Young Earth Creationism and the Da Vinci code

[jereth]

YECs continually make the argument that, at face value, Genesis 1-3 reads like a historical narrative -- therefore it must be history.

The utter fallacy of this argument is exposed very well by the Da Vinci Code phenomenon. This is a work of fiction which to the naive reader looks for all the world like factual history. Thousands of people have been duped into thinking that it is factual history. Yet to the informed and considered reader, it is obvious that the Da Vinci Code is an intentionally artistic and fictional work.

YECism in this respect mirrors the Da Vinci Code very closely, because it makes the exact same error of confusing literary style with literary intent.

Yet both Dan Brown and the author of Genesis 1-3 knew very well that they were not writing history.

The ironic thing is that most YECs are probably among the first to scream that the Da Vinci Code is "obviously" a non-historical work of art.

 

[Everyday]

I'm not convinced about the accuracy of your opening post as it is a misrepresentation of the creationist position - just as the Da Vinci Code is a misrepresentation of the life and person of Jesus Christ. It seems to me like you have much more in common with the Da Vinci Code than you assert creationists do...

In fact, the very same argument can also be transferred over to evolution. It is a misrepresentation of the person and attributes of God (why would a loving God create using millions of years of suffering and death, not only that, but don't we believe that Jesus came to conquer death?), not to mention the Bible itself. The only difference being that it doesn't obviously contradict the saving message of Jesus Christ (even though when analyzed it does destroy the basis of the Gospel message - that there was no death before the Fall, that death is a punishment for sin, and that the shedding of blood takes away our sins because the penalty for those sins has been paid, etc, etc). That ought to ruffle some feathers, so to speak.

For one, if you believe that we think that just because Genesis 1-3 (most evolutionists would say Genesis 1-11) is literal history is because it reads like a historical account, then you really don't know much about our position - hence the misrepresentation accusation above and the implication of you and the Da Vinci Code.

We believe that the days referred to in Genesis 1 are literal because we understand the Hebrew language. For an example, the author combined yôm (Hebrew for "day") with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day. There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yôm in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long.

For more information on this topic, please see the article How long were the days of Genesis 1? for a creationist perspective (of which the information above came from) available at:

creationontheweb.com/content/view/619

Other articles from the creationist position can be found here:

creationontheweb.com/content/view/3003

Much of the scientific data when interpreted through a creationary world view makes more sense in most cases than the evolutionary view (of course, based on our presuppositions - the opposite is true for evolutionists because of their presuppositions), and with the loss of the millions of years, the data is consistent that the days referred to are literal days that occurred about 6000 years ago. For examples of evidence that point to a young Earth, then please see:

creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/

I don't expect you to try to debate any of these displayed, because that isn't the point of this thread. I just wanted to provide you with evidence from a link that shows you that we don't believe Genesis just because it "reads like a historical narrative" as you falsely assert. We have logical and rational reasons for what we believe.

If you wish to draw links between creation and heresey, then please provide at least some evidence to support your position.

 

[gluadys]

For one, if you believe that we think that just because Genesis 1-3 (most evolutionists would say Genesis 1-11) is literal history is because it reads like a historical account, then you really don't know much about our position - hence the misrepresentation accusation above and the implication of you and the Da Vinci Code.

We believe that the days referred to in Genesis 1 are literal because we understand the Hebrew language. For an example, the author combined yôm (Hebrew for "day") with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day. There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yôm in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. It requires a prior assumption that the narrative is historical. It may also require a prior assumption that TE requires a Day-Age perspective. This is not the case.

As a TE, I agree entirely with what you have said about the use of "yom" in the Hebrew narrative. But I do not agree that this requires the narrative to be historical. The author does intend to convey the sense of 6 (actually 7) 24 hour days. But the days can still be a literary device for presenting creation in an ordered fashion and as providing a basis in creation for the Sabbath. They need not be days in history.

For more information on this topic, please see the article How long were the days of Genesis 1? for a creationist perspective (of which the information above came from) available at:

creationontheweb.com/content/view/619

From the link above:

"the intention of its author clearly was to write a historical account."

This is assuming the conclusion. Circular reasoning. In fact this is not clear. This is the point of dispute, so it needs to be established, not assumed.


"Children have no problem in understanding the meaning of Genesis. "

Children also have no problem in understanding the meaning of The Little Mermaid, and until they learn otherwise may think it an account of real events. Untutored people of any age can make errors about history vs. story, as jereth observes re The Da Vinci Code.

In fact, it may well have been the author's intention to write about creation in a way that while not historical was easily understood and remembered by children and unlettered people (the vast majority of people in his time).

"If one removes any portion of the Bible from the realm of reality, God may still be communicating truth to us, but the reader can never be sure that he understands it as the author intended."

What is the basis for this assertion? It makes no sense to me. If this were true, we could not understand the point of Jesus' parables.

Much of the scientific data when interpreted through a creationary world view makes more sense in most cases than the evolutionary view (of course, based on our presuppositions - the opposite is true for evolutionists because of their presuppositions), and with the loss of the millions of years, the data is consistent that the days referred to are literal days that occurred about 6000 years ago. For examples of evidence that point to a young Earth, then please see:

creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/

It only makes sense to the scientifically un-informed. Those who know geology/paleontology/astronomy/biology etc. quickly recognize the distortions and omissions of fact that are necessary to force fit the evidence into a young-earth perspective.

The various items mentioned in these articles are often referred to as PRATTS (points refuted a thousand times). You would do well to at least inform yourself of these refutations, even if you do not choose to believe them. At least you would know why non-YECsists consider them shaky if not downright false, and why they are unconvincing to those not already religiously committed to a young-earth POV.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

 

[shernren]

In fact, the very same argument can also be transferred over to evolution. It is a misrepresentation of the person and attributes of God (why would a loving God create using millions of years of suffering and death, not only that, but don't we believe that Jesus came to conquer death?), not to mention the Bible itself. The only difference being that it doesn't obviously contradict the saving message of Jesus Christ (even though when analyzed it does destroy the basis of the Gospel message - that there was no death before the Fall, that death is a punishment for sin, and that the shedding of blood takes away our sins because the penalty for those sins has been paid, etc, etc). That ought to ruffle some feathers, so to speak.

Where in the Bible does God abhor animal death and suffering? Where is it called a sin or a product of the Fall, and where does God state that He would never have created the world that way? The closest thing I have ever seen to that (besides heavy argument over the scope of 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 and 8, which are strictly limited to human life) is an injunction in Proverbs which says that the wise man is kind to his or her beast.

Fact is, the only creationist argument that supports it is:

I think animal suffering and death is cruel.
God thinks just like me.
Therefore God thinks animal suffering and death is cruel.

For one, if you believe that we think that just because Genesis 1-3 (most evolutionists would say Genesis 1-11) is literal history is because it reads like a historical account, then you really don't know much about our position - hence the misrepresentation accusation above and the implication of you and the Da Vinci Code.

Finally! Someone who understands that not everything which reads like history, is history!

(as for the rest, refer gluadys' reply. )

 

[rmwilliamsll]

We believe that the days referred to in Genesis 1 are literal because we understand the Hebrew language. For an example, the author combined yôm (Hebrew for "day") with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day. There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yôm in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long.

in Gen 1:5 the word yom is used in 2 different ways in the same sentence, you have to determine which one from the context.

in the same sentence it can mean the total period of night and day, or it can mean just the light part.

in Gen 1:4 God divides the light from the darkness. Does this mean that half the universe is light and half is dark? or is the whole universe light then dark?
is it a division in time or in space?
or is it really the universe that God is talking about or just the Middle East?

since you are certain that you know what yom means perhaps you can help with this as well.

 

[Dannager]

"Children have no problem in understanding the meaning of Genesis. "

I absolutely hate this particular argument. It is so riddled with fallacy that I am convinced that whoever uses the "children get it - why can't you?" argument is almost invariably using it in support of an intellectually dishonest position. It's not even an argument from authority. It's closer to an argument from inauthority.

 

[jereth]

The only difference being that it doesn't obviously contradict the saving message of Jesus Christ (even though when analyzed it does destroy the basis of the Gospel message - that there was no death before the Fall, that death is a punishment for sin, and that the shedding of blood takes away our sins because the penalty for those sins has been paid, etc, etc). That ought to ruffle some feathers, so to speak.

Sorry to disappoint, but it doesn't ruffle any feathers at all. Please don't assume that YECists are the only people who have thought about the death of animals. Every single TE has considered this issue and decided that animal death in no way stains a perfect world, nor does it undermine the gospel.

Several polls on this forum have shown that the notion of "Original Animal Immortality" (i.e. no death before the curse) is not even held by all YECists. I refer you to the following threads:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2953201-yec-a-coherent-theological-system.html
(only 40% of creationist voters believe that no animals died before the fall)

http://www.christianforums.com/t2968208-basic-yec-vs-advanced-yec.html
(only 62.5% of creationist voters believe that no animals died before the fall)

So perhaps you should first take up the issue with your fellow Creationists before having a go at us.

We believe that the days referred to in Genesis 1 are literal because we understand the Hebrew language.

...and by implication Theistic Evolutionists don't. A somewhat arrogant claim.

Besides, (this is not aimed at you personally, Everyday), if YECists understand Genesis 1 Hebrew so well, why does not a single YECist understand what a raqia ("firmament") is?

For an example, the author combined yôm (Hebrew for "day") with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day. There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yôm in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long.

That does not prove that Genesis 1 is a historical record. All it proves is that the days in this fictional/symbolic story are real 24-hour days. It's a bit like believing that the people in Da Vinci Code are real people because they portrayed as literally real people rather than symbolic people.

You are making the very error which you claim not to be making -- i.e. it reads like history therefore it is history.

 

[shinbits]

That does not prove that Genesis 1 is a historical record. All it proves is that the days in this fictional/symbolic story are real 24-hour days. It's a bit like believing that the people in Da Vinci Code are real people because they portrayed as literally real people rather than symbolic people.

You are making the very error which you claim not to be making -- i.e. it reads like history therefore it is history.

1. Exodus 20:11 (Whole Chapter)
   For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

When Moses was giving the Law to the Hebrews, the people were reminded of this. There are other places in the Bible that refer back to the creation as a literal event. No where in the Bible will you find support that the creation was just some sort of allegory; but you will find evidence to the contrary, such as this verse here.

 

[jereth]

1. Exodus 20:11 (Whole Chapter)
   For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth,

When Moses was giving the Law to the Hebrews, the people were reminded of this.

You cannot prove from such a passing reference that Moses was making reference to a unanimously accepted fact of history. All this shows is that the Israelites were familiar with the creation story. Unlike YEC moderns, they were capable of accepting the creation story as a figurative account.

As someone has previously said on this forum (I forget who and where), you can't squeeze the whole Genesis 1 narrative through an interpretative grid formed from a single verse in Exodus 20. On the contrary, the passing reference (Ex 20) has to be interpreted in light of the more elaborate and detailed passage (Gen 1).

There are other places in the Bible that refer back to the creation as a literal event.

Of course creation was a literal event. No TE disputes this. The Nicene creed, which all TEs on this forum agree with, affirms that God created heaven and earth. But you cannot find a single verse outside of these passing references in Exodus that claims creation happened in the manner described in Genesis 1 (i.e. over 6 literal days)

 

[shinbits]

But you cannot find a single verse outside of these passing references in Exodus that claims creation happened in the manner described in Genesis 1 (i.e. over 6 literal days)

Psalm 14:6-9:

6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.

7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
8 they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them. 9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
never again will they cover the earth.


Here's the account of the flood from another passage in the Bible.

 

[Assyrian]

1. Exodus 20:11 (Whole Chapter)
   For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

When Moses was giving the Law to the Hebrews, the people were reminded of this. There are other places in the Bible that refer back to the creation as a literal event. No where in the Bible will you find support that the creation was just some sort of allegory; but you will find evidence to the contrary, such as this verse here.

Deut 5:12 Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you.
13 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; ...
15 You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.

Moses had no problem using figurative description of God's actions to illustrate the Sabbath command.

Psalm 14:6-9:

6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.

7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
8 they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them. 9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
never again will they cover the earth.

Here's the account of the flood from another passage in the Bible.

That would be Psalm 104:6-9. This is a description of the creation. The Psalm follows the pattern of the creation days in Genesis, though it doesn't seem to pick up on them being 24 hour days, in fact it seems to read them as a framework describing different aspect of creation rather than a timetable.

What is really interesting is that the verses you quote match up with Gen 1:2-9 when the deep covered the earth and God created land. The thing is, this contradicts the idea of a global flood later on in Genesis, because it was during the creation God said the waters would never cover the earth again. Prov 8 and Job 38 say the same thing, that God set limits on the waters during the creation.

Cheers Assyrian

 

[jereth]

What is really interesting is that the verses you quote match up with Gen 1:2-9 when the deep covered the earth and God created land. The thing is, this contradicts the idea of a global flood later on in Genesis, because it was during the creation God said the waters would never cover the earth again. Prov 8 and Job 38 say the same thing, that God set limits on the waters during the creation.

Indeed, it is a noteworthy fact that Psalm 104, Prov 8 and Job 38 are all deliberate parallels to the Genesis 1 story, and these 3 passages are all definitely poetic. Further evidence against the literal historicity of Genesis 1.

 

[Everyday]

rmwilliamsll,

in Gen 1:5 the word yom is used in 2 different ways in the same sentence, you have to determine which one from the context.
​

It is no different then using the word day in the English concept: In my father's day it took 5 days to reach Brisbane from Perth by only travelling in the day.

My question to you is: Do you have any problem in defining what each term "day" means? It is similar with Genesis 1:5. I have never seen an evolutionist argue such a non-sensical case. We do not say that day only has the one meaning throughout all Genesis, it must be interpreted in context (which is something that you [evolutionists] evidently do not do). Yet, strangely enough you can interpret the word day in my example above. This shows that you can or have the ability to correctly interpret in context, but that you an underlying assumption that denies such a view. The passage does not support an old earth view millions of years is more than "evening passed, morning came, the nth day."

I'll answer your other questions later on in the days that follow as my schedule is rather hetic for the next few days with essays and presentations due.

 

[Everyday]

gluadys,

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. It requires a prior assumption that the narrative is historical. It may also require a prior assumption that TE requires a Day-Age perspective. This is not the case.
​

I find that ironic. The evolutionist uses the argument that creationists have been using for ages (namely, the data must be interpreted by underlying beliefs or presuppositions) to discredit my position, while at the same time stating that this does not apply to the theistic evolution. I hope that you can see the foolishness in your statement. You can't have it both ways. Either it is true for all readings of Genesis or it is not true for either, in which case you must provide evidence to prove your opinion.

As a TE, I agree entirely with what you have said about the use of "yom" in the Hebrew narrative. But I do not agree that this requires the narrative to be historical. The author does intend to convey the sense of 6 (actually 7) 24 hour days. But the days can still be a literary device for presenting creation in an ordered fashion and as providing a basis in creation for the Sabbath. They need not be days in history.
​

If the basis for the Sabbath is false, then what authority is there for the Sabbath? God would then be lying because he says specifically in Exodus 20:11 that since I worked for six days, then so to shall you. In other words, the very fact that God worked for six literal days and rested on the seventh is the whole justification for Him commanding mankind to do the same! If God worked for millions of years and rested for a few million years, then He is lying by saying that He worked for six.

What is the basis for this assertion? It makes no sense to me. If this were true, we could not understand the point of Jesus' parables.
​

What I believe the author was saying, is when can you trust the Bible if you believe that parts of the Bible is just symbolic stories? How do you when a story is a symbol or metaphorical and when the author is actually trying to convey truth? How do you know what the Bible means if the basic in-context interpretation of Scripture may not be literal and historical? It's just like approaching a stop sign and wondering what it means!

It is actually very logical. The only reason why you do not understand is because your religious faith in evolution has literally blinded you, just as the Jews are blinded in realising Jesus is the Messiah. Your view of the Bible and what you think it means has exactly the same effect on your understanding of Scripture (with regard to Genesis and its consequences and Scriptural authority) as it does with the Jews (who believed so much that the Messiah would destroy the Romans and free Israel, rather than becoming the Lamb of God to take away our sins).

Actually, those points brought up by CMI are very reliable and not PRATTS as you falsely assert. If they are, then please give an example of where they are wrong.

Let's see what is going on here with your disagreement about the creationist arguments.

We both have the same evidence. Right? That is, we both have the same rocks, the same stars, the same fossils, and so on. We also both use the same science. Would you not concur? That is, we both use physics, geology, biology, chemistry, and the principles there in. So, the logical question must be asked: Why do creationists and evolutionists reach totally different conclusions? If we both use the same science and both have the same physical evidence and observations, why do we reach different conclusions? Obviously, since both of the above are the same, there must be a third varrible in this equation. Any ideas on what that is?

That third varrible is the scientist's underlying presuppositional beliefs, that is, what the scientist initially believes to be true. If one looks at the evidence from a Bible-believing position, then they will interpret the physical data and the results through a creationary world view and so will reach a creationary conclusion. The same is true for the evolutionist who has already rejected the Bible-believing position. They will look at the evidence from an unbelieving point of view and interpret it through that world view and ultimately come to an evolutionary conclusion.

At least you would know why non-YECsists consider them shaky if not downright false, and why they are unconvincing to those not already religiously committed to a young-earth POV.
​

Actually, you really have no idea on the nature of the evidence and of science, do you? Firstly, you assert that the evidence "proves" a particular position (which is literally impossible, because the evidence itself has no voice and cannot imply anything - even Stephen Jay Gould recognizes this).

Secondly, you also assume that evolutionists do not have any presupposition or underlying beliefs, which is once again false as shown above.

Thirdly, they are only unconvincing to you [evolutionists] because your underlying belief system tells you that the earth is not young and that anything which challenges your view is "lies." This is not an example of an open-minded person.

Fourthly, you give me a link to an evolutionary website (with a clear subjective bias) who is known to distort the facts to favour their religious belief in evolution, for example, they falsely assert that 3rd stage SNRs (Super Nova Remnants) exist in this galaxy, while observational evidence declares that not one has been observed. Such is their devotion to evolution that even facts that clearly contradict the belief must be made to fit their underlying belief in evolution - we call this "assimilation" - or trying to fit square pegs in round holes.

I'm sorry, but I can't trust any information from Talk Origins, not because I think their interpretation of the evidence is wrong, but because of how they lied in that example - by saying that there were observed third stage SNRs when observation informs us that there is none. Besides that, hardly any of their staff have any Ph.Ds in the fields to which they report about. At least, they didn't the last time I was there. I might as well get information from Wikipedia then...

Anyway, gtg.

 

[shinbits]

Deut 5:12 Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you.
13 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; ...
15 You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.

Moses had no problem using figurative description of God's actions to illustrate the Sabbath command.

The "figurative" description is a poetic way of recounting a litteral event; the crossing of the Red Sea.

That would be Psalm 104:6-9. This is a description of the creation. The Psalm follows the pattern of the creation days in Genesis, though it doesn't seem to pick up on them being 24 hour days, in fact it seems to read them as a framework describing different aspect of creation rather than a timetable.

there's nothing to back up what you've said about this.

What is really interesting is that the verses you quote match up with Gen 1:2-9 when the deep covered the earth and God created land. The thing is, this contradicts the idea of a global flood later on in Genesis, because it was during the creation

God said that after six day creation, AFTER the flood; God never said He'd never flood the earth before then.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If the basis for the Sabbath is false, then what authority is there for the Sabbath? God would then be lying because he says specifically in Exodus 20:11 that since I worked for six days, then so to shall you. In other words, the very fact that God worked for six literal days and rested on the seventh is the whole justification for Him commanding mankind to do the same! If God worked for millions of years and rested for a few million years, then He is lying by saying that He worked for six.

The authority for the Sabbath is the declaration of God as to the meaning of the Creation Week. Your modern notions of historicism so color your interpretation that you can not see meaning or truthfulness if the event did not happen in our time precisely and exactly in a scientific and evidential manner. God declared the Sabbath, He declared it as a pattern. It is a pattern in time exactly analogous to how the universe reflects the heavens, as the temple reflects the heavenly temple, as the earth is God's footstool, as man is the very image of God. They are all metaphors, human accommodations for divine meaning and significance. They are true because God declared them to be true, they are not true because there is a divine temple in heaven, a throne for God to sit on, a footstool shaped like the planet earth. They are anthropomorphisms that exists because we are unable to visualize or see the heavens or its contents directly. We see them by analogy to the things of this earth.

YECists are trying to give physical substance to spiritual issues like the Sabbath and Creation Week. God is telling us the meaning and significance of the events, He is giving us a great analogy. The analogy is anchoring in the treaties of kings in the ancient middle east. It reaches a climax in the experience of the Israelities at Mt Sinai, the echoes of that event, the Treaty of the Great King are the covenants of God with a string of representives from Adam to Jesus, culminating in the only one who could keep the bargain-Jesus.

We demythologize many things in our culture, the one place that seems resistant to this process is politics. As my father's generation, the greatest generation dies off, many of these myths are repeated for the benefit of those generations that followed that did not experience those events.

From the flag raising on Mt. Suribachi in Iwo Jima, to "nuts" at the Battle of the Bulge, the history of events is completely mixed up with the mythological meaning of those events. It is the meaning that is most important, the actual historical basis of the events is secondary and often conflicts with the mythological importance that people wish to attach to those events.

Mt. Suribachi was staged, it was a PR event, designed to increase morale and inspire the homefront. Did they fight to the top of the hill? did it represent the completion of the battle, that is the implication, the highest point was in American hands. No, those are historically inaccurate, but mythologically important.

Our culture is so sure that mythos is inferior to logos as a way of communicating meaning and significance that we degradate everything that is mythos and word all of our modern myths in terms of logos. For only in logos can a modern historicism and scientism culture believe that it has found truthfulness.

YECists are a modern movement, doing the same thing with the first chapter of Genesis, rewriting the mythological meaning of the chapter in terms of history and science. This whole issue of no death before the fall is exactly this, the rewriting of Genesis in terms of modern myths, but always anchoring it in the current powers of history and science. IN order to make it believable, to make it persuasive to modern minds.

OUr movies do it, our fiction does it with the genre of historical fiction, our politics does it.
but when you impose this on Genesis you are losing the crucial elements of meaning that God assigns and teaches us concerning the text. This is the great error of YECism, by rewriting the meaning of Gen 1 in historical an d scientific terms they are contrary to the significance spelled out in the Scriptures itself.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Do you have any problem in defining what each term "day" means?

absolutely, i started a thread here that has never been answered, the division of light from darkness can be in time or in space. Which one is it? is the word "yom" in Gen 1:5, meaning daylight, mean that the ancient Israelites thought that the whole universe was light? or was light/dark rotates so 1/2 of the universe was dark and 1/2 daylight?
I don't know, but i know it is a modern minds questions, not one shaped by ANE ideas. We desire to know how much, how fast, mechanisms etc. This shapes our cultures, and our minds, we look at mechanism before we look at meaning. How something works interests us as a culture far more than who uses it, for what purposes, towards what goals. The how is subjected to the why. This is technological society, technological man, it is the kind of questions our culture has been asking for nearly 400 years, successfully. They are however not the only, nor probably the most important questions to ask.

 

[shernren]

The whole problem with debates like this is that everybody comes in with a worldview package (mapping history to significance) which they aren't even aware of, then assume that they disagree on facts because they disagree on the implications of facts. The cure is to take things slowly, catch important diagnostic terms, and uncover what worldviews are being used to reach the interpretations being reached. Here's a classic:

How do you know when a story is a symbol or metaphorical and when the author is actually trying to convey truth?

We'll start with this, Everyday, and work slowly through your worldview to help you understand it. (Most of the time YECs aren't even aware of what they believe: when they encounter it for the first time it looks so much like the enemy!)

How do you know that an author isn't trying to convey truth when s/he uses symbol or metaphor? Are all symbols and metaphors lies? Are Jesus' symbols and metaphors lies?

 

[shernren]

We demythologize many things in our culture, the one place that seems resistant to this process is politics. As my father's generation, the greatest generation dies off, many of these myths are repeated for the benefit of those generations that followed that did not experience those events.

Another place is science - and before some smart-aleck says "Yeah, Darwinism is a myth" I'm not referring to those, I'm referring to the deeper scientific myth of sudden genius. We have all sorts of stories about how geniuses found the theories named after them, like Archimedes' "Eureka!" or Newton and his apple ("thank God Newton wasn't a Malaysian or it would've been a coconut on his head ... "), Galileo dropping weights from the Leaning Tower, Fermi dropping paper shreds to measure the blast of the first atomic bomb. Even with Darwin, the idea that his Galapagos trip immediately led to evolution isn't very true: it took a long time and some other pushes for him to reach it (reference book isn't with me right now, so can't confirm for sure).

I think the mythology of science is a very strong and complex example of how mythos and logos come together. We know about Darwin's Beagle trip and that Galileo never actually dropped those weights; we can be quite sure that Newton never directly credited his apple for the theory of gravity, on the other hand we know that Archimedes' "Eureka!" and Fermi's papers were "for real". And yet the ideas behind them are very muddled. We know that despite the apple being largely apocryphal, Newton really was a superlative genius who singlehandedly invented calculus; while Galileo had disagreements with Aristotle, he never got around to modern mechanics; Archimedes was even farther from any notion of weight as force; and the inter-relationships of the inventors of the atom bomb are really complex. There is no clear "myth - falsehood" or "history - truth" link here; even if Newton never really got bonked by an apple, the episode succinctly captures his genius.

And seriously, how many of us haven't been captivated with the picture of Newton sitting under an apple tree and suddenly have the brilliant idea of gravity knock him on the head?

========================================

The whole DVC furor quite amply demonstrates one interesting feature of the YEC mindset (and fundamentalist in general), their monolithic approach towards the historicity of the Scriptures. Quite frankly the whole controversy over DVC seems to me like a storm in a thimble. If one steps back and thinks, the obvious question is:

What difference does it make if Jesus fathered a bloodline, to the message of His Incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection?

Not much, really - unless one has the mindset that if the Gospels don't tell us about Jesus' marriage they haven't really told us anything about Him. In other words, a monolithic view of the Gospels' historicity considers an attack on one part of the Gospels (the absence of mention of Jesus' marriage) an attack on the whole Gospels.

And 90% of the time, this idea of monolithicity is just a manifestation of an underlying Quranic mindset regarding the Bible's revelation and purpose in Christianity.

[I understand that some of the other ideas, especially the censoring of other Gospels in the canonization process, are indeed very offensive to Christianity. But I just don't find it true of the book's main premise.]

 

[Assyrian]

The "figurative" description is a poetic way of recounting a litteral event; the crossing of the Red Sea.

Exactly, just like the six days is a figurative way of recounting a literal event the creation. Like the 'mighty hand and outstretched arm' description in Deuteronomy, the Sabbath command in Exodus is wrapped in an anthropomorphic metaphor describing God as a weary labourer resting after six days toil and being refreshed.

Exodus 20:11 for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign for ever 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.

God does not get weary, he is not refreshed after a rest. It is a metaphor. Which means the only time the bible actually says God created the world in six days, it is part of an anthropomorphic metaphor.

Look up 'refreshed'. It is used to describe people recovering from exhaustion, getting their breath back, after fleeing an enemy 2Sam 16:14 or of the most vulnerable workers, children, animals, foreigners, in need of refreshing after six days labour Exodus 23:12.

When God describes his rest, he identifies with the weakest in society, the child of a servant girl, exhausted and desperately in need of a rest and time to be refreshed. But God doesn't really get tired.

there's nothing to back up what you've said about this.

Read through Psalm 104 and compare the topics with Gen 1. Psalm 104 starts with the creation of the world and continues on through water covering the earth, land appearing, God making grass, plants and trees grow, making the sun and moon to mark seasons, the seas teem with fish great and small. Now the Psalmist doesn't take the YEC six literal sequential day view, and has man (literally adam) and animals appearing through the Psalm enjoying the benefits that God creates. The reference to days 1-5 form a clear sequence that matches the order in Gen 1 and seems to be used by the Psalmist as a framework to discuss creation. The Psalmist places the boundaries God set for the waters back in Gen 1:2-9, when the deep covered the earth and God formed the land. This was after the foundations of the earth was laid and before God gave the earth plants, or any mention of men and animals in the Psalm.

Feel free to disagree with the framework interpretation, but the pattern from Genesis 1 is very clear.

God said that after six day creation, AFTER the flood; God never said He'd never flood the earth before then.

Well Psalm 104 places it during the creation as does Job 38 and Prov 8, and the only way that can mesh with the Noah's flood, is if the flood was only local rather than the whole world being covered with water which God promised wouldn't happen.
Assyrian