it is not important?

 

[Keachian]

With one exception: Plants showed up on Day 3, but the "ground" is completed on Day 4.

Are you going to ignore this exception? Or do you think it is not important?

I'm not sure I'm reading the same creation story you are, while you are right that plants were created day 3, there is nothing in day 4 about the ground being created/finished off, day 4 encapsulates the creation of the heavenly bodies

 

[Assyrian]

Are we confusing 'first three days' as in days 1-3 the creation account, with 'first three days' as in the first of two groups of three?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not sure I'm reading the same creation story you are, while you are right that plants were created day 3, there is nothing in day 4 about the ground being created/finished off, day 4 encapsulates the creation of the heavenly bodies

Yes, you are right. But the content of Day 4 still belongs to your "first three Days".

So, the second group should include Day 3, and Day 5 and 6.

Do you think this is a minor disorder can be overlooked for your purpose?

 

[philadiddle]

Here Juv, the table of the first triad and second triad should clear things up for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)

Also the little table about Creation Kingdoms and Creature Kings should make it clear.

 

[juvenissun]

Here Juv, the table of the first triad and second triad should clear things up for you:

Framework interpretation (Genesis) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also the little table about Creation Kingdoms and Creature Kings should make it clear.

No. My question still exist.

Because it "does not make sense" to most people, so this question is constantly (if not always) ignored.

If the Bible made such a major mistake right at the beginning, I think it is a problem. Stone age people know that (normal) plants will not make it without the sun light. Generations of Jewish people were not dumb either.

This thread does not want to talk about science. That is fine. Hence my question is: if 1/3 (or 1/6) of the "temple" is out of order, should the disruption be ignored and tolerated? Or should this triad idea be modified?

 

[philadiddle]

I forget how links to information don't tend to get clicked on so I will be more clear here.

Yes, you are right. But the content of Day 4 still belongs to your "first three Days".

No, day four is lights, which are the rulers of light. The fourth day corresponds to the first.

Do you think this is a minor disorder can be overlooked for your purpose?

There is no disorder.

Day 1/4 = (1)Light Ruled by (4)Lights
Day 2/5 = (2)Water & atmosphere ruled by (5)fish & birds
Day 3/6 = (3)Dry land & plants ruled by (6)animals & man
Day 7 = God who created everything and rules everything

Please re-explain what exactly is out of order here?

 

[Keachian]

No. My question still exist.

Because it "does not make sense" to most people, so this question is constantly (if not always) ignored.

If the Bible made such a major mistake right at the beginning, I think it is a problem. Stone age people know that (normal) plants will not make it without the sun light. Generations of Jewish people were not dumb either.

This thread does not want to talk about science. That is fine. Hence my question is: if 1/3 (or 1/6) of the "temple" is out of order, should the disruption be ignored and tolerated? Or should this triad idea be modified?

There is no disruption, The plants were considered the abode of both some of the land dwelling animals and the flying animals, in this way we can't move it out of it's placing otherwise the symmetry of the creature kings to their domains is ruined. How can either rule without a place for them to lay their head?

It is only from a scientific view that we want to place plants after the creation of the heavenly bodies, if I accepted a literal reading then I would rejoice in the fact that God through his grace and power sustained the plants for a day without the need of the sun, however I don't.

 

[juvenissun]

There is no disruption, The plants were considered the abode of both some of the land dwelling animals and the flying animals, in this way we can't move it out of it's placing otherwise the symmetry of the creature kings to their domains is ruined. How can either rule without a place for them to lay their head?

It is only from a scientific view that we want to place plants after the creation of the heavenly bodies, if I accepted a literal reading then I would rejoice in the fact that God through his grace and power sustained the plants for a day without the need of the sun, however I don't.

OK, If you have no problem with it, that is good.

 

[juvenissun]

I forget how links to information don't tend to get clicked on so I will be more clear here.No, day four is lights, which are the rulers of light. The fourth day corresponds to the first.

There is no disorder.

Day 1/4 = (1)Light Ruled by (4)Lights
Day 2/5 = (2)Water & atmosphere ruled by (5)fish & birds
Day 3/6 = (3)Dry land & plants ruled by (6)animals & man
Day 7 = God who created everything and rules everything

Please re-explain what exactly is out of order here?

Very good. It is new to me and it makes sense.
Did you figure it out or someone said it somewhere? I would say you are a good creationist.

 

[philadiddle]

Very good. It is new to me and it makes sense.
Did you figure it out or someone said it somewhere? I would say you are a good creationist.

I got it from scholars who spend their time on these things. It's an interpretation that seems consistent with the way ancient ppl wrote this kind of stuff. Is that ok or should I have figured it out on my own?

 

[juvenissun]

I got it from scholars who spend their time on these things. It's an interpretation that seems consistent with the way ancient ppl wrote this kind of stuff. Is that ok or should I have figured it out on my own?

I guess it is good enough. There are fewer and fewer new things under the sun nowadays [Solomon said nothing is new].

 

[philadiddle]

I guess it is good enough. There are fewer and fewer new things under the sun nowadays [Solomon said nothing is new].

The framework model of the creation account is not new. It predates Darwin.

 

[juvenissun]

The framework model of the creation account is not new. It predates Darwin.

OK, either you or progmonk could tell me more about it. This idea of organization is called a model. But a model of what and for what purpose? What would be the difference by having or not having this model?

 

[philadiddle]

OK, either you or progmonk could tell me more about it. This idea of organization is called a model. But a model of what and for what purpose? What would be the difference by having or not having this model?

The wiki link I gave you in post #8 explains more. If you don't mind, I don't want to retype a bunch of info that is readily available to you.

Here's another link as well:
http://www.opc.org/OS/html/V9/1c.html

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

OK, either you or progmonk could tell me more about it. This idea of organization is called a model. But a model of what and for what purpose? What would be the difference by having or not having this model?

It doesn't make a difference for most Christians because very few people are aware of the schematic manner in which the creation accounts are written and it is not necessary for belief in the doctrine of creation. But it does show that God created the universe and living creatures in an orderly manner and with correspondence and symbolic meaning.

 

[juvenissun]

The wiki link I gave you in post #8 explains more. If you don't mind, I don't want to retype a bunch of info that is readily available to you.

Here's another link as well:
The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary

OK, quote the last words from it:

"... To insist on taking this picture literally is to miss the profound theological point—that the creation is not an end in itself but was created with the built-in eschatological goal of entering the eternal Sabbath rest of God Himself in incorruptible glory."

I do not see why would the literal picture miss the point.