NT six literal days

[Hope of Glory]

I really don't have a problem with someone calling the "form" of the creation account poetry as long as the "content" of the poetry is accurate and correct. It just seems to me that those who say it is poetry are ready to dismiss it as that, and therefore it is not accurate or true. All of God's Word is accurate and true, or it is not accurarte or true at all.

No one is suggesting that being poetry automatically makes it untrue.

However, the construct in no way makes it necessary to be literal.

I do think that the context points to it being true and literal, but I would teach that as my opinion, and then give my Scriptural basis as to why.

However, the importance of the poetic structure is two-fold:

1. It was a way of reiterating and reinforcing particular ideas
and
2. It draws focus to particular topics.

It is all throughout the Scriptures, and ancient secular writing in several different languages.

You even find it in modern English:

"Ask not what your country can do for you;
Ask what you can do for your country."

Very simple, yet same idea, but without the central focus point.

edited to change poor wording on my part.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Whether or not it is poetry or not makes no difference. Whether or not it was 24 hours or day-age does make a difference.

I think that it's important because God put it there, but I don't think it's important to the literal/allegorical discussion. Poetry can be either.

But, if it weren't important, God would not have put it there.

I first heard of this back in the mid-90s while taking a philosophy class in which we have a visiting Jewish Rabbi as a guest speaker, which said it was.

That's funny, I first heard about it from a Jewish rabbi. Then, I was discussing the numbers of the Children of Israel with a Jewish scholar who was a professor. Then, it was a Hebrew scholar.

But, of course the Jews and Hebrew scholar know less about Hebrew poetry than a Canadian, eh? I did a simple Google search, and there are plenty who say there is, and then there are others who want to argue with them, and some of them believed in a literal 6 day creation, some in a 6 day recreation, and some in 6 day/age creation. Not a single one of them denied that God is the one who did the creating.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the Western world has been studying chiasmus in the Scriptures for more than a hundred years or so. Do you think we've found every single one? Do you think we know everything about the Bible?

Ironically, no one argues when a chiastic structure is used in secular work.

 

[DHK]

No one is suggesting that being poetry automatically makes it untrue.

If you had followed this thread from the beginning then you would have realized that the very reason the idea of Genesis one was suggested to be poetry was to allow for the theory that creation was NOT a literal six day creation. That was the author's intention of introducing his "poetical theory."--to give him a way to prove that it wasn't a literal creation. This has been true of cults, modernists, those who do not believe the Bible, and others with unorthodox beliefs of the Bible. Let me give you some examples. It happens with a person or group of people who first have a pre-conceived idea (usually erroneous). Then they find a starting point in Scripture to advance that idea. Then they use that Scripture in an allegorical way--symbolically, poetically, allegorically, figuratively--anything but literally as it is supposed to be taken.

1. The SDA's do not believe in the eternal damnation of the wicked. The story of the rich man and Lazarus teaches the eternal damnation very vividly. This story is very much different than any parable, and should not be taken as a parable. Yet the SDA's claim it to be a parable. Because it is a parable they now can claim that eternal punishment is not really eternal punishment and Jesus really did nnot mean that because it was only a parable not to be taken literally in that aspect.

2. The amillennialist doesn't believe in a thousand year millennial reigin of Christ. Even thought the term "thousand years" is mentioned five times in Revelation 20, the amilllennialist will claim that it doesn't mean a thousand years because the Book of Revelation is a book of symbols and therefore the phrase "thousand years" can be taken symbolically as well. It is not literal.

3. Thus in the same way if the Genesis one is poetical then it doesn't have to mean six literal days, for it is only poetry. It is not literal. One day can mean a thousand years. The author was being poetical. Poetry can be interpreted in many different ways. So the historical account of creation is now open to a variety of ideas of interpretation. But God through Moses never intended it to be that way. Moses was writing a simple history easy for the parents of the Israelite children to teach their children. It was not written in allegories or in puzzles. It was written simply, truthfully, and easy to understand. It was prose. It was history. It was truth. There is no allegory here, and no poetry. There is no reason to go down a slippery slope when no slippery slope exists.

 

[Deacon]

Correct, DH. If this were written as a textbook on creation we wouldn’t be having this argument.

And if the text were classified as “Exulted prose narrative” we certainly would have a greater latitude in our methods of interpretation.

Why would anyone classify the opening chapters of Genesis as such?
What clues do we see in the passage?

There are many, but off the top of my head:
The phrase, “evening and morning” is strange in itself. It certainly seems easy enough to interpret but impressions are deceiving. It is used elsewhere to mean more than 24 hours.

The “greater and lesser lights”, what an odd way to say sun and moon! Moses knew what they were called and could have easily used their names.

Even the way the days are numbered is odd, it’s not done in a typical way.

And if Moses really meant “24 hour-days” why didn’t he say it? I mean all he had to do was check his Timex and say Adam was created at 9AM on day 6, Greenwich mean Time. :laugh: :saint:

Realizing this, a “literal six-day creation” could easily be a labeled a hyper-literal interpretation of the text.

Knowing this we can still agree: "Moses was writing a simple history easy for the parents of the Israelite children to teach their children. It was not written in allegories or in puzzles. It was written simply, truthfully, and easy to understand. It was prose. It was history. It was truth. There is no allegory here, and no poetry. There is no reason to go down a slippery slope when no slippery slope exists."

Rob

 

[BobRyan]

No one is suggesting that being poetry automatically makes it untrue.

However, the construct in no way makes it necessary to be literal.

I do think that the context points to it being true and literal, but I would teach that as my opinion, and then give my Scriptural basis as to why.

However, the importance of the poetic structure is two-fold:

1. It was a way of reiterating and reinforcing particular ideas
and
2. It draws focus to particular topics.

Please explain the difference between "your opinion" of the Bible --vs-- sound Bible exegesis when it comes to

God as Creator in 7 "morning-evening" days?
The deity of Christ?
The resurrection of Christ?

Are these all things in which you "merely have opinions" but the Bible has no actual statement?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So this leaves us with the question of who gets to pick and choose what is just pure history with no value other than history and who gets to say well this has some theological significance? Leaves a whole lot of room for error if you ask me.

Still - all of that is obfuscation... the point of the issue "remains".

#1. Accept the Bible ACCOUNT as TRUE -- not as imaginary or untrue.

#2. If the DETAILS are true - then the teaching about God (theology) as revealed in the DETAILS (history - facts, accounts) - is TRUE.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
#1. The Bible is a house of cards - IF you destroy what the Bible says about God as CREATOR, and man as a sinless CREATED being and the FALL of man-- then you destroy the foundation of the gospel!

TP
No one has attempted, in this thread, to counter the argument that Gods is Creator, that humans were created beings, that humans were sinless and fell. Read closely. No one.

Good - so when God SAID that He made the world in six days - we can believe Him - that makes HIM the Creator since He did it just as He said He did ..

Every Word true.


"FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the HEAVENs and the EARTH the SEA and all that is in them".

The SAME SIX days that we are to work in --

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2
]Genesis 2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed[/b], and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.[/b]

Kinda "funny:" I that I thought some on this thread were not "going along with the DETAILS in the word of God"

But if you are now on board - that is good to know.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Correct, DH. If this were written as a textbook on creation we wouldn’t be having this argument.

Sadly for your mirth - this IS the TEXT of God's Word ON the subject of the CREATOR and CREATION -- in fact ORIGINS!!

Read the Bible sir.

Let the pagan myths of atheist darwinism die their own sad death.

It is noted that you think that what God said in Gen 1 and 2 is "funny" but - it is better to read and accept it than to simply laugh and "imagine darwinist myths while reading the Word of God"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

your post makes no sense. I never questioned God as creator, neither has anyone else. THIS IS MY POINT THAT NOBODY SEEMS TO QUITE GET. NOBODY HAS DENIED THIS ESSENTIAL.

The Genesis account -- and Atheist Darwinist evolutionism are two distinct "Creation accounts".

Which one do you believe?

hint: Evolutionists do NOT define their OWN views in the following terms --

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2
]Genesis 2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed[/b], and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.[/b]

 

[dan e.]

The Genesis account -- and Atheist Darwinist evolutionism are two distinct "Creation accounts".

Which one do you believe?

hint: Evolutionists do NOT define their OWN views in the following terms --

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2
]Genesis 2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed[/b], and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.[/b]

Again....you don't make much sense. You asking me which one I believe is silly because I have explained it numerous times on this thread. You are trying to create arguments where none exists.

 

[dan e.]

If you had followed this thread from the beginning then you would have realized that the very reason the idea of Genesis one was suggested to be poetry was to allow for the theory that creation was NOT a literal six day creation. That was the author's intention of introducing his "poetical theory."--to give him a way to prove that it wasn't a literal creation.

That isn't true. He questioned whether everything was created in a literal 24 hours, not whether it was a literal creation. You guys need to open your eyse and ears and recognize that your continual condemnation on this issue is the reason I suggested that it isn't worth the battle to fight and prove a literal 24 hours. NOBODY HAS DENIED THAT GOD CREATED. IF I'M WRONG, SHOW ME THE POST WHERE SOMEONE DENIED THAT GOD CREATED.

 

[dan e.]

By the way, have I mentioned I also believe that it was a literal 24 hours?

Tragic, no separation with me on this issue....there is room for different views when it comes to how long God created everything.

 

[tragic_pizza]

That isn't true. He questioned whether everything was created in a literal 24 hours, not whether it was a literal creation. You guys need to open your eyse and ears and recognize that your continual condemnation on this issue is the reason I suggested that it isn't worth the battle to fight and prove a literal 24 hours. NOBODY HAS DENIED THAT GOD CREATED. IF I'M WRONG, SHOW ME THE POST WHERE SOMEONE DENIED THAT GOD CREATED.

You won't find one.

See, the problem with the fundamentalist mindset is this: if you question the absolute, lockstep, minute scientific and historical reliability of the Bible, you are questioning God. Questioning God equals not believing in God in their minds.

Let's imagine for a moment that I am incorrect and the Genesis accounts are, in fact, precise in their scientific and historical accuracy. Guess what happens to my faith: it is strengthened and undergirded.

However, let a shred of doubt enter into the fundamentalist's rigid dependence on Scripture's equality with God: imagine, for example, that there was incontrovertible proof, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the Genesis account was a hymn sung in the Temple before the Captivity to Babylon and that the Old Testament was in fact assembled in the sixth century BC and not before (I do not believe this, by the way, but some do), thus the historical reliability of much of the Bible is called into question. For the fundamentalist, this would be tantamount to evidence that God does not exist, and his or her faith would be literally destroyed.

Thus you can see that any threat to their rigid devotion to the Bible as equivalent to God must be met with rage and unfounded accusations. They are, quite literally, fighting for their lives.

 

[tragic_pizza]

By the way, have I mentioned I also believe that it was a literal 24 hours?

Tragic, no separation with me on this issue....there is room for different views when it comes to how long God created everything.

And in this you and I agree solidly. Twenty four hours or twenty four billion years, the fact is that God is creator of the universe, and sovereign thereof.

 

[J. Jump]

Thus you can see that any threat to their rigid devotion to the Bible as equivalent to God must be met with rage and unfounded accusations.

I think this is an unfair generalization. While there are some unfortunately that do address others with rage and unfounded accusations, that doesn't mean that all Christians that hold the Word of God is inerrant and 100% accurate are like that.

That would be an unfounded accusation on your part would it not?

Are you suggesting somehow in your statement that Scripture is not in fact the very Words of God and therefore absolutely perfect? That's how I was reading your latest statement, but please correct me if I have misread.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Are you suggesting somehow in your statement that Scripture is not in fact the very Words of God and therefore absolutely perfect? That's how I was reading your latest statement, but please correct me if I have misread.

Scripture is the Word of God. Scripture is not God. Saying Scripture must be perfect is saying Scripture must be God.

 

[SBCPreacher]

If God is perfect, and Scripture is the Word of God, then Scripture must be perfect. If it is less than perfect, then God made a mistake, and therefore, God is not perfect. It is either the perfect Word of a perfect God or it is not.

 

[J. Jump]

If God is perfect, and Scripture is the Word of God, then Scripture must be perfect. If it is less than perfect, then God made a mistake, and therefore, God is not perfect. It is either the perfect Word of a perfect God or it is not.

I would have to agree with SBCPreacher on this one.

If Scripture is not God then what is John talking about in John 1:1? And if God is incapable of getting His message out 100% accurately then who gets to pick and choose which parts of Scripture are believable and which parts of Scripture are human error or God error either or? And an even bigger question is why would you want to be believe in or serve a diety that isn't even capable of producing and inerrant text?

 

[DHK]

That isn't true. He questioned whether everything was created in a literal 24 hours, not whether it was a literal creation. You guys need to open your eyse and ears and recognize that your continual condemnation on this issue is the reason I suggested that it isn't worth the battle to fight and prove a literal 24 hours. NOBODY HAS DENIED THAT GOD CREATED. IF I'M WRONG, SHOW ME THE POST WHERE SOMEONE DENIED THAT GOD CREATED.

You have contradicted yourself. You said concerning my statement "that isn't true."
Here agan is my statement:

"That was the author's intention of introducing his "poetical theory."--to give him a way to prove that it wasn't a literal creation."

Then you went on to say in your above post, "He questioned whether everything was created in a literal 24 hours (which is what I meant).
What other kind of "literal creation" is there?
The day-age theory--not literal.
Theistic evolution--not literal.
Gap theory--perhaps, I forgot about that one but I wasn't referring to it.

Every theory except for the literal 24 hour six day theory allows for evolution, and those theories came into being precisely for that reason. The Gap reason exists solely for the reason that at that time believers had no way to answer the so-called scientific views of the popular Darwinian views of the time. So they came up with the Gap Theory where they could shove all that evolutionary garbage, and be done with it. The trouble is, that it contradicts the word of God. There was no death before Adam. "For by one man sin entered into the word, and death by sin and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." There are many reasons for rejecting the Gap Theory, but that by far is one of the strongest.
I don't believe in evolution. It isn't viable science. It has no right to delve into the realm of the origin of the universe. When it does it no longer is science. Science needs an observer. There was no one but God to observe the creation of the universe/earth. Evolution is out of place.

The day-age theory doesn't make evolutionary or scientific sense. For plants and/or animals to live in 500 years or thousand years darkness would kill plants and even many animals who cannot survive without the sun. The whole theory is ludicrous and hinges on one verse in the Bible which is figure of speech in itself.

Theistic evolutioin. It doesn't make sense. Either you believe the theology of the Bible or the atheism behind the evolution. You cannot serve two masters. You can't believe in both worlds at the same time. It was Julian Huxley who said: "The reason I believe in evolution is not because it is credible; no. It is because belief in God is far too incredible!" He believed in evolution because he was an atheist who refused to believe in God.

 

[dan e.]

You have contradicted yourself. You said concerning my statement "that isn't true."
Here agan is my statement:

"That was the author's intention of introducing his "poetical theory."--to give him a way to prove that it wasn't a literal creation."

Then you went on to say in your above post, "He questioned whether everything was created in a literal 24 hours (which is what I meant).

You're thinking too much to try and make a case for an argument. I didn't contradict myself. You said that he was proving that it wasn't a literal creation, which you have now backtracked and corrected you didn't mean that. I never contradicted myself because saying God literally created the universe and all that is in it and God creating the universe in literal 24 hour days are two different things. Arguing that the creation account didn't happen in a literal 24 hours is not saying God didn't literally create.

Again...no need to create more arguments.