Richard, I get the parallelism. What I don't get is why 1.) that parallelism would somehow imply that things didn't actually happen in that way, and 2.) why the parallel organization would take any validity away from the time references. I'll go ahead and grant you the ANE parallels as well. So what? Does the fact that something works as literature mean it can't possibly reflect the facts? Let's take another example. In the account of the plagues in Egypt, the polemic is a lot more obvious, because the Bible comes right out and says that God triumphed over the gods of the Egyptians. So does the Exodus narrative show that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is real and the fables of the Egyptians are vanity? Certainly it does: but the Exodus narrative shows that because it faithfully records the Exodus events.
I understand that you're saying that the Creation account has a literary, a theological, a polemical purpose; so does the book of Chronicles: so do the Gospels. Why would this mean that the days are not normal days?
By the way, on the fourth day, the lights are created to rule the divisions that have already been created between night and day. It doesn't sound like it's presenting a radical change: it's just appointing official light-bearers to maintain the status quo.

__________________
Ruben

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

Comments by Wayne Grudem:

‘First, the proposed correspondence between the days of creation is not nearly as exact as its advocates have supposed. The sun, moon, and stars created on the fourth day as “lights in the firmament of the heavens” (Gen. 1:14) are placed not in any space created on Day 1 but in the “firmament” … that was created on the second day. In fact, the correspondence in language is quite explicit: this “firmament” is not mentioned at all on Day 1 but five times on day 2 (Gen. 1:6–8) and three times on Day 4 (Gen. 1:14–19). Of course Day 4 also has correspondences with Day 1 (in terms of day and night, light and darkness), but if we say that the second three days show the creation of things to fill the forms or spaces created on the first three days (or to rule the kingdoms as Kline says), then Day 4 overlaps at least as much with Day 2 as it does with Day 1.

‘Moreover, the parallel between Days 2 and 5 is not exact, because in some ways the preparation of a space for the fish and birds of Day 5 does not come in Day 2 but in Day 3. It is not until Day 3 that God gathers the waters together and calls them “seas” (Gen. 1:10), and on Day 5 the fish are commanded to “fill the waters in the seas” (Gen. 1:22). Again in verses 26 and 28 the fish are called “fish of the sea”, giving repeated emphasis to the fact that the sphere the fish inhabit was specifically formed on Day 3. Thus, the fish formed on Day 5 seem to belong much more to the place prepared for them on Day 3 than to the widely dispersed waters below the firmament on Day 2. Establishing a parallel between Day 2 and Day 5 faces further difficulties in that nothing is created on Day 5 to inhabit the “waters above the firmament”, and the flying things created on this day (the Hebrew word would include flying insects as well as birds) not only fly in the sky created on Day 2, but also live and multiply on the “earth” or “dry land” created on Day 3. (Note God’s command on Day 5: “Let birds multiply on the earth” [Gen. 1:22].)

‘Finally, the parallel between Days 3 and 6 is not precise, for nothing is created on Day 6 to fill the seas that were gathered together on Day 3. With all of these points of imprecise correspondence and overlapping between places and things created to fill them, the supposed literary “framework,” while having an initial appearance of neatness, turns out to be less and less convincing upon closer reading of the text.’

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

My current thinking is that (1) the structure does not de facto rule out six-day creationism, but I am still pondering the implications; (2) we need to bear in mind that Genesis 1-2 is a cosmology, hence it is not, of necessity, an actual account of what really happened unlike the Exodus, 1 & 2 Chronicles etc.

So where, Richard, between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 is the transition in the text that tells us where "an actual account of what really happened" begins?

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

I agree in principle, but I do believe Genesis 1 IS an actual account of what happened. What is unclear to me is the length of time of each "day" of creation. 24 hour days? Very possible. Undetermined, but distinct period of time? Also very possible. Nonetheless, Genesis 1 details what actually happened in the beginning.

__________________
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

Mason,
Just keep in mind that there is no one in Church history that disagrees with the YEC time frame of 6-10k years for the age of the universe.

CT

Perhaps, but quite a few believed that the days were not 24 hour days, including John Lightfoot, a member of the Westminster Assembly, who believed the first day was 36 hours.

My point is that if one wants to argue for "wiggle room", one needs to understand where the room ends.

Also the question of "what is the point" comes up. Unless you drop the 6-10k year agreement, you are going to be stuck with all the problems of YEC creationism. The scientists/secularists/etc are going to make just as much fun of you as regular died in the wool 6/24 YECers.

CT

CT, I appreciate your post, but you make a very unfair assumption that the reason I am an OE Creationist is to avoid "being made fun of" by secularists and scientists. The equivalent is for me to say the only reason you are a YECer is to win points with your fellow church members and fellow members of this forum. Neither accusation is worthy, fair, or justified.

Having doubled majored in biology and biochemistry in college, I learned enough science and sat through enough evolutionary bilge to know it takes greater faith to believe there isn't a God than to believe there is One. Furthermore, to extrapolate valid micro-evolutionary principles to explain the origin of mankind is atrocious "science" (not to mention many, many other fatal flaws to evolutionary/atheistic thinking). So no, I'm not trying to win any favor with those types or avoid their ridicule.

I have come to my positions based first and foremost on the authority of the Bible, followed by reasonable historical and scientific understanding, so long as it fits with what the Bible says. I respect the YEC view, and realize and it may be 100% correct, and the OEC view may be completely wrong. But it is only fair to say the opposite could also very well be true. That's not being relativistic: one of us is right, the other is wrong (or we may both be right to some degree), but we cannot conclusively make that determination until it is revealed to us by God in Eternity.

Again, I don't understand the fierce subscription to the 24-hr day belief. It makes no difference to our faith or our understanding of God and His Word. You can be a YECer, I can be an OECer, and we can still be in 100% theological agreement on every other issue.

Mason,
I am not really trying to fight your position, I just want it to be crystal clear that OEC is a novelty in found only in very recent history. There is no footing whatever to be found for it in history. Sometimes people use some sleight of hand to use some disagreement in history about one point to somehow justify a position that was never in doubt. I am not accusing you of such. Just trying to make sure everyone stays honest.

The fierce subscription to the belief comes from the viewpoint that capitulation on this issue easily leads to capitulation elsewhere. It looks like an easy case of capitulation because no one held to it until "science" started attacking it. Somehow the hermeneutics changed. Why, if it is not capitulation?

As an aside, do you believe that Noah's flood was worldwide? Almost no OEC that I know of believes that it was.

CT

Thanks for the clarification, and yes, I do believe in a worldwide, global flood, because it was a supernatural event, just as the 10 plagues were supernatural events, along many other events in the Old Testament.

Having said that, the belief that the flood was limited to the "known world," or where all humans resided (thus wiping out all humans except Noah and his family, as the Bible says), is plausible in my mind. But it actually makes more sense to me that god caused the deluge to cover the entire planet, rather than a limited area.

Hi:

Contrary to popular belief Light was not the first thing God created:

"...and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, Gen. 1:2b.

Water was the first thing which God Created - unless you want to say that water is as eternal as God? I hope not.

I think that the water referred to here are the waters of the Earth from which the land rises up, 1:10. Thus, the perspective of the whole Creation week is from that of Earth.

When God created light - it was an external light source shining upon the waters. From the perspective of the Earth a twenty-four hour day should be expected.

What I find very compelling is Dr. Humphrey's "White Hole Cosmology" from the Answers in Genesis:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home..._cosmology.pdf

Blessings,

-CH

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO
RPCNA

WCF Chapter 4

I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.


Consequently, the denial of literal 6 day creation is unconfessional. It will take a lot to shift me from this position, if the six days of Genesis 1 does not refer to six literal days, then I am not sure that I understand anything.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

As is denying the pope be the antichrist yet you are happy to deny that

On a serious note; the Westminster divines understood the central message - God created - but what they missed was the literary means by which God tells us this. This was not their fault, just one of those things.

You bring up an interesting point. The text does not say that God created the sea(deep). It was assumed in ANE parallel accounts of creation that the sea already existed kind of like the biblical account. Yikes another can of worms.

__________________
Bruce
PCUSA
Ocean City NJ

Actually, all joking aside, I am not "happy" to deny that point, I have wrestled with it for years, but am not presently convinced I could swear to that in good conscience. Therefore, for the sake of integrity, I must take an exception.

Their interpretation of Revelation was necessarily coloured by their culture and historic circumstances.

My point was fairly obvious and I am sure you got the point; you are welcome to charge me as being unconfessional, but if you do so, make sure you agree jot and tittle with it yourself. That you don't, renders your whole point somewhat moot.

Not necessarily; I have no problem with someone admitting that they do not agree with the WCF when they genuinely don't. However, this needs to be made clear.

I agree with what you say about the Puritan interpretation of Revelation.

"In the space of 6 days" is still sufficiently broad to allow for an OEC view depending on what is meant by "day." Besides, some of the Assembly members believed the days weren't exactly 24 hrs. Are you saying writers of the confession were unconfessional?