[ Young Earth ] Eve

[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

You wrote, "And symbol, allegory, or figurative language, presents a literal truth." That is meaningless and self-contradictory. Symbol, allegory, and figurative language are not literal; they are symbolic, allegorical, or figurative.

 

[stovebolts]

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.

Then by that same reasoning, was the light literal light?

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 

[Barbarian]

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.

No. Sumerians were there and writing before there were any Semites in the area. The Semites later took over the area, replacing Sumerians.

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.

It's thought that the God of Abraham is mentioned in the Gilgamesh saga, but not in a very favorable way.

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?

Not according to the text, at least for Genesis 1. The second version in Genesis 2 might be more flexible for that idea.

 

[jaybo]

Then by that same reasoning, was the light literal light?

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

What else would you call it? If God called it "light" that's good enough for me.

 

[Quantrill]

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

Do you think the sun is the true light?

Where does the light come from in the New Jerusalem? (Rev. 21:23-24)

In the Tabernacle, the sun was the light in the outer court. The lampstand was the light in the Holy Place. Where does the light come from in the Holy of Holies?

The sun is nothing but a substitute light.

The true light is the light of God. And the light of God is what is spoken of in (Genesis 1:3-4). Pretty simple really.

Quantrill

 

[jaybo]

Do you think the sun is the true light?

Where does the light come from in the New Jerusalem? (Rev. 21:23-24)

In the Tabernacle, the sun was the light in the outer court. The lampstand was the light in the Holy Place. Where does the light come from in the Holy of Holies?

The sun is nothing but a substitute light.

The true light is the light of God. And the light of God is what is spoken of in (Genesis 1:3-4). Pretty simple really.

Quantrill

There is absolutely nothing in my Bible that says the sun is a "substitute light". That is something you invented, i.e., it's not Scriptural.

Genesis 1:14-19, "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."

Where do you find the word "substitute" here? Or anywhere else where the words "substitute light" appear?

 

[Quantrill]

You wrote, "And symbol, allegory, or figurative language, presents a literal truth." That is meaningless and self-contradictory. Symbol, allegory, and figurative language are not literal; they are symbolic, allegorical, or figurative.

No, it is not. In Scripture the symbols, or allegory, or figurative language are used to present a 'literal truth'. In other words, if you misunderstand the symbol, or allegory, or figurative language, then you miss the literal truth.

Just as Jesus said concerning the parables He gave. "And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will you know all parables." (Mark 4:13)

You must use the symbol, and allegory, and figurative language, and parable correctly.

Quantrill

 

[jaybo]

No, it is not. In Scripture the symbols, or allegory, or figurative language are used to present a 'literal truth'. In other words, if you misunderstand the symbol, or allegory, or figurative language, then you miss the literal truth.

Just as Jesus said concerning the parables He gave. "And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will you know all parables." (Mark 4:13)

You must use the symbol, and allegory, and figurative language, and parable correctly.

Quantrill

I'm done discussing this with you. If you can't understand the difference between symbol, and allegory, and figurative language, and parable and literal language then there is no point in continuing.

 

[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.

What else would you call it? If God called it "light" that's good enough for me.

Let’s see if we can’t reason here, from a literal point of view.

In verse 3, you agree that was a literal light. Yet earlier you asked to have it explained to you how this could be a literal light since the sun was not created till afterwards. (Verses Genesis 1:14-19

Moses is writing about two different lights, and both of them literal, and both of them metaphoric.

If you are in agreement that both lights were literal, then the question you asked should have partially been answered.

It seems reasonable to me then, that now we know this, we should have more questions.

but before we go further, does what’s been presented to you so far help to answer your original question?

 

[Quantrill]

There is absolutely nothing in my Bible that says the sun is a "substitute light". That is something you invented, i.e., it's not Scriptural.

Genesis 1:14-19, "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."

Where do you find the word "substitute" here? Or anywhere else where the words "substitute light" appear?

You didn't answer my questions.

Answer them and then I will answer your question.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

I'm done discussing this with you. If you can't understand the difference between symbol, and allegory, and figurative language, and parable and literal language then there is no point in continuing.

Symbolic, and figurative, and allegory, or parable, used in Scripture is not a license to make any interpretation you want. If you miss it, then you miss the literal meaning.

If you want to continue or not is up to you.

Quantrill

 

[jaybo]

Let’s see if we can’t reason here, from a literal point of view.

In verse 3, you agree that was a literal light. Yet earlier you asked to have it explained to you how this could be a literal light since the sun was not created till afterwards. (Verses Genesis 1:14-19

Moses is writing about two different lights, and both of them literal, and both of them metaphoric.

If you are in agreement that both lights were literal, then the question you asked should have partially been answered.

It seems reasonable to me then, that now we know this, we should have more questions.

but before we go further, does what’s been presented to you so far help to answer your original question?

Oh now I see! There are two different lights, both of them literal and metaphoric? That is self-contradictory.

"Literal": taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
"Metaphor": "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. (and by extension, "metaphorically")

 

[stovebolts]

Oh now I see! There are two different lights, both of them literal and metaphoric? That is self-contradictory.

Not to Moses.
But that’s ok.
Temporarily disregarding the metaphoric aspect, let us just discuss the literal.

Since you agree that light in verse 3 was a literal light, then what was that light since the sun, moon and stars were not created until verse 14?

 

[stovebolts]

No. Sumerians were there and writing before there were any Semites in the area. The Semites later took over the area, replacing Sumerians.

Abram was from Ur and Noah was still alive during the early years of Abrams life. Ur is in what we know as being Sumerian

I am by no means a scholar, but Patterns of Evidence makes a good case in “The Moses Controversy” that the Sumerian alphabet is rooted in Semite. There is also evidence that the Canaanite language was also founded on the Semite language.

It's thought that the God of Abraham is mentioned in the Gilgamesh saga, but not in a very favorable way.

I have both versions that were translated from the original text. While I have read both accounts numerous times, that may have slipped by me. Can you show me where that’s at? I am genuinely intrigued, which further supports my inclination that parts of Gilgamesh come from Noah or his sons etc.

Not according to the text, at least for Genesis 1. The second version in Genesis 2 might be more flexible for that idea.

As a refresher, I asked you earlier if you thought that darkness in Genesis 1:2 was a literal darkness. You never really gave a clear answer.

So let’s take two steps back if that’s ok.

Do you think darkness in verse 2 is literal or metaphoric? I believe it is both.

Do you think light in verse 4 was literal or metaphoric. Again, I believe both.

I would like to understand what you believe on this, and why from the point of view that Moses is trying to convey. Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[jaybo]

Not to Moses.
But that’s ok.
Temporarily disregarding the metaphoric aspect, let us just discuss the literal.

Since you agree that light in verse 3 was a literal light, then what was that light since the sun, moon and stars were not created until verse 14?

It was -- ready? -- light! God created light, Here are a couple of definitions: 1) the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible and 2) an area of something that is brighter or paler than its surroundings.

The way that I have regarded 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." -- as the first separation of the day into two phases: day (when people work, eat, travel, etc.) and night (when people rest). It was the way the Hebrews separated and defined the 24-hour period.

Does that make sense to you, as I can't really explain it better than that.

 

[stovebolts]

It was -- ready? -- light! God created light, Here are a couple of definitions: 1) the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible and 2) an area of something that is brighter or paler than its surroundings.

Good, so we both believe that there was a literal light being spoken of in verse 4.
We both agree that this literal light was not sourced from verse 14.

-- as the first separation of the day into two phases: day (when people work, eat, travel, etc.) and night (when people rest). It is more a definition of daytime and nighttime than a reference to physical light. It was the way the Hebrews separated and defined the 24-hour period.

The Hebrews thought radically different than either you or I do and Moses was no exception. Paul pulls this out exceptionally in 1 Corinthians 1:22-25

The way I see it, my job is to try and shed my cultural blinds and attempt to read the Biblical texts from the original authors cultural lens.

Because my natural cultural lens is always seeking knowledge, I naturally miss the signs and wonders within the biblical texts, unless they are spelled out in big neon letters for me. To counter this, I’ve tried to learn about the Hebrews culture in an attempt to hear what the author origin.

But I regress.
We both agree that the light in verse 4 was literal. What can you tell me about that light? Does scripture mention this light in other places? What does this light represent?

 

[jaybo]

Good, so we both believe that there was a literal light being spoken of in verse 4.
We both agree that this literal light was not sourced from verse 14.


The Hebrews thought radically different than either you or I do and Moses was no exception. Paul pulls this out exceptionally in 1 Corinthians 1:22-25

The way I see it, my job is to try and shed my cultural blinds and attempt to read the Biblical texts from the original authors cultural lens.

Because my natural cultural lens is always seeking knowledge, I naturally miss the signs and wonders within the biblical texts, unless they are spelled out in big neon letters for me. To counter this, I’ve tried to learn about the Hebrews culture in an attempt to hear what the author origin.

But I regress.
We both agree that the light in verse 4 was literal. What can you tell me about that light? Does scripture mention this light in other places? What does this light represent?

I agree that the Hebrews thought radically different than either you or I do, which makes the Bible both fascinating and, at times, difficult to understand. I have read a number of books about the differences between the ancient cultures and the totally different society that we live in today. One of the main factors is, of course, language -- language is culture -- so it it a constant challenge to understand Scripture as it was understood throughout the Biblical centuries. I really like your statement, "The way I see it, my job is to try and shed my cultural blinds and attempt to read the Biblical texts from the original authors cultural lens."

Regarding Genesis 1, when God said, "let there be light" it is in the context of light = day and dark = night, a binary division of human time, not the physical phenomenon. The key words to me are in verse 5: "God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day." In other words, the most important factor is how people are supposed to divide their time. The physical sun, moon, and stars are mentioned later, which again reinforces my view that the division of a day into evening hours and morning hours are what is most important.

This is a prime example of understanding the Bible through the lens of another culture, separated by thousands of years from our own. I can't help but wonder that if the ancient Hebrews had clocks whether this verse would be in the Bible at all.

On a related note, I have preached in church about 1 Corinthians 18:25. "For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the cleverness of the intelligent.” Where is the wise man? Where is the expert in the Mosaic law? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world foolish? For since in the wisdom of God the world by its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe by the foolishness of preaching. For Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks ask for wisdom, but we preach about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."

We read and read and read and re-read Scripture in a translation into our own language, separated in so many ways from the lives and pattern of thought of the ancient peoples. Then we get on Christian forums and discuss our interpretations of Scripture. In many ways it's absurd, but of course it's all we have to go by.

This discussion about the lights in Genesis is a perfect example. Regardless I enjoy discussing this issue with you and look forward to future discussions on a variety of issues. God bless!

 

[Barbarian]

Abram was from Ur and Noah was still alive during the early years of Abrams life. Ur is in what we know as being Sumerian

I am by no means a scholar, but Patterns of Evidence makes a good case in “The Moses Controversy” that the Sumerian alphabet is rooted in Semite. There is also evidence that the Canaanite language was also founded on the Semite language.

By adopting the cuneiform writing system of the Sumerians the Akkadian scribes developed the language that would later be known as Babylonian and then evolve into Assyrian. For over one thousand years the Great Kingdoms of the Ancient Near East communicated in the language imposed by the man who defined the meaning of empire. Sargon’s dynasty would last for just over one hundred years but, as it introduced the Semitic Languages to the world, its impact on history is still being felt to this day.

Who Are The Semites? | World History

worldhistory.us

All of the known Canaanite languages are Semitic. They comprise one of the three divisions of Semitic languages.

It's thought that the God of Abraham is mentioned in the Gilgamesh saga, but not in a very favorable way.

I have both versions that were translated from the original text. While I have read both accounts numerous times, that may have slipped by me. Can you show me where that’s at? I am genuinely intrigued, which further supports my inclination that parts of Gilgamesh come from Noah or his sons etc.

The Sumerians called Him "Huwawa" or "Yehuwawa."
Hebrew pronunciation: "Yahuwah"
Sumerian pronunciation: "Yehuwawa"

And they depicted Him as an evil being, no doubt in resentment. Because the people of Abraham even then saw him as a supreme being, even if not all of them had come to realize that He is the only God.

As a refresher, I asked you earlier if you thought that darkness in Genesis 1:2 was a literal darkness. You never really gave a clear answer.

It depends on what the watery chaos in Genesis 1 actually is. It may be the same literary device as the Eridu Genesis,

Black Sea Abyss: Chaos and Writing in Ancient Mesopotamia

An Introduction to Chaos and Writing: ‘origin’ and ‘beginning’ This discussion examines ‘writing and chaos’ in the context of ancient Mesopotamia. Of central interest is the Eridu Genesis, a text o...

journals.openedition.org

the Sumerian story of creation out of an unformed ocean, in which case, it would be a literal description and figurative for the stuff of which creation was made. Or more likely, it describes the initial creation itself, in which case it would be metaphorical, since the beginning of the universe consisted of energy only, and only later condensation into matter.

And whether it's about the origin of all things in the universe,or just of the forming of the Earth, is unclear, and really aside from the point God is making for us.

I would like to understand what you believe on this, and why from the point of view that Moses is trying to convey. Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

The view is that God is the Creator, that there are no other Gods, and that He made all things, even those that were brought forth by things He had made in the initial creation. And that it was the way He commanded it to be, it was good in His eyes.

 

[stovebolts]

I agree that the Hebrews thought radically different than either you or I do, which makes the Bible both fascinating and, at times, difficult to understand. I have read a number of books about the differences between the ancient cultures and the totally different society that we live in today. One of the main factors is, of course, language -- language is culture -- so it it a constant challenge to understand Scripture as it was understood throughout the Biblical centuries. I really like your statement, "The way I see it, my job is to try and shed my cultural blinds and attempt to read the Biblical texts from the original authors cultural lens."

A man I respect gave me my first taste of how the Hebrews views the world in contrast with our view by way of a door.
A door is a noun. You and I think in terms of nouns and then the verb describes the action from the noun.
In Jewish thought, they would call the door a swinger. For Jews, the verb is their primary focus. Nouns as we use them have very little room in their language.
An example of this is seen in the shapes of their alphabet as they are pictorial. The aleph is an oxes head and represents strength. And might. The Dalet is a shepherds staff, which represents how a shepherd tends his flock. Put the two ideals together and you have a strong shepherd who tends his flock. In Hebrew, it’s El Shaddie and in some English translation it’s God Almighty. We see the word God as a noun while the Jews see it more as a verb.

Now, take this concept of Jewish thought into Genesis 1:4 and instead of looking at light as a noun, look at it for what it does and how it impacts the world around it.

Regarding Genesis 1, when God said, "let there be light" it is in the context of light = day and dark = night, a binary division of human time, not the physical phenomenon.

See my above comments. While I don’t disagree with your reasoning, I do think that there is a bit more there than your seeing at the moment. And that’s ok.

ot the physical phenomenon. The key words to me are in verse 5: "God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day."

I would call them markers within a day. A day in Jewish thought is from sundown to sundown. The basic markers are this.
1. Sundown / night is the start of a new day.
2. Sunrise is morning
3. Mid day is lunchtime! Heat of the day.
4. Evening, a time of cooling
5. Dusk aka twilight is the end of the day

The physical sun, moon, and stars are mentioned later, which again reinforces my view that the division of a day into evening hours and morning hours are what is most important.

I’m curious why you see as being important.

This discussion about the lights in Genesis is a perfect example. Regardless I enjoy discussing this issue with you and look forward to future discussions on a variety of issues. God bless!

I’ve been enjoying our discussion as well! Thank you!
I may not be on as much today. Ive got a lot of work to attend to and we are picking up a new puppy at 3 today!

 

[jaybo]

A man I respect gave me my first taste of how the Hebrews views the world in contrast with our view by way of a door.
A door is a noun. You and I think in terms of nouns and then the verb describes the action from the noun.
In Jewish thought, they would call the door a swinger. For Jews, the verb is their primary focus. Nouns as we use them have very little room in their language.
An example of this is seen in the shapes of their alphabet as they are pictorial. The aleph is an oxes head and represents strength. And might. The Dalet is a shepherds staff, which represents how a shepherd tends his flock. Put the two ideals together and you have a strong shepherd who tends his flock. In Hebrew, it’s El Shaddie and in some English translation it’s God Almighty. We see the word God as a noun while the Jews see it more as a verb.

Now, take this concept of Jewish thought into Genesis 1:4 and instead of looking at light as a noun, look at it for what it does and how it impacts the world around it.



See my above comments. While I don’t disagree with your reasoning, I do think that there is a bit more there than your seeing at the moment. And that’s ok.



I would call them markers within a day. A day in Jewish thought is from sundown to sundown. The basic markers are this.
1. Sundown / night is the start of a new day.
2. Sunrise is morning
3. Mid day is lunchtime! Heat of the day.
4. Evening, a time of cooling
5. Dusk aka twilight is the end of the day

I’m curious why you see as being important.


I’ve been enjoying our discussion as well! Thank you!
I may not be on as much today. Ive got a lot of work to attend to and we are picking up a new puppy at 3 today!

Since the first division was between light and darkness, my opinion is that the concept of the day is what is important in the creation saga. The day began at sunset, the time when work is finished and eating and sleeping occurs. Then, half-way through the day the sun rises and it's time to start working again. (The only day that is different is the Sabbath, which is a day of no work.)

My thought is that the most important parts of the beginning of the world are 1) the introduction of God and 2) the introduction of time.