Joseph didn't write most of the Law. Or you can still say "Moses did it," serving as Joseph's redactor on Genesis.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

We agree that Genesis is an historic narrative of creation, I do not know why you would think those who question the intended meaning of "day" would think otherwise. And one man's "obvious" is not another man's. The account does have a peculiar structure and does present harmonization difficulties when forced to be read like a logical science text.

__________________
Bruce
PCUSA
Ocean City NJ

History implies chronology. Thus the use of the waw (I have yet to see anyone deal with this). Why is the use of the waw in the rest of Genesis historic but the use of the waw in 1-2 (where it is more predominantly used than anywhere else in the Bible), not historic?

It is purely arbitrary for you to say, "This is historic" but "this is not" when the prime indicator of history, a waw is used in both cases.

1. Maybe (but not really).
2. Who's doing the forcing of reading here?

There seems to be eisogesis for OECer. I mean, seriously, who's gonna read Genesis 1-3 and gather the Day Age theory exegetically and according to the Analogy of Scripture minus thoughts purported from elsewhere externally?

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Joshua, I understand your concern and admire your tenacity in defense. I am not a day ager. Just someone who says it is difficult to pigeon hole the days to 24 hours. I have no problem with an instantaneous creation. That would be my opinion at this time. It takes a way the difficulties of harmonization and allows for the brilliant structure of the literature to say what it says. Yahweh creates all from nothing and rests.

May be you would like to set forth your argument using the waw with supportive texts. I take it you are simply refering to the repetition of "and".

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Gentlemen:

I keep reading about difficulties of harmonization, uniqueness of arrangement etc. Please indicate from the text where these things occur.

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA
Church Blog

"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ"
Belgic Confession, Article 26

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.

Now, as to textual support. I will not copy paste every Hebrew verse that has "and" in it!

I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.

You're exactly right. The word waw simply indicates things happened in a specific order. No one is denying that. The only issue is the length of time of each day...

__________________
Mason
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
New York, NY

"Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18

From an earlier post by AV1611:

Day 1: Let there be light (1:3).
Day 4: Let there be lights (1:14).

Day 2: Let there be an expanse to separate water from water (1:6).
Day 5: Let the water teem with creatures and let birds fly above the earth (1:20).

Day 3: Let dry land appear (1:9); Let the land produce vegetation (1:11).
Day 6: Let the land produce living creatures (1:24); Let us make man (1:26); I give you every seed bearing plant...and every tree that has fruit with seed in it...for food (1:29).

Notably, creation of light occurs 3 days before the creation of the universe (Day 1 and Day 4). Also, the narrative ends after God rests in the first part of Genesis 2, and then picks up again in greater detail and continues with the Garden account and the Fall. It's a unique structure, to say the least....

Yikes, looks like it may be a well structured literary device.

But even then you see the length of the day is unimportant because the purpose of Moses was not to set forth a scientific timeline of creation but was providing Israel with their own cosmology.

I just read over some work on this in an unpublished book on Biblical symbols and images. The Author attributes this structure's intent to bring focus to the 7th day where God unlike mesopotamian gods finishes and rests. Points of note.

1. There are not qualifiers "there was morning and evening" like the other days. Thus highlighting Yahweh's eternal rest from creating.

2.The structure is as seen is a 3/3/1 pattern of offsetting parallelism as has been seen above with focus on the 1(the seventh day)

3. The number 7 seen as a symbol for fullness or completeness in ancient literature including the Bible.

4. It may be unreasonable to see eternal God operating in time at all in creation. Lending support to instantaneous creation.

5. Why 2 accounts of creation? ANE tought of word/deed. Power was thought to be held in words and deeds. The first account shows God speaking the second shows God doing things thus confirming the His power thru word and deed.

There is more. I find it compelling. The Author in recognizing the occassion of the book concludes:

"Looking at the careful way Moses structured this account in terms of what he says (the content) as well as how he says it (the form), combined with the occasion on which it was written, the only conclusion which does full justice to all of the facts at hand is that Genesis 1:1-2:4a is not designed to be a scientific account of creation "the way it happened." Moses had a purpose here far different; one that fit his situation-- the situation the people he was leading out of bondage in Egypt were confronted with-- and it was that situation he addressed with brilliance and cogency in terms of the structure and the substance of his account."

This work is contained in a chapter on the "Sea" as a biblical symbol and image" I can e-mail the chapter to anyone who would like to take a look. My summary does not do it justice.

If you posit an obvious 1-7 chronology, and that the days are sequential (which is what the waw signifies, then you are necessarily a YECer. Welcome to the camp.

I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession.

Sorry to have to disagree on this yet again, but subscribing to a 1-7 chronology does NOT necessarily make one a YE creationist. That the events of Day 1 happened before Day 2, which happened before Day 3, etc. does not imply a calendar day.

I agree that the writers of the Confession believed in 24 hr days, but the wording is still broad: "in the space of six days." This of course resolves nothing, because one of the key issues is what exactly constitutes a day in this account.

As an aside, here is an interesting excerpt from Calvin:

"...it is certain, from the context, that the light was so created as to be interchanged with darkness. But it may be asked, whether light and darkness succeeded each other in turn through the whole circuit of the world; or whether the darkness occupied one half of the circle, while light shone in the other. There is, however, no doubt that the order of their succession was alternate, but whether it was everywhere day at the same time, and everywhere night also, I would rather leave undecided; nor is it very necessary to be known."

I responded to that here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/376726-post45.html

Structures, numbers, parallels are all fine. None of them necessitate a change in the length of the days as determined by the text (morning and evening).

The length of the day is important because it is repeated throughout the narrative.

I think I see: are you defining day in 24 hour terms?

If so, then if you posit a chronology, equaling a 144 hour week, then you cannot escape YEC. Because if days 1-7 follow each other, then I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion.

If day can mean anything at this point, well anything goes (including a consistent hermeneutics).

You're right, I'm not using 24 hr days. And I obviously disagree about consistent hermeneutics. That's the whole point of this discussion, no?