[_ Old Earth _] The creation of light

[Catholic Crusader]

Genesis 1 and 2 are written using allegory and metaphor. They should not be taken literally. By that I do NOT mean that they aren't true: They are. But they convey the truths that God wanted to convey, which is that God created the heavens and the earth, and created man in His own image - that He is the God of all that is seen and unseen.

But Genesis 1 and 2 were not written to convey actual times, facts, and figures. That is not the way ancient Semites conveyed truth. You guys are trying to impose 21st century ideas of how history is written onto a document written by men who didn't think like we do and who did not write history they way we do. That always leads to error.

The writer of Genesis 1 and 2 was writing tales that had been handed down orally for untold centuries: It is NOT a scientific treatise: It is God's revelation that He is master and creator of the Universe.

 

[Rick W]

And your point is, PL? Mine is that that both the literary technique you propose and the faulty, pre-scientific understanding of the natural world and the universe that Genesis in particular and the OT in general portray are entirely compatible. It is only an absolutely literal interpretation of Genesis and the OT that leads to the conflict between scientific understanding and faith.

Man's intelligence is limited. (gasp! :smt103 )
Under what laws of nature, as man understands these laws, did the Virgin Birth occur?

 

[lordkalvan]

And your point is, PL?

That the OP's question is answered.

It's your opinion/belief that it's a "faulty, pre-scientific understanding of the natural world" not mine. Genesis is entirely logical when read properly.

I agree that you have answered it from one point of view, as I have answered it from another.

From a literary point of view, I find your argument persuasive, although I do have some doubts concerning the absolute validity of the analytical structures imposed on text in order to render it, as you say, entirely logical. The use of distinct and separate days to delineate separate acts of creation suggests a particular sequence of events that existed in the writer's mind. Do you have any references for the reasons underlying this literary practice of using different day numerators to describe events supposedly taking place at the same time as each other? As to your comment on my opinion regarding Genesis, I do not see that the use of one particular literary structure or another invalidates the conclusion that the writers of the OT laboured under misapprehensions concerning the natural world.

 

[Rick W]

I suppose the writer of Genesis could have chosen a three day concept melding the two sets into one but that wasn't his chosen form. If God had need of a seven day week for future purpose then indeed there is cause for His reasoning to inspire the writer to break down creation into it's six major parts. I don't think the writer would then use the system day one, day two, day three, day one addendum , day two addendum and day three addendum to read like a scientific text. Why do writers of great literary works choose the form they use? That's up the the writer's inspiration.

 

[lordkalvan]

And your point is, PL? Mine is that that both the literary technique you propose and the faulty, pre-scientific understanding of the natural world and the universe that Genesis in particular and the OT in general portray are entirely compatible. It is only an absolutely literal interpretation of Genesis and the OT that leads to the conflict between scientific understanding and faith.

Man's intelligence is limited. (gasp! :smt103 )

But not woman's :-D ! Joking aside, I would have thought that intelligence was pretty much a constant within certain parameters. I would have said that humanity's knowledge is the variable in question here, much more limited 3-4 kya, much less limited now. I do not blame pre-scientific cultures for describing the world in pre-scientific terms; I do not, however, believe that those pre-scientific terms reflect anything other than a misunderstanding of several phenomena.

[quote:55581]Under what laws of nature, as man understands these laws, did the Virgin Birth occur?

Parthenogenesis? I have no reason to doubt or, for that matter, be confident in the information found in this online site -

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/sex2.htm

- and I provide this reference with that qualification in mind; the claims appear to be supported by citations:

There is some evidence, however, that natural parthenogenesis does occasionally occur in humans. There are many instances in which impregnation has allegedly taken place in women without there being any possibility of the semen entering the female genital passage [2]. In some cases it was found either in the course of pregnancy or at the time of childbirth that the female passages were obstructed. In 1956 the medical journal Lancet published a report concerning 19 alleged cases of virgin birth among women in England, who were studied by members of the British Medical Association. The six-month study convinced the investigators that human parthenogenesis was physiologically possible and had actually occurred in some of the women studied [3].

[/quote:55581]

It is also the case that the relevant Wiki article reports no known cases of mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild. Virgin births are not uncommon in mythology and legend, however, Perseus and Attis being referenced by the same Wiki article. Helen, Clytemnestra, and Castor and Pollux were the children of the Greek god Zeus, born of the mortal woman Leda, though she was admittedly no virgin. There are many other examples.

 

[lordkalvan]

I suppose the writer of Genesis could have chosen a three day concept melding the two sets into one but that wasn't his chosen form. If God had need of a seven day week for future purpose then indeed there is cause for His reasoning to inspire the writer to break down creation into it's six major parts. I don't think the writer would then use the system day one, day two, day three, day one addendum , day two addendum and day three addendum to read like a scientific text. Why do writers of great literary works choose the form they use? That's up the the writer's inspiration.

This seems a somewhat contrived explanation. A simpler explanation could be that the writer chose the seven-day week structure for his recounting of the acts of creation because it was a period he was already familiar with from the culture he lived in, regardless of whether the period originally derived from a creation story or not. He then fitted his tale to this seven-day period. There is ample evidence to indicate that, in ancient times weeks of from four to ten days were commonly used (the Dynastic Egyptian week counting ten days, for example). The seven day week has at least one other source than the Bible, namely the practice of astrology widespread in the Middle East, relating one day of the week to each of the visible planets, plus the Sun and the Moon, hence the names of the days in the Roman week

 

[Orion]

I agree with what you're saying, lordkalvan. It has been suggested that a lot of bibilcal literary works were actually taken from other cultures and religions that had been well established already, and even the use of the astrological zodiac signs.

Two points I'd like to address:

1. If 4-6 is an addendum to 1-3, I would think that it would be worded that way, and then followed as if it were. Ex. as suggested already about the problems with day five being an addendum to day two.

2. If the days were meant as literal "day one, day two, day three, day four, day five, and day six", in a chronology, then the light from day one would be a temporary light, and since it was created by God, it could only be seen as "perfect". However, if this light was replaced by the sun, on day four, then it begs the question of "why". It would seem to indicate that this light was somehow inadequate for the long run for the earth.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Another point in the literal reading. Assuming chrono order there is something that would need to be addressed in verses 1 and 2

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

In verse two we see a reference to water. Now, without sunlight or anyother heat source, the earths temperature is going to be well below 32F. And that's an big understatement for the temp.

There would be only ice, unless some other heat source is assumed, or it is assumed that by water it is meant ice.

 

[sheshisown]

Hello ProphetMark~

According to Genesis, God created light on the first day. And yet he created the sun, moon, and stars on the 4th day. I'd have thought all the light in the universe came from the stars (including the sun of course).
So what light is Genesis referring to when it says light was created before the stars?

I decided to take your question about where this light comes from, and therefore, what this light source is, (prior to the creation of stars or sun and moon) in Genesis.

Of all the benefits that we, as inhabitants of this lower world, have received, there are few more remarkable than the possession of light, along with an ability to make use of it. By it we come to possess much of our knowledge, many of our comforts and necessities; to say nothing of its wonderful purity, delicacy, and variety of colors that it reveals to the eyes of humankind.

The only source that literally explains this phenomena is the Bible, because everything within the universe--- including the knowledge of humanity--- is limited by the universe as it's source of all knowledge. We are unable to see or think outside our box, so to say. We merely dwell within the universe and have no actual ability to step outside it completely, and percieve it from a different perspective. Therefore, we are continually influenced by the universe we dwell inside of. The Bible, however contains information outside our sphere, from it we may SEE more than merely our surroundings from our viewpoint. So of course to understand that which (in my estimation as a Christian) created the universe we must go to the source for our knowledge. :fadein:

LIGHT (mostly Heb. ÂÂoòr; Gk. phoôs). Light is declared by the Scriptures to have come into
existence by the express decree of the Almighty and to have been in existence long before stars sun or moon or man or animals or vegetation had their being. (Genesis 1:3).

That which penetrates and dispels darkness. The concept of "light" appears numerous times in both the Old and New Testaments. God created light (Gen. 1:3). However, a careful reading of the Scriptures reveals that the physical entity that we call "light" is actually only the second form of light in the universe, since everywhere the Bible declares that God Himself is light. Psalm 27:1 says, "The Lord is my light." In Psalm 104:2, the psalmist testified of the Lord who "covered himself" in light. In John 8:12 Jesus, the God-man, said, "I am the light of the world."

Such expressions make at least two things abundantly clear. First, the origin of light rests with God. :D Second, in some sense God Himself is the very essence of light. :o Such statements do not suppose that God is light and nothing more, but they do stress that God is the ultimate source of all knowing and understanding. To this end Psalm 119:105 informs us that God’s Word is a "light" to one’s path. Here the emphasis lies upon perception and understanding gained when darkness is dispelled and light revealed.

Figuratively. The Almighty (God) Himself is frequently spoken of as connected with the idea of light. Thus "God is light" (1 John 1:5); the "Father of lights" (James 1:17). God is addressed as
"covering Thyself with light as with a cloak" (Psalm 104:2) and as One "who alone possesses
immortality and dwells in unapproachable light" (1 Timothy 6:16). Great sublimity is
introduced by the combination of figures of darkness and light, and by making them mutually
enhance each other (Psalm 18:11-12; Exodus 24:15-17). Jesus, as the One who brings the true
knowledge of God, is called "the light of men" (John 1:4; see also Matthew 4:16; John 1:9;
8:12; 12:35-36). Light is continually used as figurative of holiness and purity (Proverbs 6:23;
Isaiah 5:20; Romans 13:12). Light also, as might naturally be expected, is frequently used for
spiritual illumination, especially that illumination that is effected in the soul by the indwelling
Spirit of God (2 Corinthians 4:6; Ephesians 5:14; 1 Peter 2:9). Again, light is used as the figure
in general for that which cheers or makes prosperous, and is applied to spiritual joy arising from the influences of the Spirit of peace. So the frequent use of the expressions "the light of Thy countenance" (Psalm 4:6); "the Lord is my light and my salvation" (Psalm 27:1); and "light is sown like seed for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart" (Psalm 97:11). A striking variety is given in Job 37:21: "Men do not see the light which is bright in the skies," their trouble so oppressing them that all seems dark, and they do observe not happier times in store for them. The Word of God is compared to a "lamp" (Psalm 119:105). Light is also applied to the heavenly state (Isaiah 60:19-20; Colossians 1:12; Revelation 21:23-25; 22:5). Finally, the figure is applied to Christians in general (Matthew 5:14; Ephesians 5:8) and to holy men, such as John the Baptist (John 5:35). See Lamp. 8-)

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. ;-)

May the Lord bless you with this understanding. bonnie

 

[Orion]

What do we need with the sun for then? Did God extinguish his light after the 4th day? Further more, if God is omni present, . . . from where was this light coming from that by definition was coming from a singular source?

In a metaphorical sense, you can use "God is the light", but not in a realistic or practical sense.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Also, this perception is viewing light and darkness as two seperate entities. They are not. There is no such thing as darkness technically. "Dark" is a subjective term to distinguish how much light there is. When there is less light, we consider something to be darker, but the word "darkness" is nonsensical.

The only true "dark" would be a place devoid of any energy, or at a temp of 0 kelvin, which is an impossibility in this universe.

In fact, God's existence in this universe would mean that there was always some form of energy, and "let there be light" would be unnecessary.

 

[sheshisown]

Hiya VaultZeroMe~ :D

Also, this perception is viewing light and darkness as two seperate entities. They are not. There is no such thing as darkness technically. "Dark" is a subjective term to distinguish how much light there is. When there is less light, we consider something to be darker, but the word "darkness" is nonsensical.

The only true "dark" would be a place devoid of any energy, or at a temp of 0 kelvin, which is an impossibility in this universe.

In fact, God's existence in this universe would mean that there was always some form of energy, and "let there be light" would be unnecessary.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I may have missed something in my post--- but I don't remember saying that darkness is an entity at all~ though I did say that light has physical form.

However, a careful reading of the Scriptures reveals that the physical entity that we call "light" is actually only the second form of light in the universe, since everywhere the Bible declares that God Himself is light. Psalm 27:1 says, "The Lord is my light."

I also referred to the biblical description of a phenomenon that is well known~ light penetrates and dispels darkness. Darkness is the description of the lack of light. Which is the same conclusion you make below.

"Dark" is a subjective term to distinguish how much light there is. When there is less light, we consider something to be darker, but the word "darkness" is nonsensical.

Would you say that using this description is nonsensical as well? "A man hidden in the shadowed patio walked out of the darkness and into the light so that everyone could see him." That is an excerpt from a novel. Using the decriptive word darkness to define a lack of light is not nonsense~ it's literature. The Bible is merely doing the same thing that any piece of literature does.

In fact, God's existence in this universe would mean that there was always some form of energy, and "let there be light" would be unnecessary.

I believe I did state both those concepts in my post~

Light is declared by the Scriptures to have come into existence by the express decree of the Almighty and to have been in existence long before stars sun or moon or man or animals or vegetation had their being. (Genesis 1:3).

The Scriptures reveal that the physical entity that we call "light" is actually only the second form of light in the universe. Therefore an "energy" as you prefer to say, did exist before the universe was created, and even beyond that to the vanishing point. Everywhere the Bible declares that God Himself is light. Psalm 27:1 says, "The Lord is my light." In Psalm 104:2

AND~ the bible declares that God is from everlasting to everlasting. He always was is and will be. Naming Him the Eternal One. :crazyeyes: So this "energy" has always existed.

Yet to then conclude that it is unnecessary for a being to create another form of that which it is made, is to say that it is unnecessary for humanity to procreate. Or for any being to make a form of itself that is like it. This is too obviously necessary in all living things.

In a metaphorical sense, you can use "God is the light", but not in a realistic or practical sense.


You originally asked; So what light is Genesis referring to when it says light was created before the stars?

You are asking your questions in a Christian forum, and expecting Christians to answer. There is no other way I know of to define these concepts to you logically~ than to use what God~ who is "Light" has written of Himself and His creation. He existed beyond the vanishing point~ He created many forms of light containers, Sun and Stars~ the moon merely reflects the light cast by the sun and has no light of its own. 8-)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Orion~ :D

In a metaphorical sense, you can use "God is the light", but not in a realistic or practical sense.

Who says? Though I can logically detail for you what is actual in the makeup and basis of the biblical origin of the universe. I cannot persuade you to believe in that which exceeds humanities limited logical mind. That is what you are asking for. At some point in these discussions you will always reach this particular wall, it may only be scaled by faith. Trust is a simple matter, however, it is also a personal decision. No amount of well reasoned logic will get you there. :-?

May the Lord bless you with that very thing~ faith, which sees beyond the limited logic of man.

bonnie

 

[BobRyan]

Hiya VaultZeroMe~ :D

Light is declared by the Scriptures to have come into existence by the express decree of the Almighty and to have been in existence long before stars sun or moon or man or animals or vegetation had their being. (Genesis 1:3).

The Scriptures reveal that the physical entity that we call "light" is actually only the second form of light in the universe. Therefore an "energy" as you prefer to say, did exist before the universe was created, and even beyond that to the vanishing point. Everywhere the Bible declares that God Himself is light. Psalm 27:1 says, "The Lord is my light." In Psalm 104:2

AND~ the bible declares that God is from everlasting to everlasting. He always was is and will be. Naming Him the Eternal One. :crazyeyes: So this "energy" has always existed.

Yet to then conclude that it is unnecessary for a being to create another form of that which it is made, is to say that it is unnecessary for humanity to procreate. Or for any being to make a form of itself that is like it. This is too obviously necessary in all living things.

[quote:36a43]In a metaphorical sense, you can use "God is the light", but not in a realistic or practical sense.


You originally asked; So what light is Genesis referring to when it says light was created before the stars?

You are asking your questions in a Christian forum, and expecting Christians to answer. There is no other way I know of to define these concepts to you logically~ than to use what God~ who is "Light" has written of Himself and His creation. He existed beyond the vanishing point~ He created many forms of light containers, Sun and Stars~ the moon merely reflects the light cast by the sun and has no light of its own. 8-)
[/quote:36a43]

1. As Patterson states regarding evolutionISM (his term) it is engaged in making up stories about "how one thing came from another... stories easy enough to make up but they are not science" -- you are seeing a lot of that "not science - story telling" repeated here in arguments against Christianity.

2. hint: The Big Bang story ALSO concludes that LIGHT came long before stars formed and planets formed -- so God's statement that FIRST came light and THEN came the sun actually fits that part of the Big Bang.

3. I believe it is more correct to state that Gen 1-2 is describing the creation of our sun and moon - land mass above the water and creation of all life forms on earth. On day four the text says "he made TWO great lights" not "a zillion and two" -- the added comment "he made the stars also" may have been by way of completeness to indicate that He created all the universe not just the solar system for this plant being described in Gen 1-2. However the language in the text does not require that the stars were made on Day 4 -- just the "two great lights".

I don't know what the "light" was on day one EXCEPT that it had to be a single-sided light source and we had to have a rotating planet so that we could have "evening and morning" on the FIRST day. I.e. this is not the "creation" of EM.

4. Bonnie As you pointed out - this is a Christian message board so when the believers in atheist darwinism (i.e. those Darwinist religionists attacking ID SCIENCE) ask about the Christian model for Creation -- they need to first "discover the facts" of what the model IS -- later they can add why they as atheists do not accept it -- but it is key to know "what it is" first.

Bob

 

[Rick W]

I don't know what the "light" was on day one EXCEPT that it had to be a single-sided light source and we had to have a rotating planet so that we could have "evening and morning" on the FIRST day.

Bob,
I looked at the words used for morning and evening in those verses. They mean exactly as we understand them. There are other Hebrew words translated in the OT as morning and evening that carry a figurative meaning that I thought would have been used in Genesis. But that's not the case. They are as they read.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree - the phrase "evening and morning" when combined with numbering as in first day, second day is never -- ever used sybmolically in all of scripture -- no not even once.

Meaning that the timeline in Genesis one given as a well defined chronological sequence - is just as easy to understand as to read AND it is accurately summarized in Ex 20:8-11 "SIX days you shall labor... for IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE".

As you point out Potluck - what a pleasure to be able to accept the obvious meaning in the text "just as it reads" rather than being bent on finding a way to wrench and turn the text to some other usage more in harmony with the atheist teacing in darwinism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

the literary technique you propose and the faulty, pre-scientific understanding of the natural world and the universe that Genesis in particular and the OT in general portray are entirely compatible.

OR we could just look at the glaringly obvious in this case -- less story telling... more facts that way.

1. Moses already knew "what a day" was by the time he wrote Genesis. So also did his readers.

2. Moses already knew what "evening and morning" were by the time he wrote Genesis. So did his readers. Moses used the term "evening and morning were the FIRST DAY" -- we have NO instance of that phrase EVER being used in all of scripture to mean anything but a real day. And supposing that his readers would launch into wild imaginative speculation about it NOT being a day is gratuitous fiction on behalf of darwinism -- but not good logic.

obviously.

3. Neither Moses NOR his readers were infected with the myths and blunderous storytelling of darwinism at that time.

We pretty much all agree to these obvious points -- and that is why I call them "glaringly obvious".

Though I am certain that the endless story telling of Darwinism does not resort to the Bible to prop up it's stories the way it resorted to the confirmed and debunked hoaxes of Piltdown Man.. Nebraska man... Neanderthal-dating to 20,000 years ago... Horse fossil sequence presented in Simpson's horse 1951 horse series (Simpson reproducing Marsh's fraudulent work) ... etc.

Still it is the case that we CAN easily see that the same author speaking to the same readers and quoting God in Ex 20 "SIX DAYS you shall labor...FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" -- is in fact summarzing the same text in the same way as it would have been read in Genesis 1 by those same readers.

Obviously -- again.

As much as some sound-furry-smoke-and-mirrors rabbit-trails have been offerred in the past by believers in atheist darwinism in an effort to distract the reader "From the obvious" -- the point remains.

And that is instructive for the unbiased objective reader.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Also, this perception is viewing light and darkness as two seperate entities. They are not. There is no such thing as darkness technically. "Dark" is a subjective term to distinguish how much light there is. When there is less light, we consider something to be darker, but the word "darkness" is nonsensical.

I beg to differ - dark is simply the lack of EM showing up on whatever recording mechanism you are using -- to the extent that it can no longer detect the EM that is there - you have "dark" which is what the concept means -- OTHERWISE we would speak of "Shining some DARK on the subject". (Of course maybe that is just what Darwinists claim to be doing) ;-)

 

[lordkalvan]

the literary technique you propose and the faulty, pre-scientific understanding of the natural world and the universe that Genesis in particular and the OT in general portray are entirely compatible.

OR we could just look at the glaringly obvious in this case -- less story telling... more facts that way.

The 'glaringly obvious' is only your preferred interpretation of the story telling that glosses over uncomfortable facts.

1. Moses already knew "what a day" was by the time he wrote Genesis. So also did his readers.

Big assumption No.1 being that Moses wrote Genesis, of course, but let's accept this for the sake of argument. This implies what? That neither Moses nor his audience could conceive the use of figurative language? That metaphor and allegory were meaningless to them? That's your big assumption No. 2.

2. Moses already knew what "evening and morning" were by the time he wrote Genesis. So did his readers. Moses used the term "evening and morning were the FIRST DAY" -- we have NO instance of that phrase EVER being used in all of scripture to mean anything but a real day. And supposing that his readers would launch into wild imaginative speculation about it NOT being a day is gratuitous fiction on behalf of darwinism -- but not good logic.

obviously.

The same points I made above apply here. I would add that other biblical scholars disagree with you, but we already know that many biblical scholars disagree with several of your conclusions. Gleason L Archer in The Encycopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp.60-1 has this to say about the use of the word 'day/yom':

There were six major stages in this work of formation, and these stages are represented by successive days of a week. In this connection it is important to observe that none of the six creative days bears a definite article in the Hebrew text; the translations “the first day,†“ the second day,†etc., are in error. The Hebrew says, “And the evening took place, and the morning took place, day one†(1:5). Hebrew expresses “the first day†by hayyom harison, but this text says simply yom ehad (day one). Again, in v.8 we read not hayyom hasseni (“the second dayâ€Â) but yom seni (“a second dayâ€Â). In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite; only in poetic style could it be omitted. The same is true with the rest of the six days; they all lack the definite article. Thus they are well adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.

So there you go. Again you rely on unsupported assertion to make your points.

3. Neither Moses NOR his readers were infected with the myths and blunderous storytelling of darwinism at that time.

Irrelevant non sequitur.

We pretty much all agree to these obvious points -- and that is why I call them "glaringly obvious".

'We' being you and who else?

Though I am certain that the endless story telling of Darwinism does not resort to the Bible to prop up it's stories the way it resorted to the confirmed and debunked hoaxes of Piltdown Man.. Nebraska man... Neanderthal-dating to 20,000 years ago... Horse fossil sequence presented in Simpson's horse 1951 horse series (Simpson reproducing Marsh's fraudulent work) ... etc.

Wholly irrelevant.

Still it is the case that we CAN easily see that the same author speaking to the same readers and quoting God in Ex 20 "SIX DAYS you shall labor...FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" -- is in fact summarzing the same text in the same way as it would have been read in Genesis 1 by those same readers.

More empty assertion. Remember that full stop and the significance of full stops? Another point you have chosen to ignore.

Obviously -- again.

Obvious that you intend only to preach your own pre-conceived ideas and to pay no attention to alternative points of view, indeed.

As much as some sound-furry-smoke-and-mirrors rabbit-trails have been offerred in the past by believers in atheist darwinism in an effort to distract the reader "From the obvious" -- the point remains.

And that is instructive for the unbiased objective reader.

This 'atheist [D]arwinism' mantra you cling to like a security blanket is irrelevant and empty rhetoric, as are these two sentences. You have yet to establish that 'the obvious' exists anywhere outside your own imaginings.

 

[BobRyan]

the literary technique you propose and the faulty, pre-scientific understanding of the natural world and the universe that Genesis in particular and the OT in general portray are entirely compatible.

OR we could just look at the glaringly obvious in this case -- less story telling... more facts that way.

The 'glaringly obvious' is only your preferred interpretation of the story telling that glosses over uncomfortable facts.

Actually all those "inconvenient facts" are on my side in this case... as it turns out.

Here is the first

Bob said -

1. Moses already knew "what a day" was by the time he wrote Genesis. So also did his readers.

L.K
Big assumption No.1 being that Moses wrote Genesis, of course,

-- I am not questioning your need for a deny-all solution.

-- I DO question your "Moses knew what a day was but maybe some other writer of Gen did not" argument... that is just silly.

but let's accept this for the sake of argument. This implies what? That neither Moses nor his audience could conceive the use of figurative language?

Nope - it SHOWS that the obvious meaning IN the text can not be ruled out AS IF "Moses did not know what a day was".

He did.

And we have NO EXAMPLE IN ALL of scripture of any OTHER rendering for "evening and morning where the xth-day" NO NOT EVEN ONE other example ...

So again your argument runs aground in the shore of this "inconvenient detail" getting in the way of your "good story".

That metaphor and allegory were meaningless to them? That's your big assumption No. 2.

Nope that is just a rabbit trail on your part. My argument is not that you can NEVER use allegory if you EVER use Day to MEAN an actual day. Only your flawed argument relies on such faulty reasoning.

My argument is that the context of "evening and morning" in the text -- USED in the text... and SEEN by those paying actual attention to what the text says -- is of the form "evening and morning where the xth-DAY" a FORM for which we have NO excuse in all of scripture to BEND to some other meaning of DAY.

No not even one in all of the Bible!

Bob said -

2. Moses already knew what "evening and morning" were by the time he wrote Genesis. So did his readers. Moses used the term "evening and morning were the FIRST DAY" -- we have NO instance of that phrase EVER being used in all of scripture to mean anything but a real day. And supposing that his readers would launch into wild imaginative speculation about it NOT being a day is gratuitous fiction on behalf of darwinism -- but not good logic.

obviously.

The same points I made above apply here.

indeed your argument continues to fail in that case as we have just seen them fail in the previous example.

Good catch!

I would add that other biblical scholars disagree with you,

Do you have EVEN ONE Bible scholar exegeting Ex 20:8-11 to mean anything OTHER than a real day? You said you do not have it -- I believe you.

Do you have EVEN ONE Bible scholar showing ANY CASE in all of scripture where the phrase "evening and morning where the xth-day" -- AS A PHRASE is EVER used in scripture to mean something OTHER than REAL day -- where all can at least agree to the EXISTENCE of such a thing. OR are your so-called "bible scholars" merely REACHING in Gen 1 by AVOIDING the entire phrase and comparing the WORD "yom" to other uses while extracting it FROM the phrase as "contexct".

Recall that a snippet word WITHOUT a context is merely a PRETEXT.

L.K
but we already know that many biblical scholars disagree with several of your conclusions. Gleason L Archer in The Encycopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp.60-1 has this to say about the use of the word 'day/yom':

[quote:42db1]There were six major stages in this work of formation, and these stages are represented by successive days of a week. In this connection it is important to observe that none of the six creative days bears a definite article in the Hebrew text; the translations “the first day,†“ the second day,†etc., are in error. The Hebrew says, “And the evening took place, and the morning took place, day one†(1:5). Hebrew expresses “the first day†by hayyom harison, but this text says simply yom ehad (day one). Again, in v.8 we read not hayyom hasseni (“the second dayâ€Â) but yom seni (“a second dayâ€Â).

In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite; only in poetic style could it be omitted. The same is true with the rest of the six days; they all lack the definite article. Thus they are well adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.

[/quote:42db1]

Notice that by IGNORING the context of DAY in the phrase "EVENING and MORNING were the xth-day" they get -- nothing but sequence -- and pretend not to "notice" that the "Evening and morning" phrase is dissected OUT of the text to make their eisegesis work.

In fact from the argument they make above the BEST they get is "Evening and morning where a Third Day" following "A second day" --- then "A fourth Day" following a third day" where EACH day is only composed of "Evening and morning".

There is no "a zillion evenings and morning were considered a day" EVEN in THEIR attempt to bend-and-wrench.

So there you go "again".

Bob said -
We pretty much all agree to these obvious points -- and that is why I call them "glaringly obvious".

'We' being you and who else?

Well as I said - my points so far are just the glaringly obvious ones.

Bob said -
Though I am certain that the endless story telling of Darwinism does not resort to the Bible to prop up it's stories the way it resorted to the confirmed and debunked hoaxes of Piltdown Man.. Nebraska man... Neanderthal-dating to 20,000 years ago... Horse fossil sequence presented in Simpson's horse 1951 horse series (Simpson reproducing Marsh's fraudulent work) ... etc.

L.K Wholly irrelevant.

Wishful thinking on your part. The inconvenient detail being highlighted above is the fact that Darwinists are NOT reaching for either Ex 20:8-11 or Gen 1-2:3 to "state darwinism" -- they do not consider this "darwinist text".

Your efforts to spin it into something akin to darwinism fail even by darwinist standards. They use no such language as is seen IN that text to frame the concepts of darwinism!

Certainly not the way they appealed to those confirmed hoaxes listed above!! (By clear and direct contrast -- something they DID appeal to vs something they NEVER use as a statement of Darwinism).

I love the way you ask for the glaringly obvous points to be spelled out in even greater detail.

Thanks.

Bob

 

[Orion]

Hi Orion~ :D

In a metaphorical sense, you can use "God is the light", but not in a realistic or practical sense.

Who says? Though I can logically detail for you what is actual in the makeup and basis of the biblical origin of the universe. I cannot persuade you to believe in that which exceeds humanities limited logical mind. That is what you are asking for. At some point in these discussions you will always reach this particular wall, it may only be scaled by faith. Trust is a simple matter, however, it is also a personal decision. No amount of well reasoned logic will get you there. :-?

May the Lord bless you with that very thing~ faith, which sees beyond the limited logic of man.

bonnie

I have had others say similar things to me, concerning other topics. How we are "unable to understand the logic". I have come to a conclusion, and pose the possibility that when men divise these concepts of God, they make the mistake of (due to lack of their own understanding of the physical world, or how things work) creating such concepts that defy logic and when they are called on it, they will make the statement, "we don't understand the logic of God because we are lowly men". It is an easy answer for which no relevant question need be asked. The concepts are made to be illogical because if WE could understand them, then we would be as smart as God, and that would not ever happen, so the concepts are given in a nonsensical way.

However, . . . . when something is illogical, it is stated as such, not out of anger or hatred, but because logic is powerful when used. If we are not supposed to understand something about God, then how are we ever to fully understand what it is that we are even "following"? Doesn't the lack of information FROM God equate to . . . . "withholding the truth is similar to telling a lie"? That isn't a question to be answered. It is something to be pondered by everyone.