In the Beginning....

[Revmitchell]

All through Scripture, when God reveals something (especially something profound) through direct revelation, He does so with great symbolism. Think about Daniel's prophecies of future historical events, the end times in Revelations, etc.

That does not constitute "all through scripture". Quite the exaggeration.

This is consistent with God's statement in Num 12:6 than when He speaks through His prophets, he does so in "dark sayings". At least generally.

Neither did he say this in the context you have placed it. I would encourage you to read the next two verses.

The creation account had to have been given to humans through revelation. Reading the rest of prophecy in the Bible, especially of cosmic events, doesn't one have to make an exception to take the creation account literally?

No, you have overstated the symbolic in scripture and neither the wording nor the context in the creation account allows for the symbolism you are trying to impose on this.

 

[sag38]

What in Scripture states that the creation account is to be taken literally?

First, you are asking the wrong question. The question is, where does it say that it is allegory? I can answer that one. It doesn't!! Secondly, who are you to determine that is allegorical where there is no definitive indicator that it is?

 

[Mexdeaf]

What in Scripture states that the creation account is to be taken literally?

First, you are asking the wrong question. The question is, where does it say that it is allegory? I can answer that one. It doesn't!! Secondly, who are you to determine that is allegorical where there is no definitive indicator that it is?

This is where the "rubber hits the road".

 

[Luke2427]

What in Scripture states that the creation account is to be taken literally?

First, you are asking the wrong question. The question is, where does it say that it is allegory? I can answer that one. It doesn't!! Secondly, who are you to determine that is allegorical where there is no definitive indicator that it is?

It never announces- "Hey this is allegory!" yet in many many places it is.

Regardless, the word "day" means other things even when not allegorically such as: In Columbus' DAY many Christians still believed the world was flat because they forced their traditional view on the Scriptures.

Or, "In Galileo's DAY many Christians gave the church a black eye by ignorantly claiming that the Scripture demands a geocentric galaxy."

Or, "In our DAY many Christians are hindering our ability to reach thinking people because they make claims that go against what appear to be clear scientific facts."

 

[Mexdeaf]

Or "I never thought there would come a day when Christians would doubt that God meant a literal 24-hour period of time when he said 'day'."

Obviously God meant "billions of years" but Moses didn't have the language to say it.

 

[annsni]

It never announces- "Hey this is allegory!" yet in many many places it is.

Regardless, the word "day" means other things even when not allegorically such as: In Columbus' DAY many Christians still believed the world was flat because they forced their traditional view on the Scriptures.

Or, "In Galileo's DAY many Christians gave the church a black eye by ignorantly claiming that the Scripture demands a geocentric galaxy."

Or, "In our DAY many Christians are hindering our ability to reach thinking people because they make claims that go against what appear to be clear scientific facts."

However, Scripture is clear:

"there was evening and there was morning, the first day"
"there was evening and there was morning, the second day"
"there was evening and there was morning, the third day"
"there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day"
"there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day"
"there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day"
"on the seventh day, God rested"

When there is an ordinal number, it means a literal 24 hour day. We're not speaking about "age" or "a holiday" or something like that but the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh days. BIG difference.

 

[jimc06]

That does not constitute "all through scripture". Quite the exaggeration.

Yes, that was a broad statement. Can you give me an example from Scripture of where this statement does not apply, where it is an exaggeration? In other words, an example from the Bible of a profound even reavealed through direct revelation, that is not couched in symbolic terms? That would be helpful.

Neither did he say this in the context you have placed it. I would encourage you to read the next two verses.

Yes, the context does imply prophets in the nation at that time (is that what you meant?), but I was observing that the principle is consistent throughout Scripture. Again, some examples from Scripture, of my mistakes, would help clarify things.

What in Scripture states that the creation account is to be taken literally?

First, you are asking the wrong question. The question is, where does it say that it is allegory? I can answer that one. It doesn't!! Secondly, who are you to determine that is allegorical where there is no definitive indicator that it is?

I only know of one place in Scripture where we are told that something is allegorical, could you give some other examples? It seems that this is something God wants us to be discerning about. The only real unambiguous events are the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. Over and over, Scripture affirms the reality of those events, very directly and explicitly. (Ok, Paul does refer to the Exodus as having "happened", but I don't know of any others.)

So I don't think this is a bad question, given the content of the narrative, and comparing with other revelations. My point is that we need to have Biblical reasons for taking it either as literal or allegorical, neither science-based NOR literary-based.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, that was a broad statement. Can you give me an example from Scripture of where this statement does not apply, where it is an exaggeration? In other words, an example from the Bible of a profound even reavealed through direct revelation, that is not couched in symbolic terms? That would be helpful.

The first 11 chapters of Genesis.

Yes, the context does imply prophets in the nation at that time (is that what you meant?), but I was observing that the principle is consistent throughout Scripture. Again, some examples from Scripture, of my mistakes, would help clarify things.

I thought it was obvious but the very passage you used made my point.

 

[jimc06]

The first 11 chapters of Genesis.

Actually, I was asking for something that must have been given through revelation (like a future event). After creation, everything else could have been documented as eyewitness. It may have been revealed directly, but we don't know that from Scripture. (For example, Henry Morris, in his book "Biblical Creationism" give details of how the rest of Genesis could have been document by Adam, Noah, and Noah's sons.)

I thought it was obvious but the very passage you used made my point.

Sorry, I don't understand. Can you elaborate what your point is? Thanks.

 

[Rev Leistikow]

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
It is evidient and clear that when God tells us more than once we might aught to pay a lttle more attention.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Folks either the God and the Bible are absolutley correct or it is not. I don't have to believe that Gods word was inspired God word tells me so.

 

[Jedi Knight]

It never announces- "Hey this is allegory!" yet in many many places it is.

Regardless, the word "day" means other things because they forced their traditional view on the Scriptures.

"

The Bible is written to man and man knows what day means. Maybe ask a child too. Was Noah's Ark allegory?

 

[Darrenss1]

The Bible is written to man and man knows what day means. Maybe ask a child too. Was Noah's Ark allegory?

Out of curiousity do you even know the arguments for the old earth model? You are painting a picture of a position that is so obvious that a child could see it. This is what annoys me about the whole debate and why I choose to watch on and see how foolish it progresses.

For your interest here is an article highlighting the issues involved.
http://www.reasons.org/age-earth/bi...-old-earth-creationism-contradict-genesis-1-0

I suppose an ignorant person might like to email them and tell them that day means day and the bible is literal..etc Yeah, like they are THAT stupid?? All due respect, common sense....

Darren

 

[sag38]

Jim, you like to play games with the scripture to fit your world view. It's not you who defines the scriptures agenda. Rather, it should be the other way around. I wonder what other gymnastics you play with God's word twisting it to fit your idea of the way things should be? I'd hate to be in your shoes bearing the responsibility of redefining "Thus saith the Lord."

 

[annsni]

Out of curiousity do you even know the arguments for the old earth model? You are painting a picture of a position that is so obvious that a child could see it. This is what annoys me about the whole debate and why I choose to watch on and see how foolish it progresses.

For your interest here is an article highlighting the issues involved.
http://www.reasons.org/age-earth/bi...-old-earth-creationism-contradict-genesis-1-0

I suppose an ignorant person might like to email them and tell them that day means day and the bible is literal..etc Yeah, like they are THAT stupid?? All due respect, common sense....

Darren

In the two minutes I'm reading that link, I see at least three major flaws - and I just skimmed it. In one, he quotes Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem and I have that book in my lap right now and looked it up - only to find that he took a quote totally out of context and thus totally misrepresented what Mr. Grudem has stated in the book. So that tells me that the entire link is less than a stellar example for an old earth argument.

 

[Darrenss1]

In the two minutes I'm reading that link, I see at least three major flaws - and I just skimmed it. In one, he quotes Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem and I have that book in my lap right now and looked it up - only to find that he took a quote totally out of context and thus totally misrepresented what Mr. Grudem has stated in the book. So that tells me that the entire link is less than a stellar example for an old earth argument.

The article doesn't rest on any one quote anyway, obviously. What were the other 2 major flaws?? The issues still rest upon their own merits.

Darren

 

[annsni]

The article doesn't rest on any one quote anyway, obviously. What were the other 2 major flaws?? The issues still rest upon their own merits.

Darren

Well, if he misquotes Mr. Grudem to fit his argument, how faithful are any of the other references?

As for the other two flaws I found, they are these:

There is no scriptural or hermeneutical requirement the creation "days" must be interpreted as 24-hour time periods

This is untrue when you understand Hebrew and the fact that "day" paired with an ordinal number always means a 24 hour day.

Second, Mortenson contends the day-age view of millions of years of animal death before the creation of man contradicts the Bible's teaching about sin and death. The Bible speaks of sin, death and spiritual redemption. This limits the meaning to human death. For these teachings to apply to animals, Christ's redemptive work would have to extend to animals, which is implausible. Such a wide interpretation of the scope of the atonement has no scriptural support

ALL creation groans. It's not implausible.

Not to mention that he takes science as full truth (which we know that much of science is changing) and then twisting to make the Bible fit science. That's quite backwards.

 

[jaigner]

I take the Bible literally so there is a literal 7 day period. There's no reason not too. I'm not going to change my view point based solely on what modern scientific observation says.

How much of the Bible do you take literally? The whole thing, even when the genre doesn't call for it?

It's imperative that we research genre and historical context when exegeting and interpreting scripture. Genesis is no exception.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Out of curiousity do you even know the arguments for the old earth model? You are painting a picture of a position that is so obvious that a child could see it. Darren

Well I have yet to hear a scripture to support an old earth model. Do you have to use websites? Show me simple passages that support an old earth. BTW, Yes even a child can understand God created it all in 6 days.

 

[Jedi Knight]

How much of the Bible do you take literally?

When the plain sense make common sense, seek no other sense.

 

[jimc06]

Jim, you like to play games with the scripture to fit your world view. It's not you who defines the scriptures agenda. Rather, it should be the other way around. I wonder what other gymnastics you play with God's word twisting it to fit your idea of the way things should be? I'd hate to be in your shoes bearing the responsibility of redefining "Thus saith the Lord."

That's a very strong assertion, thank you for being clear. If I am twisting Scripture, then please explain how.

I believe God inspired all of Scripture, and used many forms (theology, narrative, allegory, etc). Allegorical narrative is no less the word of God than clear doctrine. I don't think we should use any human agent (science or human literary genres) to interpret Scripture, but rather we should let Scripture interpret Scripture. Sometimes the Word clearly says that another part of the Word is literal, sometimes it makes it clear that it is not literal, sometimes neither is explicitly state. In the latter case, should we not seek God's intention from the rest of His Word?

That's why I'm trying to seek an alignment with interpretation with other Scripture. Of course, I could be wrong, which is why I ask for examples from Scripture, or clear exegesis, etc, to show the mistakes.

Simply stating that I'm misusing the Word, without showing me how, is not edifying.