Genesis story of creation "Days" literal or not?

Well.... this will make several mad at me.... and I'm violation one of my BIG rules to myself.... but....


1. IMO, there are TWO "creation affirmations" and they don't at all jibe.

2. Both are inerrant. Both are to be taken literally.

3. We should NOT impose OUR worldview and assumptions upon these two affirmations. WE have enormous assumptions which we've have because we embrace modern concepts of science as simply reality.

4. IMO, I doubt the ISSUE of either of these is the PHYSICS of HOW God created our planet, other than to say "God did it, ours is the CREATOR God rather than a tribal "god" as we see in other lands.... our God is not a part of creation but outside and before Creation." I think the first celebration is also meant to convey the morality of Saturday as a day of rest. I do NOT think it appropriate to impose on those 4,000 years ago of OUR current 21st. century concepts of astrophysics, biology, etc. - such was NOWHERE on their radar,and woudn't be for over 3500 years.

5. I see the Bible as material about GOD and our relationship to God (and ergo to creation and to others), material about the nature of God, the will and heart of God. While some of it is history (ancients DID have a concept of history - although not exactly as ours) and some is geographic, and some SEEMS to us to be "science" - we need to view this from the perspective of the original audience and not impose OUR thoughts, assumptions. Many of the Psalms also include celebrations of God as Creator; there's a psalm that says God "KNIT" (it's a sewing term) us together in our mother's womb. I think what is being conveyed is that our origin is in God, we are here because of the will and work of God; I don't think we need to impose OUR thoughts and insist God has knitting needles and goes in there and this has NOTHING to do with biology; no, today WE (because we assume modern science as it exists at this moment) think biology. But is that verse trying to contradict thoughts that wouldn't exist for 3500 years (hey, they knew about the birds and bees then, too)? No. It's celebrating God as Creator - a common theme in the NT.

6. I'm NOT saying to take the celebrations "figuratively" , I'm NOT saying they are wrong in ANY sense, I'm simply saying to avoid eisegesis - imposing OUR ways of thinking upon Scripture.

7. There are a lot of Scriptures that can be (and have been) used to support that the Earth is small, flat and square. Actually, I think that can be supported more strongly than a 6 day Creation. Why do most today reject that view? NOT because the words don't actually state that but because most argue that that's not the context or point of those verses.... they aren't about astrophysics or geology (science) in spite of the language of such, they are about God and His relationship to us. Hum. Another tidbid.... people read "earth" in the OT and IMMEDIATELY capitolize it and think a planet. The Hebrew word just means dirt or soil. But while the word can have that meaning even in modern English, that's now how most modern readers take it' we impose a concept of planets and the name we now have for this one.... and end up with eisegesis, imposing a view upon the text. I think we need to approach Scripture with a lot of humility, and try (as much as possible) to "check" our assumptions, our worldview at the door. It's EXegesis, not EISegesis, to take from not to put into.


Conservative Christians tend to disagree with me..... and that's okay.


I have a RULE placed on myself to NOT ever permit myself to address science and religion issues..... I'll return to my previous wisdom of being quiet.


A blessed lenten season to all....


- Josiah

double post...

For some reason, when I click on "submit" I don't get an indication that it's been uploaded but a window asking me if I want to stay on the page or leave. I click on leave and discover it DID post my response... TWICE. Very odd.

jsimms435 said:

Genesis tells the story of creation as happening in days according to Genesis 1. God created light and separated light from darkenss on day one. On day two God separated the waters from above "heaven" to that below. The third day dry land appeared and the earth started to bear vegetation and plants. On day four, God made the stars, moon and sun. On day five he created birds and sea animals. On day six, he created animals and mankind. Then God blessed the seventh day Genesis 2:2 and rested.

At the conclusion of each day recorded it says, "there was evening and there was morning". I'm not sure why evening is noted first. Nor is it clear to me how the day was distinguished when for the first 3.5 days there was no sun, moon or stars.

So, is your understanding of this story that these are literal 24 hour days? Why or why not? Should we take this story literally?


Remember to try and be civil while discussing this please, pretty please with sugar on top.

Click to expand...

If a day is a thousand years with the LORD, then a day can't be a 24 hour period. And if a thousand years is like a day to the LORD then that conveys the eternal nature of GOD, and also shows that a day to GOD as written in Genesis is in no way a day as we know it, but seems to convey a period or stage to me. Some writings consider the day to reference a billion years.

peace

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

I am what you might call an "Old earth creationist". I've not done extensive studying, but I believe that fossil records, some evidence of warming and cooling periods/ice ages, and geological records point to it. Plus, the conjecture of Dinosaurs on the Ark is a laughable concept. I was a dinosaur freak when I was a kid, and I still accept their existence millions of years ago. However, I do accept the literal existence of Adam and Eve, and accept that we are ~ 6,000 years beyond the creation of Adam.

Genesis was written 2500-3000 years ago by priests who were largely mimicking Mesopotamian law and literature. I don't think the intent of their rather unique creation myth was to engineer an elaborate symbolic allegory to the extent that people have tried to harmonize it with science. It needs to be understood as a fictional story written by people who didn't know how the world was really made. Just as pro-genocide, pro-slavery, pro-patriarchy verses need to be overlooked as a product of the primitive people that authored them. If this goes against beliefs about divine authorship then perhaps those beliefs need to also become more flexible and realistic and factor in the impact of historical context and the agency of the authors involved.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

jsimms435 said:

Genesis tells the story of creation as happening in days according to Genesis 1. God created light and separated light from darkenss on day one. On day two God separated the waters from above "heaven" to that below. The third day dry land appeared and the earth started to bear vegetation and plants. On day four, God made the stars, moon and sun. On day five he created birds and sea animals. On day six, he created animals and mankind. Then God blessed the seventh day Genesis 2:2 and rested.

At the conclusion of each day recorded it says, "there was evening and there was morning". I'm not sure why evening is noted first.

Click to expand...

Because Darkness precedes light in the Creation narrative. Evening marks both the end and the beginning of the new period of darkness and light. A modern Jew as well as a 7th day Sabbath keeper (what they consider the Sabbath, anyway) will also observe their set aside day beginning with the evening period, and lasting until the next evening period.

jsimms435 said:

Nor is it clear to me how the day was distinguished when for the first 3.5 days there was no sun, moon or stars.

Click to expand...

By light and darkness. Genesis is clear that there is light before the creation of the heavenly bodies: Sun, Moon, Stars. It's actually quite unique in that it is obviously not something that either we, nor the author of Genesis would personally observe. If I were to author a book on the Creation of the world, I certainly wouldn't start it this way, because it's outside everyone's observational experience. Yet, it is there, defying it. Most notable.

jsimms435 said:

So, is your understanding of this story that these are literal 24 hour days? Why or why not? Should we take this story literally?

Click to expand...

I take it literally and believe that it is true, approximately 24 hour days consisting of a night and daylight period.

Many people do not believe this, because they are trying to marry evolution accounts and garbage about our world taken as "established fact", that quite simply isn't. For example, the moon does NOT reflect the sun's light. Not only is this affirmed in the Bible, it is also observable to anyone who can see both the moon and the sun in the sky at the same time, honestly appraising both the angles involved, and also the fact that the "dark" or unrepresented portion of the moon is not dark at all, but getting the same amount of light as the area of sky around it.

It is actually irrelevant. People make much fuss about the similarities of Genesis to other Creation Stories in existence at that time. That is not an accident. A careful study of the differences will reveal that all other creation stories share certain common features and assumptions that Genesis clearly and unambiguously declares to be utterly false. Just one example, all other creation myths begin with a story about how the gods (multiple) all came into being ... Genesis 1:1 begins with the declaration and apriori assumption that there is only one God and he has no beginning, he was just there. Genesis is first and foremost a polemic refuting all other creation stories of the time and declaring God the one true God (with the implication that all other pantheons must be false).

So one day or 5 billion years misses the point of Genesis ... God spoke reality into existence by the power of his will. That is WHO GOD IS.
[Now personally, I can't really explain away things like dinosaurs and the Ark ... but the Bible has been right about so many things that I am not willing to bet against it. So I lean towards 6 literal 24-hour days.]

I see no reason to doubt that the days are intended literally. The wording "evening and morning" seems to make the intent pretty clear. Of course creation wasn't actually done in 6 days, but trying to interpret Gen 1 in some weird way so it can sort of agree with science seems like a losing battle.

I also believe in the gap theory.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

The sun wasn't created until day four. How can we say a day is 24 hours in days 1-3? I have no problem with creation days being longer than 24 hours.

jsimms435 said:

I'm surprised to hear your okay with the creation days being longer than 24 hours as literal as you usually interpret things. I have no idea how a day was determined on days 1-3, but then it hardly really matters since nobody was there except God.

Click to expand...

There was literally no sun for the first three days. On day one the earth was formless. How do we say the day was 24 hours long?
As mentioned, God didn't need any time at all, but we have a recorded sequence of events.

MennoSota said:

There was literally no sun for the first three days. On day one the earth was formless. How do we say the day was 24 hours long?
As mentioned, God didn't need any time at all, but we have a recorded sequence of events.

Click to expand...

That might stand on it's own but for a verse like this: Exodus 20:10-11 where God makes a direct comparison to the days of a normal week to the days of Creation. In other words, if the Hebrews were to understand that no sun, moon stars for the first 3 days meant no definite time period, then they would have correctly questioned what God meant by "6 working days" and a rest day - because on the latter understanding it could literally mean anything.