Jimm,

While I'm not infuriated at you, I still disagree with you and will very briefly(since it's my bedtime :knockedout:) answer your first point and the first proposition of your second point.

_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

_________________
Ron Bailey

Hello again

Perhaps I should have defined what I meant when I said “solar day”, as the dictionary puts it:

1. Of or pertaining to the sun; proceeding from the sun; as, the solar system; solar light; solar rays; solar influence.
2. (Astrol.) Born under the predominant influence of the sun. [Obs.]
3. Measured by the progress or revolution of the sun in the ecliptic; as, the solar year.
4. Produced by the action of the sun, or peculiarly affected by its influence.
5. 2. The period of the earth's revolution on its axis. -- ordinarily divided into twenty-four hours. It is measured by the interval between two successive transits of a celestial body over the same meridian, and takes a specific name from that of the body. Thus, if this is the sun, the day (the interval between two successive transits of the sun's center over the same meridian) is called a solar day; if it is a star, a sidereal day; if it is the moon, a lunar day.

Hence, if there is no sun, there is no solar day. And to clarify I am not the person who came up with the term solar day in this discussion, but since someone coined the term to support a 24 hour day I have resorted to this technicality.

Since the format of this thread is already technical, I will continue with another technical allegory. In grandma’s day, skirts were long. Does this really imply that skirts were long for 24 hours? Now I tell you the truth, my grandma would not lie about something like that; we must therefore assume that her statement was absolute. To paraphrase one of my contemporaries in this debate, her statement is either absolute or obsolete. Yes, okay I am being far too literal; forgive me if I have insulted your intelligence with this juvenile word play. I think you can see where I am going with this, my next point; a day does not always refer to a 24-hour period. We all know this fact and so quoting the dictionary would be very facetious. The absolute statements of Genesis are read, and since the only concept of a day we have is 24-hours we cannot look past this “fact”. “Facts” or laws of science do not bind God. He could have indeed, for his own purposes made the days 24 hours long, but he did not have to. In the story of creation, a day could have been seconds (as we understand them) or thousands of years. (2 Peter3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.) The bottom line is that each day was a period of time, which had a definite end and beginning (morning and evening).

_________________
James Gabriel Gondai Dziya

[b]Jimm:[/b]

I can quite follow what you are saying, so do not worry about being the only one on your side of the fence.

I am presently inclined towards two different interpretations: one is the form of Gap Theory espoused by [b]Philologos[/b] (a form popularised by CI Scofield in his [i]Scofield Reference Bible.) -- there is a "gap" between v.1 and v.2. [/i] The other view is to emphasise that the narrative is not a scientific description of the [i]process[/i] of creation but a literary statement of the theological [i]significance[/i] of creation (the form described in my earlier post quoting Rikki Watts), somewhat similar to your view.

But as I said before, I am quite open-minded on this issue. I am more interested in having an interpretation that is consistent with the overall message of the [b]50 chapters[/b] of [i]Genesis[/i]. Christians have spent too much time arguing about the first two chapters, and seem to have forgotten that the author have used them as the prelude to the following narratives!


[b]Hulsey:[/b]

[b]First,[/b] The "Timothy Test" is definitely commendable. However, the problem is whether Christians could agree on a "plain reading" of [i]Genesis 1[/i]. We must not forget that "Timothy" (a reader of the Bible in ancient times) would have a completely different [b]worldview[/b] -- his culture, literature, values would all be very different from the modern reader. From this perspective, it is not all that "plain" that "Timothy" would understand "history" at a level of detail the same way as we do.

The whole problem is everyone tends to think they have got the "plain reading". The question is by what criteria do we determine what the original reader would have understood what the original author had meant. Rikki Watts quoted in my previous post obviously do not find your reading all that "plain."

[b]Second,[/b] I find your following statement overly simplistic: [i]"The genre of Genesis 1-11 is history, not poetry and should be read as such."[/i] You are right that the genre is the key to understand a passage, because it is virtually a reading contract between the author and reader. We understand poetic statements differently from historical statements.

However, the precise problem is that the genre of [i]Genesis 1[/i] is not all that clear. On the one hand, it does not have the typical Hebrew parallelisms and literary structure of Hebrew poetry. On the other hand, the repetitive formulae and the literary structure evident from the correspondence between days 1 and 4, days 2 and 5, and days 3 and 6 (see Watts), indicate strong [i]poetic elements and qualities[/i].

Another aspect we have to consider is that [b]language of accommodation[/b] quite possibly have been used here. When it comes to matters of creation, it is quite reasonable to assume that it is ultimately beyond our understanding. Hence, God could be speaking in simplistic terms that we are capable of understanding in order to [b]accommodate[/b] our limitations. When it comes to things of God, we are more like babies; God quite possibly have resorted to a kind of [b]"baby-talk".[/b] When your 3-year-old asked you where babies come from, telling him about sperm, ovary, placenta, uterus, etc. certainly seems a little too much.

All I have said thus far is that there are possibilities outside of a literal understanding of the six-days. Of course, it could well be that "yom" really is a 24-hour day. I guess we will find out when we see the Lord; but at present, I find myself open to various possibilities that all seem to make sense to me, and they do not appear to compromise the fundamental Christian faith in God and his written revelation.

In the mean time, I do suggest that Christians spend more time contemplating on the [b][i]spiritual significance[/i][/b] of creation in the whole book of Genesis as well as in the whole Bible.

_________________
Sam

Hie guys


Thank you very much 001! If you read, my original thread you will note that I was implying the spiritual significance of Genesis to be far more important but I do not think anyone even gave that a second look, and dismissed it as being invalid. In short, we know that the Word (Jesus) is God (from John1) and John spoke of the story of creation as including the Word. Jesus said some very interesting spiritual statements about “day” in the book of John.

John 9:4I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. (Creation also took place during the day)

In the next verse, just after he has spoken of day and night 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. (This is an opinion, but it seems as if to walk in him is to walk, in the spiritual light or perhaps, spiritual day. Is spiritual day 24-hours long?)

11:9Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. (It would be silly for us to think of this as “day time” as we know it. Jesus was referring to spiritual day)

To end, I am not the one who said, "The genre of Genesis 1-11 is history, not poetry and should be read as such.” I find the statements you mad about days 1 and 4, days 2 and 5, and days 3 and 6 interesting.

Lastly, the point about the language of accommodation could not have been put any better. That is what I was trying to infer when I began to babble on about scientific theories. Our understanding of time is just scratching the surface reality (the spiritual world). Like it or not our understanding of time is a scientific one. I could write a long-winded explanation of how the 24-hour system was put in place, but honestly, what would be the point? In my opinion, it would be to try to show that there is nothing at all significant about the 24-hour day. Other planets have longer days and short days, all characterized with a morning and evening (all planets in this solar system are solar days). Sometimes I think that God put other planets in the solar system to tease us and show us that we are not the center off the universe. Without God (The creator of the universe and of life) on this planet, there is nothing spectacular about earth and our sacred 24-hour day. I will end there for now before I step on anyone’s toes!

Your son in Christ

James

_________________
James Gabriel Gondai Dziya

Philo,

My sarcasm was meant for comedy and not for offense I hope therefore that no one was offended.

Jimm, 001

I'll give you that a "solar day" requires a sun, but a "day" in this context requires light, darkness, and a revolving earth. All three are present on day one. Therefore 24hr days going by are possible before day 4.

Yes I'll completely agree with the different uses and meanings of day because that forces us to look at the context, for it's context that determines the meaning of a word and not its semantic range or possible meanings, and the context here is on my side. I wouldn't argue that there must be water pouring from the ground just because someone said, "It's spring outside," arguing that because spring [i]can[/i] mean a source of water coming from the ground. I would know from the context that spring here means a season. Just because it can be used with different meanings doesn't mean all those meanings apply to the context. The context gives it only one possible meaning, and that is a season of the year.

The same is true of day(yom) in Genesis. The context will give away its meaning.

_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

Philo,

I would certainly say there is some trepedation in taking you on when it comes to scripture :-o . I too share your love for the word of God and hold my highest allegiance to it and the defense of it. But all you need for a difference of opinion is two people and enough time ;-) . While we share a difference of opinion, I consider this issue not a test for orthodoxy also, there is much room for charity while at the same time holding strongly to my interpretation of six literal days. :-D

_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

Hulsey,

_________________
Sam

Beloved,

I see this issue boiling down to two basic questions:

1) Do you believe that YHWH is and was and is to come Elohyim enough to have done this in 6- 24 hour days as we know them?

2) Is the purpose of the gap theory to explain the phenomena we find under our feet? (fossil record)

Question 1:

Is it possible to ascribe to God having done something greater than He is capable of doing? If God is who He claims to be and does what He claims to do- it would be a light thing for Him to have created the cosmos in 6- 24 hour days. I have taught these issues and have told my classes that as far as I'm concerned if God was not able to create this world in its raw form in 6- 24 hour days- how could He possibly hear the prayers of 6 billion people if they all prayed at once and yet maintained His infinitely intricate purposes all at the same time? It seems to me that creating this earth was not near the greatness as tending it day in and day out- and yet dealing with all that the enemy is doing in the heavenlies since the fall? He is even as we speak upholging all things by the word of His power- meaning that this place has to be constantly tended or everything would get out of whack. Our God claims to know all things from the beginning and gives angels names that are beyond our comprehension. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without Him seeing and He knoweth ALL things. That means He knows everything that is to be known- past, present, and future. His ways are past finding out.

Again- I fear we have to deal with the pillaging of God's word in the hands of Greek logic. Whenever things don't add up there has to be something wrong with God's word. Could it not be us? No, there is something wrong with our model of thinking. It is far to narrow to be able to handle the plurality of God's Majesty and greatness. Our finite minds are God's creation and we as a people have yet to discover the depths of our own brains.

The Hebrew pictures of the earth being void, etc. has been described to me from a Hebrew point of view in classes at the institute. It is a picture of an dove, eagle, or like bird brooding over its nest. The Spirit of God was brooding over the earth.

Question 2:

I believe the primordial canopy position. Without going into it- it makes the most sense of all in my studies by far.

God Bless,

-Robert

_________________
Robert Wurtz II

Hi again everyone

001 is expressing things far more efficiently than I am; I am tempted to let him alone in the defense of the nature of the language of Genesis.

I think the author of Hebrews (in Hebrews11) said it best when he said, “through faith we understand that the world was formed by the word of God, so that things which are, were not made by things which do appear”. At least we all agree that God made the world. Genesis is not really a historical account because there is far too much data missing. The human brain extrapolates all the information it meets and relates it to memories. In the same way, we see the word “day” and we subconsciously extrapolate 24hours. It is the only logical as far as our brains are concerned. Our sight works in the same way. Sometimes we see something and we cannot tell what it is, not because we are not looking closely enough, or because our eyes have misinterpreted the nature of the light, they are receiving. It is because the brain may have attempted to extrapolate an image with an inappropriate memory. Fortunately, we are able to recognize this most of the time, so if you see a car and you are looking into a forest you might squint your eyes and then you see that it really a tree. It is not the squinting that helps you “see”, rather the fact that your brain has re-extrapolated the information.

I read Mr. Husley’s argument in his response to “perhaps the earth was flat” and I must say that the logic was very impressive. I could not help but smile as I read the next thread to do with proficient use of idiomatic expressions. The logic was simply flawless Sir! Therein however, lies what I (in my own opinion) perceive to be the fallacy of your argument. Of you negate the spiritual aspect of the story of creation and equate it to logic you must continue in logic.

In the beginning, the earth was “formless and empty”. I suppose it is not irrational to assume that this formless empty object was rotating with a period of 24hours, about the…oh yes of course, the sun does not exist yet.

Continuing with logic, we must note that a light was created to accommodate day and night. There is no evidence in this “historical” and “literal” account, that this light was subsequently destroyed. If this light was sufficient to create 24-hour day why then was a sun created? Furthermore, if this “literal”, “physical” light is still in existence where is it now? It would be the best piece of evidence (as far as I am concerned) for this discussion.

While on the point of the light, we must also note that that day and night was measure by the initial light. When the sun was created, day and night, as we know it came it existence. Was this the definition of day and night that was used in the previous three days or did the definition change, when the sun came into existence. You may say that it makes no difference, morning and evening is morning and evening right? If it does in fact make no difference then, the creation of the sun was pointless.

If you read the thread in the lounge, “Science vs. God”, you will also read that there is no such thing as cold, only lack of heat. Since this “literal”, “historical” account gives no evidence to suggest that a source of heat was not created. As we know, without heat, water turns to ice, and at absolute zero (the coldest temperature possible) plant life would freeze in seconds.

I could go on, but this thread is long enough as it is. My point is, God is not bound by what we call “logic”. (2 Peter3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.) I believe God was capabel of creatin the wold in less than 24hours (as we know them).One real problem is that our perception of time is far too limited to accept this

Your son in Christ
James

_________________
James Gabriel Gondai Dziya