[ Young Earth ] Eve

[Quantrill]

A parable is not the only use of figurative language in the Bible. It merely shows that the Bible is often not literal, such as the figurative language used for the creation story.

The creation record is presented as fact. Not a 'story'.

The Bible is always literal. And symbol, allegory, or figurative language, presents a literal truth. And if you can't interpret the figurative language, or symbol or allegory correctly, then you miss the literal truth.

There is nothing to indicate the creation record is anything but fact.

Quantrill

 

[jaybo]

Where it says there were mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them.

Genesis 1:3-5, "God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day."

Genesis 1:14-19 (nine verses later), "God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.

 

[jaybo]

The creation record is presented as fact. Not a 'story'.

The Bible is always literal. And symbol, allegory, or figurative language, presents a literal truth. And if you can't interpret the figurative language, or symbol or allegory correctly, then you miss the literal truth.

There is nothing to indicate the creation record is anything but fact.

Quantrill

The "creation record" is not scientific fact; the Bible is not a science textbook. The beginning of the Bible introduces God as the creator of the heavens (plural) and earth. It's about God, not science.

BTW, the Bible is most definitely not always literal. You wrote incorrectly above, "symbol, allegory, or figurative language presents a literal truth." That is self-contradictory!

 

[Quantrill]

The "creation record" is not scientific fact; the Bible is not a science textbook. The beginning of the Bible introduces God as the creator of the heavens (plural) and earth. It's about God, not science.

BTW, the Bible is most definitely not always literal. You wrote incorrectly above, "symbol, allegory, or figurative language presents a literal truth." That is self-contradictory!

So? I said the creation record is presented as fact. I don't care what 'science' says.

The Bible is always literal, as I explained, which apparently went over your head.

Quantrill

 

[jaybo]

So? I said the creation record is presented as fact. I don't care what 'science' says.

The Bible is always literal, as I explained, which apparently went over your head.

Quantrill

It most definitely did not "go over [my] head". Watch it with the personal insults!

Again, I state that the creation record is not presented as fact. It's sad that you can't understand that.

Why not try reading Genesis 1, then Genesis 2? You'll discover that the two "factual" accounts disagree with each other.

So, the Bible is not always literal. QED!!

 

[jaybo]

That is exactly what it says. I am not redefining anything.

Of course we will never agree. You use science to interpret Scripture.

You don't believe the Bible. You believe your science.

Quantrill

The Bible and science are entirely different things. One can (and should) believe both.

 

[stovebolts]

A parable is not the only use of figurative language in the Bible. It merely shows that the Bible is often not literal, such as the figurative language used for the creation story.

This is a 21 century perspective and not the perspective from which Moses wrote.
While your perspective may be accepted within certain circles, if you want to apply it to what Moses wrote, then you will have to show that Moses used this as a literary style that was during his time.

Again, Parables did not exist in Hebrew culture during the time of Moses. However, Mashals we’re which are very close in nature to a Parable.

Can you describe what a Mashal is, and can you show me where Moses used a Mashal in any of his writings?

 

[stovebolts]

Why not try reading Genesis 1, then Genesis 2? You'll discover that the two "factual" accounts disagree with each other.

Both chapters were written with two different perspectives in mind.
One is considered a priestly aka eloyhist text (chapter 1) and the other is a Yawistic text (chapter 2).

To understand these to views is paramount to reading Torah and rightly understanding it as Elohim represents sovereignty and preeminence while YHVH represents how Elohim interacts with his creation.

Our modern thinking doesn’t often mesh with Jewish thought.

 

[Barbarian]

I think this article sums it up well:

My basic contention for this article is that a figurative interpretation of Genesis creation is the natural reading of the accounts, but what do I mean by “figurative”? For the purposes of this article, I define figurative language as language using words or expressions which convey a meaning different than would be understood by a literal interpretation or reading. For example, when Jesus says, “I am the vine…” (John 15:5), He does not mean that He is a plant. He is establishing Himself as the source to which believers are attached. In the same way, I contend much of the language used in the Genesis creation accounts are not meant to denote a meaning which points one to a historical creation of the universe. Rather, I shall argue the Genesis creation accounts are meant to point first and foremost to God as Creator, and the process illustrated is meant to underscore this concept of God as Creator instead of providing an actual account of what happened the first days of the heavens and earth. The reason for understanding Genesis figuratively stems from three reasons each to be addressed in turn: 1) there are two distinct creation accounts; 2) Genesis 1 contains semi-poetic language, while Genesis 2 reads like a narrative; and 3) the genealogies in Genesis are not necessarily a literal transcription of familial lineage.
...
The two creation accounts differ in terms of style, starting point, and order of creation.

The style variation between Genesis 1 and 2 is instantly apparent. Genesis 1 reads much like a poem and is structured that way as well. As I will explore later, Genesis 1 constructs its creation account by paralleling the days of creation with one another. Genesis 1 also contains repetition of words (such as, “Then God said…”, “And God saw that it was good…”, etc.) not seen in Genesis 2. In this way, Genesis 1 contains what is called “semi-poetic language.” This language is utterly different from how Genesis 2 constructs itself which is written like a narrative.
...
The starting points between the first and second creation accounts are disparate as well. In Genesis 1, the beginning of the creation account has God creating the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:2 says, “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the water” (HCSB). The start of the creation account has the beginning of the earth being watery. From this context God brings light, order, and living things. The second creation account begins from a different point. Rather than being a watery surface, the earth is described in a way more akin to a desert landscape.
...
Finally, the orders of creation are different between the first and second creation accounts. The creation order in Genesis 1 has God creating the birds of the air, fish of the sea, and creatures of the ground before the creation of man (vv. 20-27). The animals are created, and God creates man so that he may serve as a designated ruler and caretaker of them (v. 26). The creation order in Genesis 2 slightly yet noticeably varies from the first. In the latter creation account, God creates man first. As Genesis 2:7 says, “Then the LORD God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.”
...
While not meant to be an absolute proof, these details of Genesis 1 and 2 seem to point to the conclusion Genesis 1 and 2 possess distinct creation accounts. The existence of two distinct creation accounts indicates the prevalence of figurative language over literal.
...
In contrast to the poetic structure of the first creation account, the second creation account in Genesis 2 reads much differently. There is no mention of the days which divide the creative acts; rather, each act of creation flows into the next. As mentioned before, the second account begins with God springing forth life in a barren land.
...
The danger is to think of the Bible as either entirely figurative or wholly literal. Either scenario does not approach the text with the criticism it deserves and leads the reader to some fairly nonsensical conclusions such as believing the crucifixion of Jesus is meant to be figurative or maintaining all of Christ’s parables or Old Testament stories are literal.
...
It must be stressed this issue is secondary within the realm of Christian theology and philosophy. One can maintain orthodoxy while falling on whichever side of the debate; this topic need not divide believers to the extent of excluding one another. It is unorthodox for a believer to chastise another group because they hold to a counter-perspective on this issue.

On Genesis Creation: Figurative or Literal?

One of the more touchy areas of conflict within the Christian sphere is the discord between the Genesis account of creation being a literal work describing the beginnings of the universe or a figur…

theresidenttheologianblog.wordpress.com

The most important part is that there are good Christians on all sides of this question; we may disagree, but we should keep in mind, that our interpretation of the creation account is not something that affects our salvation.

 

[Barbarian]

Can you describe what a Mashal is, and can you show me where Moses used a Mashal in any of his writings?

Denominative from H4912; to liken, that is, (transitively) to use figurative language (an allegory, adage, song or the like); intransitively to resemble:—be (-come) like, compare, use (as a) proverb, speak (in proverbs), utter.

Strong's (Hebrew & Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament)​

Most notably, a morning and evening with no sun to have them. And as Jaybo points out,

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. (my emphasis)

Real mornings and evenings could not be possible until the 3rd day, if you take it literally.

 

[stovebolts]

Denominative from H4912; to liken, that is, (transitively) to use figurative language (an allegory, adage, song or the like); intransitively to resemble:—be (-come) like, compare, use (as a) proverb, speak (in proverbs), utter.

Strong's (Hebrew & Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament)​

Strongs is a tool and it has its place. Etymology is not one of them. While I agree that a Mashal imparts wisdom, the creation account, though it also imparts wisdom, is not considered a Mashal in Orthodox Jewish circles.

Real mornings and evenings could not be possible until the 3rd day, if you take it literally.

You would agree that we measure time by the position of the heavenly bodies, primarily the sun and moon which signals morning and evening.

Let me ask you, prior to God uttering, “Let there be light”, was there literal darkness? If not, what does Scripture mean by darkness which was before Got uttered light into creation? What is meant by light?

 

[jaybo]

If the account in Genesis is literal then someone please explain to me how there was light on day 1 but the sun and moon weren't created until day 4.

 

[jaybo]

Strongs is a tool and it has its place. Etymology is not one of them. While I agree that a Mashal imparts wisdom, the creation account, though it also imparts wisdom, is not considered a Mashal in Orthodox Jewish circles.

You would agree that we measure time by the position of the heavenly bodies, primarily the sun and moon which signals morning and evening.

Let e ask you, prior to God uttering, “Let there be light”, was there literal darkness?

It says right in the beginning that "Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water." Genesis 1:2

 

[stovebolts]

If the account in Genesis is literal then someone please explain to me how there was light on day 1 but the sun and moon weren't created until day 4.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked Barbarian. Prior to God uttering, “ let there be light”, was the darkness a literal darkness?

 

[Barbarian]

I’ll ask you the same question I asked Barbarian. Prior to God uttering, “ let there be light”, was the darkness a literal darkness?

Might be so. Ask yourself, "would it matter to what God is telling us in Genesis?" Would everything be falsified if it was a metaphorical darkness rather than a literal one?

The first of the two creation stories in Genesis sounds a great deal like the Sumerian creation story, which involved water and darkness as symbols of chaos from which order is established by the gods.

Like the flood story, which is also very similar to the Sumerian version, God takes the story and sets it to reject the idea of many gods who are often crabby and amoral, presenting a single omnipotent God Who is entirely good and at the same time, just and merciful.

 

[crossnote]

My question is, how is it that in this 'evolutionary process' God halts things and produces Eve by putting Adam into a deep sleep and forming Eve from a rib taken out of Adam's side...

Trying to refocus back on Eve and the problem she presents to the theistic evolutionist. Gen 2:22-24

 

[Quantrill]

If the account in Genesis is literal then someone please explain to me how there was light on day 1 but the sun and moon weren't created until day 4.

See post #(16).

Quantrill

 

[stovebolts]

Might be so. Ask yourself, "would it matter to what God is telling us in Genesis?" Would everything be falsified if it was a metaphorical darkness rather than a literal one?

Of course it matters. The thing about the way Moses writes, is at times what he writes can be both literal and metaphoric. Other things just defy the norm.

according to Genesis 1, a day includes evening and morning. Don’t confuse that with light being called day, and darkness being called night because night is the start of a new day.

Take Passover for example. A day starts at sunset, so already you can’t think in terms of midnight to midnight. In Jewish thought, evening leads into sunset and night is the beginning of the day. This is both literal and metaphoric. Evening and morning are not the start and ending points for a “day”. So what is Moses emphasizing by highlighting evening and morning in Genesis 1?

In Exodus 12:6-8, Moses instructs the Israelites to kill the Passover lamb in the evening (end of the day). Yet he instructs them to eat it that same night (beginning of the day). Physically, this is impossible because a day does not have two nights.

To this day Jews consider the 14th of Nissan to have two nights. In other words, the night of the 15th is shared with the 14th and is realized both as literal and metaphoric.

The first of the two creation stories in Genesis sounds a great deal like the Sumerian creation story, which involved water and darkness as symbols of chaos from which order is established by the gods.

And that’s not by accident. Noah settled in the Sumerian region after the flood and was alive during the same time as Abram. Although the Sumerian writings are the oldest writings to date, their alphabet derived from Hebrew origin.

Like the flood story, which is also very similar to the Sumerian version, God takes the story and sets it to reject the idea of many gods who are often crabby and amoral, presenting a single omnipotent God Who is entirely good and at the same time, just and merciful.

There are two stories of Gilgamesh. An early writing and a later writing. In the earlier version a King was mistreating his subjects and the Gods intercede. It is within these writings that we find the words El (singular) and Elohim (plural) which Moses uses in his writings.

Coming full circle, do you think it’s possible that “day 1 and 2” could have had both a literal and metaphoric light and darkness?

 

[jaybo]

I’ll ask you the same question I asked Barbarian. Prior to God uttering, “ let there be light”, was the darkness a literal darkness?

The Bible says that "Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water." in Genesis 1:2 According to the NET translators, "The Hebrew word simply means “darkness,” So IMHO "darkness" means literal darkness.

 

[jaybo]

See post #(16).

Quantrill

Your post #16 makes no sense. There is no such thing as "a substitute light".