[_ Old Earth _] Genesis and Moses: Literal or Legend?

[Free]

And which detail is being overlooked?

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said...
Gen 1:8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said...
Gen 1:11 And God said...
Gen 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said...
Gen 1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
Gen 1:20 And God said...
Gen 1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said...
Gen 1:26 Then God said...
Gen 1:29 And God said...
Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (ESV)

Notice that each day begins with "And God said," and ends with "the [nth] day." However, verses one and two are the creation of "the heavens and the earth." This is not a creation day. Day one begins in verse three, after "the earth was without form and void...and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." So it is quite possible that the age of the earth is very old since it is not included in the days of creation.

So we see how turnorburn's friend only gave half of the issue, the half which "supports" their point of view, which is very typical.

 

[Pizza]

To add to Free's post above:

I think we ALL agree that "God said it" and that He DID it.
It is just that many of us are not convinced that He EXPLAINED it all in a few verses in Genesis.

 

[Barth Jones]

Wow! Yeah, I really completely overlooked those two verses in relation to the seven days. I've spent too few minutes trying to make sense of verse 2 in the context if this view of verses 1 and the rest of Scripture to draw any conclusion in confidence at this point but yes, this is huge. I would like more discussion here.

 

[Free]

Wow! Yeah, I really completely overlooked those two verses in relation to the seven days. I've spent too few minutes trying to make sense of verse 2 in the context if this view of verses 1 and the rest of Scripture to draw any conclusion in confidence at this point but yes, this is huge. I would like more discussion here.

Well, I do want to be careful and not state my case too strongly, as though it is for sure true. It sure seems quite plausible to me and is enough to question the argument for a young earth based on a literal 6-day interpretation. Interestingly, this does, of course, raise the possibility of both an old earth and a literal 6-day creation being true. But it would be rather odd to have an earth that could be a few billion years old and then suddenly 6 days of creation only 6-10,000 years ago.

 

[Free]

To add to Free's post above:

I think we ALL agree that "God said it" and that He DID it.
It is just that many of us are not convinced that He EXPLAINED it all in a few verses in Genesis.

Agreed.

 

[Sparkey]

It's pretty clear that we are all descended from a single pair of humans, given immortal souls directly by God. He still does it that way. Our physical bodies are created naturally, but God gives each of us an immortal soul, and does that directly.

Barb? Have you done an independent study on this? What are your conclusions? I'm more interested in the thoughts of a friend than the misunderstandings of many and I know this to be true of you as well.

I'm suggesting that you would profit from a thorough understanding of what the word "soul" (nephesh) meant at the time of use. Word meaning changes over time.
Human beings and animals are both described as being living soul(s). Neither are said to "have souls". It's a reference to having breath, to being alive, to the gift of life that comes from God and it's fairly easy to prove what I'm saying here to be true.

Cordially,
Sparrowhawke

 

[Barbarian]

Barb? Have you done an independent study on this? What are your conclusions? I'm more interested in the thoughts of a friend than the misunderstandings of many and I know this to be true of you as well.

The psychology of the Rabbins is founded on the Sacred Books, particularly the account of the creation of man in Genesis. Three terms are used for the soul: nephesh, nuah , and neshamah ; the first was taken to refer to the animal and vegetative nature, the second to the ethical principle, the third to the purely spiritual intelligence. At all events, it is evident that the Old Testament throughout either asserts or implies the distinct reality of the soul...
In St. Paul we find a more technical phraseology employed with great consistency. Psyche is now appropriated to the purely natural life; pneuma to the life of supernatural religion, the principle of which is the Holy Spirit , dwelling and operating in the heart. The opposition of flesh and spirit is accentuated afresh ( Romans 1:18 , etc.). This Pauline system, presented to a world already prepossessed in favour of a quasi- Platonic Dualism, occasioned one of the earliest widespread forms of error among Christian writers -- the doctrine of the Trichotomy. According to this, man, perfect man ( teleios ) consists of three parts: body, soul, spirit ( soma, psyche, pneuma ). Body and soul come by natural generation; spirit is given to the regenerate Christian alone. Thus, the "newness of life", of which St. Paul speaks, was conceived by some as a superadded entity, a kind of oversoul sublimating the "natural man " into a higher species. This doctrine was variously distorted in the different Gnostic systems. The Gnostics divided man into three classes:

• pneumatici or spiritual,
• psychici or animal,
• choici or earthy.

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10963




I'm suggesting that you would profit from a thorough understanding of what the word "soul" (nephesh) meant at the time of use. Word meaning changes over time.
Human beings and animals are both described as being living soul(s). Neither are said to "have souls". It's a reference to having breath, to being alive, to the gift of life that comes from God and it's fairly easy to prove what I'm saying here to be true.