Days of Creation - A Thematic View

[Rick W]

adam was the first man. if he wasnt then what happened those earlier, ever think that the days werent in order. francisdales and rick pointed this out to me.

I don't want to get y'all off topic. Where is this thread? I typically agree with most of Rick and Joe's views. If I understand you I don't think I agree with this one at all.
Thanks, Westtexas totopic

It's early and I'm not all together just yet so please bear with me. I'll the best I can.
:morning

In brief:
The creation account is divided by theme, not to be read as a single chronological order.
The first 3 days of the account are under the theme of the creation of the realms:
The heavens
The oceans
Dry land

Then the next theme or set of creation goes back to populate the first three:
Sun, moon
Fish
Animals and man.

It's not to be read as 1-2-3-4-5-6 but rather in terms of "theme".
Joining the two themes:
1-4
2-5
3-6

Genesis one and two do pretty much the same thing. In Gen 1 is an overview of God's creation, the overall theme followed by a more detailed account in Gen 2. Gen 1 and Gen 2 cannot be understood as being chronological.
Gen 1 is an overall summary
Gen 2 goes back to flesh out Gen 1 in more detail.
If these are read chronologically then it appears there is contradiction. But there is no contradiction. It's simply an overview followed by more detail.

The Creation days are somewhat the same in theme. In the account the focus is on what is formed, the first three days followed by what was created to fill what was formed. The first 3 days is the overview, the first set, the first theme. The second set, the next 3 days goes back to to flesh out the first set.

There's a certain word used for this style of Hebrew writing but I can't find that word again. It was posted during a much earlier discussion before Jason got here and I can't find that thread. I think the database got pooched along the way.

http://users.zoominternet.net/~bloveds/Tohu4.gif

At this link the style is being called "parallelism" but there was another word for it that I can't find just now.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html

 

[logical bob]

I notice that in Genesis 1, plants are created on day three and humans on day six. Whether you read the chapter in a simple chronology or in the themed way you described there, plants are created before man. Genesis 2:5-7 makes it very clear that man is created before plants. What do you make of this?

 

[Rick W]

I notice that in Genesis 1, plants are created on day three and humans on day six. Whether you read the chapter in a simple chronology or in the themed way you described there, plants are created before man. Genesis 2:5-7 makes it very clear that man is created before plants. What do you make of this?

You're reading in chronological order again. I would assume man is predominate and spoken of first. You really must get away from reading in modern chronological logic. Think Hebrew.
Much like painting a portrait. The face is drawn first then the background follows. But that's contradictory. After all, the background was there first before the subject stepped into the "picture". Happens all the time.


I read. Many novels take you through a scene right from the beginning that hasn't happened yet, but later in the book. If one wants rigid chronological order the novel is contradictory. Or there's a strong sense of deja vous.

I think that's the trap many fall into... wanting to apply rigid modern literary rules ot their own set of rules to ancient texts. But a study of their customs, manners of thinking and styles of writing can reveal much.

 

[Mysteryman]

I notice that in Genesis 1, plants are created on day three and humans on day six. Whether you read the chapter in a simple chronology or in the themed way you described there, plants are created before man. Genesis 2:5-7 makes it very clear that man is created before plants. What do you make of this?

Hi Bob

Genesis 1:11 & 12 is dealing with "seed" = everything after its own kind.

Genesis 2:5 - 7 the seed is in the ground, but it has not rained as of yet. Rain = water, is what gives life to the seed.

The same way that man is given breath life, when God breathed into his nostrils. Man became a living soul.

 

[Rick W]

I notice that in Genesis 1, plants are created on day three and humans on day six. Whether you read the chapter in a simple chronology or in the themed way you described there, plants are created before man. Genesis 2:5-7 makes it very clear that man is created before plants. What do you make of this?

Hi Bob

Genesis 1:11 & 12 is dealing with "seed" = everything after its own kind.

Genesis 2:5 - 7 the seed is in the ground, but it has not rained as of yet. Rain = water, is what gives life to the seed.

The same way that man is given breath life, when God breathed into his nostrils. Man became a living soul.

Or the mist watered the plants. Either way the portrait is being painted while reading the text. I think the artist has the freedom to paint his work in any manner he so chooses as long as the finished work gets the message across. Depends on how the artist wishes to present his work. And isn't that what literature is? An art form, not a technical assembly instruction. I don't find much literary satisfaction in "Place tab A in slot B"

 

[JudaicChristian]

For thousands of years it was taught that the creation days were epochs of time. It was not taught that the creation days were literal days until about the 18th century. For example: God said to Adam, in the day you eat of that fruit you will surly die; but yet Adam continued to live for hundreds of years until he finally died.

 

[Rick W]

For thousands of years it was taught that the creation days were epochs of time. It was not taught that the creation days were literal days until about the 18th century. For example: God said to Adam, in the day you eat of that fruit you will surly die; but yet Adam continued to live for hundreds of years until he finally died.

He "died" when separated from God. But that's another topic altogether. And so is the length of the "day". Heck, this thread could go off on a wide variety of tangents debating Creation. If that happens then maybe others can join the free-for-all but you can count me out.
Would be best to stick to the topic anyway.

 

[Mysteryman]

[quote="logical bob":1m3paesv]I notice that in Genesis 1, plants are created on day three and humans on day six. Whether you read the chapter in a simple chronology or in the themed way you described there, plants are created before man. Genesis 2:5-7 makes it very clear that man is created before plants. What do you make of this?

Hi Bob

Genesis 1:11 & 12 is dealing with "seed" = everything after its own kind.

Genesis 2:5 - 7 the seed is in the ground, but it has not rained as of yet. Rain = water, is what gives life to the seed.

The same way that man is given breath life, when God breathed into his nostrils. Man became a living soul.

Or the mist watered the plants. Either way the portrait is being painted while reading the text. I think the artist has the freedom to paint his work in any manner he so chooses as long as the finished work gets the message across. Depends on how the artist wishes to present his work. And isn't that what literature is? An art form, not a technical assembly instruction. I don't find much literary satisfaction in "Place tab A in slot B" [/quote:1m3paesv]


LOL -- Mist goes up ----

Rain comes down ------

 

[JudaicChristian]

For thousands of years it was taught that the creation days were epochs of time. It was not taught that the creation days were literal days until about the 18th century. For example: God said to Adam, in the day you eat of that fruit you will surly die; but yet Adam continued to live for hundreds of years until he finally died.

He "died" when separated from God. But that's another topic altogether. And so is the length of the "day". Heck, this thread could go off on a wide variety of tangents debating Creation. If that happens then maybe others can join the free-for-all but you can count me out.
Would be best to stick to the topic anyway.

I thought I was on topic. Anyway, I will let this one drop and go on to other forum topics. Bye

 

[happyjoy]

I agree, a thematic view is preferable to a literal view. If one rejects all knowledge of science and holds fast to a magical view that the universe was created in 6 literal days and that light was created before the sun etc. Then you are missing the point. Also, you have not learned the critical thinking skills necessary to disregard bunk news or editorials meant to deceive you. Like there are black helicopters, or we faked the moon landing, or Illuminati, etc.

 

[Rick W]

I agree, a thematic view is preferable to a literal view. If one rejects all knowledge of science and holds fast to a magical view that the universe was created in 6 literal days and that light was created before the sun etc. Then you are missing the point. Also, you have not learned the critical thinking skills necessary to disregard bunk news or editorials meant to deceive you. Like there are black helicopters, or we faked the moon landing, or Illuminati, etc.

I honestly hope you're not placing scripture into the same category as "bunk news or editorials".

It didn't take long for Christ to create the fishes to feed the masses.
We're going to go off topic of chronological order anyway huh?


If so, have a good discussion and please keep it civil.

 

[happyjoy]

I agree, a thematic view is preferable to a literal view. If one rejects all knowledge of science and holds fast to a magical view that the universe was created in 6 literal days and that light was created before the sun etc. Then you are missing the point. Also, you have not learned the critical thinking skills necessary to disregard bunk news or editorials meant to deceive you. Like there are black helicopters, or we faked the moon landing, or Illuminati, etc.

I honestly hope you're not placing scripture into the same category as "bunk news or editorials".

No i'm not, what I am saying is that those who can't read literature or see a movie and understand it in any way other than a basic literal set of events are also the ones who fall for bunk news and all sorts of scams and such. I don't think such people are stupid, but they are certainly lacking in education, and suffer from magical type thinking in many aspects of life.

 

[Rick W]

And I'm not convinced God's power is so limited that he can't create something already in progress. I've seen and participated in those discussions over the years and there hadn't been anything posted to convince me of any limitation concerning the power of God.
Now if you want to talk about man's limitations well, that may be a whole nuther ball of wax.

 

[happyjoy]

And I'm not convinced God's power is so limited that he can't create something already in progress. I've seen and participated in those discussions over the years and there hadn't been anything posted to convince me of any limitation concerning the power of God.
Now if you want to talk about man's limitations well, that may be a whole nuther ball of wax.

I think you mean old by in progress. So if God made the world 4 billion years old six thousand years ago that makes the world 4 billion years old, and makes science right. not six thousand years old. If you counter the world is only six thousand years old then you deny the power of God to make it billions of years old.

I am just saying the stuff coming from places like the Creation Science museum and the like is just junk, and it comes from not having the education to contemplate the real meaning of the bible.

 

[Rick W]

Ok, I don't want to get going on this.
If you were at the feeding of the multitudes how old would you assume the fish in your hand would be if you didn't know it was created moments before? And I'm quite sure "science" could demonstrate an age much greater than just a few hours if that. No doubt about that at all.
If Christ could create a matured fish then why can't God create a matured universe?
By the way, we have no laws or rules governing the creation of something from nothing therefore we can't test for it. We are compelled to go by only what we have in hand.
I think I'll have fish for lunch today. A new one. :D

 

[watchman F]

Ok, I don't want to get going on this.
If you were at the feeding of the multitudes how old would you assume the fish in your hand would be if you didn't know it was created moments before? And I'm quite sure "science" could demonstrate an age much greater than just a few hours if that. No doubt about that at all.
If Christ could create a matured fish then why can't God create a matured universe?
By the way, we have no laws or rules governing the creation of something from nothing therefore we can't test for it. We are compelled to go by only what we have in hand.
I think I'll have fish for lunch today. A new one. :D

This is exactly right. God made Adam, as a mature male, not a baby. Why wouldn't He be able to make the universe in a mature state? But then again i am one of those lunatics that actually believe God's word and take it literally happy so despises.

 

[logical bob]

The whole "created as old" question is going nowhere. The universe may have been created 30 seconds ago, with us all starting out with a set of false memories. Since there can be no possible way of telling I suggest the question is meaningless.

 

[happyjoy]

Ok, I don't want to get going on this.
If you were at the feeding of the multitudes how old would you assume the fish in your hand would be if you didn't know it was created moments before? And I'm quite sure "science" could demonstrate an age much greater than just a few hours if that. No doubt about that at all.
If Christ could create a matured fish then why can't God create a matured universe?
By the way, we have no laws or rules governing the creation of something from nothing therefore we can't test for it. We are compelled to go by only what we have in hand.
I think I'll have fish for lunch today. A new one. :D

I agreed with you. God created a mature fish. Say that fish was created 2 years old. My point is that the fish is not 10 minuets old, but that is in fact 2 years old. Even if God created it 5 seconds ago. If God made it 2 years old than it is two years old. That is the end of the story.

Just like our universe is 4 billion years old. No matter how long ago it was made.

 

[westtexas]

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html

This is interesting Rick. Thank you for taking the time to post it! It's going to take me a little while to get my head around it, I'm a lot more thick-headed than most
Again, thanks and God bless, Westtexas

 

[jasoncran]

:crazy we are trying to understand time relative to us and from zero by looking at radiation levels. if the universe was created with the amount to make it appear that old , then is it when say 5 secs ago it was constructed.

we are looking from the universe to the origin of the universe from our limited time measurements.