Some thoughts on Genesis 1&2

[PaulSacramento]

Here is the thing about dinging what a writer means:
If all you have is ONE example of his writing, well, then you may be excused in thinking that every time he uses a word he means it only ONE way.
You could still be wrong BUt you at lest have some ground to work with.

BUT when you have multiple writings and the writer uses the same word in different ways then NO, you can't simply state that he means (A) in verse 3 and meant (C) in verse 17 without some justification, just as you can't say that he always meant A when the context clearly shows he didn't.

It just isn't that easy.

What I mean is this:
Moses wrote the 5 books, the Pentateuch ( for arguments sake) and unless every time he used the word YOM he meant 1 literal day then there is no reason to believe without a doubt that he meant that in Genesis 1.

[neo-x]

I apologize earlier for my outburst I hope you understand why I felt so bad. These questions sound so loaded to me now.

Also the thing is the further I have studied the bible the more I have come to believe that the Bible is clearly very YEC. And that realization hasn't helped me at all, rather it complicated faith based ideas. It is not a matter of yom anymore. How did Moses used the word and how did the audience took the word are very powerful points. I don't think yom's usage is so abstract that we can easily say it means age or longer periods of time. It also can mean only one day. And whether someone agrees or not, my conclusion is that YEC is what Moses had in mind when he wrote this. I remember having a thorough discussion with Jac on the topic and while we both disagreed at the end, the one thing I did agree with him was the usage of Yom.

There is simply no merit to say that Moses wrote and indicated an abstract term to mean vague periods of time. What was he going to tell the people if someone asked in the middle of the reading of the scriptures?

So imagine a discourse here, lets say Moses is reading genesis 1 to the public and he gets to the first yom reference and a hand goes up.

Random person asking question - "Hey Moses, how do you mean Yom here?" do you mean it as a day or as longer periods of time?
Moses: Longer period of time.
RP asks again: "But then why is there a morning and evening written with it?"
Moses: it secretly means the start and end of ages.
RP says: But can't you just write longer period of time and leave out also the evening morning thing which is quite confusing and actually gives the impression that its a 24 hour day?
Moses: I can't do that, its God's word.
RP says again: Okay so tell me how long is this yom?
Moses is confused: I don't know.
RP: So you mean you have no idea how long it took God to make us?
Moses: Yes because you see Yom can mean different things it could mean one day and a long time period too.
RP *confused*: so if you don't know why does it say evening and morning? That got to tell you something now.
Moses angry: Sit down you don't get to question God's word.

So I hope you can see how ridiculous this notion of a vague time duration would be to the audience for whom this story was being conveyed. They wouldn't even be able to teach their children the lesson of the six days.

And later Moses and other writers reference six day creation. And infact the Sabbath is a 24 hours day because the other were too. But anyways I hope some of you can show me how yom as long periods of time work out for Moses and his audience. Consider this a fun exercise. My contention is that it would not be practical nor helpful as it doesn't explain anything, considering those chaps only had the first 5 books and that also in a 40 year period.

That would be the case of the "reader" was reading what Moses wrote based on a concept that was quite foreign to Moses' audience:
Theology of creation being written in a literal and concrete way.

Read Genesis again and tell me that Moses believe that light existed before the creation of the sun that, according to him, gives that very light.
Read Genesis again and tell me that every time the word YOM is used it means 1 literal day.

I understand what you are saying Paul but how many times is yom wirtten with "evening and morning?". I am saying Moses' audience must have wanted to know something tangible or atleast it would make sense. A vague time duration with morning evening written with it sounds contradictory. Had it been yom without morning evening yes it would be a more plausible case for yom being long time duration. I think it would make things difficult to understand since under the OEC yom usage except when its a single day, is non-quantifiable. But when yom is written with morning and evening, its actually very easy to understand what is being written.

[RickD]

neo wrote:
I understand what you are saying Paul but how many times is yom wirtten with "evening and morning?". I am saying Moses' audience must have wanted to know something tangible or atleast it would make sense. A vague time duration with morning evening written with it sounds contradictory. Had it been yom without morning evening yes it would be a more plausible case for yom being long time duration. I think it would make things difficult to understand since under the OEC yom usage except when its a single day, is non-quantifiable. But when yom is written with morning and evening, its actually very easy to understand what is being written.

Neo,
If it means anything, I've seen plenty of knowledgable OT scholars who have no problem with yom meaning a long period of time, even with evening and morning in the text.

[PaulSacramento]

I understand what you are saying Paul but how many times is yom wirtten with "evening and morning?". I am saying Moses' audience must have wanted to know something tangible or atleast it would make sense. A vague time duration with morning evening written with it sounds contradictory. Had it been yom without morning evening yes it would be a more plausible case for yom being long time duration. I think it would make things difficult to understand since under the OEC yom usage except when its a single day, is non-quantifiable. But when yom is written with morning and evening, its actually very easy to understand what is being written.

Why not a morning and an evening?
How do we get and evening and morning BEFORE the creation of the sun and moon ??
It could mean a beginning or and ending in that linguistic genre OR, it could mean a 24 hour period of course.
It may have been written that way to go in line with the Hebrew method of counting days leading to the sabbath.
My point is that we can't state with 100% certainty.
Also, just because each creative day was 24 hours, doesn't mean that creation took 6 SEQUENTIAL days, the text doesn't state that.
It states that each creation event took 1 day and that a total of 6 days were needed.
For all we know, each day could have had million years in between.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
For all we know, each day could have had million years in between.

Highly unlikely if we look at all that transpired on the sixth day. Adam would've had to have super powers.

[Jac3510]

Why not a morning and an evening?

You know the answer to that. Because the Jews started their days from sundown, not sunrise. That's why the Jews wanted Jesus' body off the cross before the sun went down on Friday evening, so that His body would not be up on the Sabbath. In fact, the fact that Moses puts it in the order that he does strongly suggests that Moses has a normal day in mind.

How do we get and evening and morning BEFORE the creation of the sun and moon ??

I cannot believe that this is even seriously used as an argument.

It could mean a beginning or and ending in that linguistic genre OR, it could mean a 24 hour period of course.

And it could also be a technical term to refer an instantaneous event that places the events on the "day" before at the same moment as the "day" after. But what reason do we have to believe that it does? Saying that something could mean something is meaningless. The question is what warrant do you have for it. Is there ANY indication that the phrase is used like that ANYWHERE else? And the answer is no.

It may have been written that way to go in line with the Hebrew method of counting days leading to the sabbath.

Right. And you got to the Sabbath by counting six days.

My point is that we can't state with 100% certainty.

Bah. Postmodern nonsense and a false dilemma. Call it 95% certainty if you prefer. If you really want to work that hard to avoid reading what the text obviously says by appealing to some tiny probability that it doesn't mean what it says after all, be my guest. I think of that argument exactly what I think of atheists who insist that maybesomedayscientistswillfigureoutwhatcausedthebigbangandtheuniverseiseternalandsogodisntneeded. You can claim that. The bigger question is why you feel the need to make such a warrantless claim.

Also, just because each creative day was 24 hours, doesn't mean that creation took 6 SEQUENTIAL days, the text doesn't state that.
It states that each creation event took 1 day and that a total of 6 days were needed.
For all we know, each day could have had million years in between.

And do you have any indication in the text that is what Moses had in mind? Why not just argue that we are talking six revelatory days while you are at it? Seriously, this straining to find some way to read the text other than what it says is what gets under my skin so much. At least the yom=age claim is honest.

Sorry, I just don't take that kind of "exegesis" seriously. I strongly disagree with neo's stance that Genesis 1 is fiction, but at least he is taking the text seriously. And for that he is to be commended. Because that is the only basis he'll be able to later claim that he has any textual warrant for claiming that Jesus' resurrection is literal and not fictitious, in that he takes the text seriously. But this finding a way to read the text other than what it actually says? You may as well just be an allegorizer. You can make that mean whatever you want it to mean. And on THAT standard, we could ask you the same questions people tend to asks TEs . . . why think Jesus' resurrection was literal? If you don't have to take the text as face value in Genesis, then why in Matthew?

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
How do we get and evening and morning BEFORE the creation of the sun and moon ??

Jac wrote:
I cannot believe that this is even seriously used as an argument.

Isn't it still an argument from YECs that take the text literally, that the sun was created on the fourth day?
http://www.icr.org/article/3620/
And the argument isn't so much that there can't be light, but if the sun didn't exist yet(according to some YECs), then how can yom mean 24 hours or the portion of the day with daylight, if the measuring stick(sun) wasn't created yet?

PaulS wrote:
It may have been written that way to go in line with the Hebrew method of counting days leading to the sabbath.

Jac wrote:
Right. And you got to the Sabbath by counting six days.

What about the sabbath year?
Paul is saying it's the 6 to 1 pattern that is shown in the creation days.

[PaulSacramento]

Jac, it doesn't matter if YOU take any of those arguments seriously or not.
I don't take any YEC arguments seriously myself considering what we KNOW of the universe.

None of that is the point really.

The issue is that if we truly look at Genesis from the POV of who it was addressed to and WHY, I don't think that ANY of these YEC/OEC discussion mean anything since the one thing we can probably be 100% sure about is that the writer of Genesis was NOT making a chronological scientific statement as to WHEN the world ( much less the universe) was created.

[PaulSacramento]

Sorry, I just don't take that kind of "exegesis" seriously. I strongly disagree with neo's stance that Genesis 1 is fiction, but at least he is taking the text seriously. And for that he is to be commended. Because that is the only basis he'll be able to later claim that he has any textual warrant for claiming that Jesus' resurrection is literal and not fictitious, in that he takes the text seriously. But this finding a way to read the text other than what it actually says? You may as well just be an allegorizer. You can make that mean whatever you want it to mean. And on THAT standard, we could ask you the same questions people tend to asks TEs . . . why think Jesus' resurrection was literal? If you don't have to take the text as face value in Genesis, then why in Matthew?

Sounds like a typical YEC stand:
If you can't take Genesis as literal and concrete, you can't take ANY of the bible.

Now, THAT is hogwash indeed.

To suggest that anyone that doesn't take Genesis the way you think they should is NOT take Genesis seriously is even MORE hogwash.

That we are dealing with two different literary genres is quite obvious, that the whole of the bible is composed of books and letters of different genres is also quiet obvious.

Personally I take Genesis VERY seriously, seriously enough to give it the consideration it deserves and to not make it what it isn't.

[Jac3510]

Rick, the Sabbath year is clearly marked a year (the word isn't yom), nor is there is any "evening and morning" language. It's clear from the text that Moses had a year in mind in that part, just like it's clear that Moses has a normal day in mind in Gen 1.

And Paul, you completely missed my point, so okay.

[PaulSacramento]

Rick, the Sabbath year is clearly marked a year (the word isn't yom), nor is there is any "evening and morning" language. It's clear from the text that Moses had a year in mind in that part, just like it's clear that Moses has a normal day in mind in Gen 1.

And Paul, you completely missed my point, so okay.

Your point was this:

But this finding a way to read the text other than what it actually says? You may as well just be an allegorizer. You can make that mean whatever you want it to mean. And on THAT standard, we could ask you the same questions people tend to asks TEs . . . why think Jesus' resurrection was literal? If you don't have to take the text as face value in Genesis, then why in Matthew?

No?

And if so, I answered that.

[RickD]

Rick, the Sabbath year is clearly marked a year (the word isn't yom), nor is there is any "evening and morning" language. It's clear from the text that Moses had a year in mind in that part, just like it's clear that Moses has a normal day in mind in Gen 1.

And Paul, you completely missed my point, so okay.

Jac,

I wasn't saying that the sabbath year is a yom. I'm just saying the 6 to 1 pattern is evident. Regular week 6 days then sabbath. Sabbath year, work six years, then the sabbath. Creation, 6 creation days, then God's rest from creating.

I realize that you think it's clear that Moses had a normal day in mind in Genesis 1. But many others disagree. They think it's clear that yom in Genesis 1 wasn't a normal day. So, the only thing that's clear, is that there's disagreement among very knowledgable OT scholars.

But I really don't want to continue going on about this. It usually ends bad. And frankly, I don't think it's worth the risk of the problems it may cause between us. It's just not important enough to risk a rift between us.

[Jac3510]

Paul, I didn't say you didn't read my words. I said you missed my point. You did not respond to my point.

And Rick, if you don't want to press it any further, that's fine. I don't know what possible issues it could bring up, but that's okay.

[Kurieuo]

I'm not out to start/continue a debate here, so please read my fuller post here through to completion.

At the end of they day, the "YEC interpretation" doesn't actually take the days in Scripture as an "ordinary" day.
Evening and morning are mentioned in days 1-3 just as much as 4-6.
Say what you want, but evidently the author intends solar and not symbolical 12/24 hour days
(which may not have even been originally that long in Earth's early history anyhow).

I thought my Sabbatical interpretation put a nice spin on this and took Genesis 1 the most "literal" of all.
And this interpretation is neutral, allowing for belief in a young Earth or an old Earth.

At the end of the day, as Jac clarified for me not long ago, by "literal" it isn't what it plainly means to us, or taking a word "literally" instead of poetry or the like (for context generally reveals whether poetry is intended e.g., Psalm and Proverbs).
RATHER, what is really mean by "literal" is a plain reading as the author and hearers would have understood. This is what the Historical-Grammatical method that ICBI and Evangelicals promote as a main method of interpretation is about.

What I find interesting is that regardless of what one believes to be true, objectivity is being attached to a particular interpretation.
It HAS to be YEC, or it HAS to be Day-Age or it HAS to be Gap Theory or it HAS to be maybe taken poetically -- the Framework Hypothesis or like.
What about just saying let Scripture be Scripture and take a what is possible approach with the weaknesses and strengths of each?

So for me, I can appreciate how people arrive at this or that interpretation.
Yes, I have ones I lean more towards and prefer, and I do see more weaknesses with other interpretations.
Scripture itself when properly understood should have no issues with any source of truth, if it is true.

For me, I see greater strength in allowing for "possible" interpretations rather than "one" interpretation for:
1) it stops infighting;
2) it stops pushing non-Christians away if one interpretation is better for where they are at in life;
3) it stops pushing Christians away from Scripture if they're hammered over and over again by those who say they don't believe in the Bible, the same Gospel or like (I'm seeing this happen and it's very real. Political parties play their adds over and over before an election because eventually such marketing sinks in. Play the same beat of a drum enough times to a Christian "that they reject Scripture" and if such comes thick and strong then they will ultimately reject Scripture and not necessarily accept your interpretation of it.)
4) It is a more graceful and accepting view - Christ now has our back regardless right?

So with all that said, while I do argue for this or that interpretation,
I'd much prefer an accommodation approach with different Christian interpretations.

[Philip]

It is also entirely possible that the repeated phrase of "there was evening and there was morning" are poetic bookends for the beginning and ending of a give period. There is no reason why that is not possible. Norman Geisler says a life-time of studying this issue has not made him certain over the age issue. In fact, he HOPES that the days are literal, but says that is impossible to know for certain from the text. Scripture tells us that the Creation itself is ANOTHER testimony to God and His works. So many scientific evidences overwhelmingly seem to show an ancient universe. Countless studies and exhaustive experiments. I would think a "testimony" would have an intent that wouldn't be designed where it misleads those truly searching for this answer - yes, I know that may be a red herring. But that so many evangelical theologians also say there is uncertainty tells us that it's NOT clear. And there are very good reasons, theological, textual and scriptural, that drive their conclusions. It's remarkable of what possibilities can be reasonably gleaned from the wording of the original Hebrew. So the debate goes on but matters little. As if it DID truly matter, I'd think it'd be as unmistakably clear as Jesus claiming to be God and the Resurrection being a foundational Biblical teaching. But the age issue is nowhere nearly so clear!

And as an aside, few here tend to address that the wordings of Genesis closely parallel, with tremendously important key differences/corrections in their theologies, the ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian creation myths absorbed by 400+ years in Egypt. All of these things come into play and must be considered - and collectively, they provide a range of blended possibilities. ANYONE whom ties to assert that the text is unmistakeable clear on the age issue has an agenda to neatly sort the text per their own personal beliefs about what the text says about age. All of this is why I am neutral on a dogmatic declaration of what the age is, while I do lean toward Progressive Creationism. But I could be wrong - and so could EACH of us! When so many of God's most-gifted, scholars and theologians see a range of possibilities and yet still uncertainty over the age issue, it tells me that God has purpose in that being the case. Wonder what that might be?