How can one have a literal "morning and evening" on the first 3 days when the Sun was created on the fourth day? By definition a "morning" and an "evening" need both a sun and an earth (otherwise there's not sunrise and sunsets). If you say "morning and evening" = a 24 hour period then you've ceased to read the text literally, because it doesn't say 24 hours it says "morning and evening".

__________________
Marty

From Creation to New Creation via Redemption

Because there are significant points in Genesis 1-3 that cast the "plain historical" reading into doubt, such as:

[1] The snake was cursed and told he would crawl on the "dust of the earth" all his days. But we don't believe Satan is a literal snake who is literally crawling in the dust on his belly the rest of his days.

[2] It is a story with a snake who has a personality (3:1) and talks. Nowhere else in the Bible does that occur (note that Balaam's ass did not have a personality). [We're not told in the story who the snake is, we must get that from other parts of Scripture].

[3] God walks around in the cool of the day, but the Bible tells us that God doesn't have a body--he is "spirit" and uncreated without material substance.

[4] Morning and evenings can only occur with a sun and an earth but the sun was created on the 4th day.

etc. etc.

I don't believe the issues surrounding Gen. 1-3 are as simple and black and white as you make them to be brother Daniel.

God bless you.

Yes. This is why I don't subscribe to the literal 24 hour-day theory.

__________________
Michael Masztal
Chapel By The Sea, ARPC
Melbourne Beach, FL

I wasn't familiar with the fact that Hodge or Kline held that view for a lifetime Chris, so that is duly noted. I should have recalled that Warfield certainly understood and accepted many of the evolutionary tenets being put forth in his day. The truth is, I just don't know. I am honestly humbled by the fact that great men of God can be swayed here and there in any given decade and century because they want to attempt to side with current theories as they attempt to understood them during in their lifetime. If they can do it, I certainly can. I always want to err on the side of caution. Sometimes the best thing we can say is the most honest: I simply don't know.

__________________
~ Steven Bradford ~
Member Covenant Presbyterian, Chattanooga, TN

I am VERY sensitive to the contextual clues you find raising the question as to the genre of the Genesis creation accounts, particularly in view of the presence of symbolic elements. However, among those of a young earth perspective, the absence of the sun until the fourth day does not prove a problem. Using conventional language to describe a roughly 24 hour period of time employing the standard "morning and evening" as the conventional day marker is not a problem. I would be interested if you have biblical or extra-biblical evidence of "morning and evening" as meaning anything other than a 24 hour period anywhere else? Besides, all that is needed is light, not a sun.

Kelly's exegetical/theological work was sufficient to have persuaded R.C. Sproul of the young earth view. BTW, I erred in attributing to Kelly (in an earlier post) the chapter in Thousands not Billions regarding the statistical analysis of Genesis regarding poetry vs. narrative. That was, of course, done by a Hebrew scholar at Master's Seminary.

Could the correct interpretation of Genesis 1-3 be the framework view? Yes, old earth views of various sorts are the majority position taught in most seminaries today. I just do not believe that to be the best interpretation and see a number of pernicious consequences flowing from that type of hermeneutic.

BTW, I also agree with those concerned about this as a threat to unity. This side of the "see through a glass darkly," I'm not sure we will ever reach consensus on the meaning of Genesis 1-3. That will not stop me from arguing the case for young earth creation, however. Hey, even the Big Bang theory has it's own "distant starlight" problem (i.e., the "horizon problem"). Accepting the conventional time frame for the Big Bang does not allow sufficient time for light to make it from one place to another in the universe in 13.8 billion years. So, while Genesis was certainly not written to answer 21st century science, I aver that it accurately presents what God wanted to say to us about the creation. And, the canons of grammatical interpretation militates for a straight forward reading of the text here.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

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

And yet great scholars (yes, even Reformed scholars) believe they have "good exegetical reason" to not be committed to the literal 6-day reading. I'm not for one side or the other...I simply haven't studied it enough. But I am suggesting that perhaps the rhetoric should be turned down a bit. There are serious arguments made for other positions from Scripture not "unbelieving science" by reputable Reformed scholars. If you want to disagree with their arguments, that's cool with me, I need to see both sides. But don't act like they don't have anything worth hearing at all.

__________________
Joel S.
St. Paul's Presbyterian Church (Orlando, FL)
M.Div. Student, RTS Orlando, Oviedo, FL

A day without a sun is anything but ordinary. It would have to be an extraordinary day.

The framework view is not necessarily an old earth view.

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA): "A bunch of hippie Calvinists"
Winston-Salem, NC

I just do not see a rigid adherence to time principles in Scripture. I am good with a day being 24 hours, I just see that there is lot's of "room" for a timeless God to move within the "space" of an "hour" - that is - time is relative.

__________________
-JD
1Thess5:21
Ordained Deacon, PCA
Serving in the SBC
MS

Team blog: ChristianSkepticism.org | Personal:...a Longmire rambles | facebook

Marty it is clear from Exodus 20 that the days were ordinary days.

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

As to the first comment, yes, a very extraordinary day. But, you almost have to employ phenomenological language anchronistically when describing that which happened BEFORE the sun was created. Even Big Bangers use conventional time markers to portray the age of the universe. And, if our sun is a relatively recent creation in cosmic history (according to them) we are using "years" anachronistically to measure the passage of days prior to the creation of the sun in our solar system. So, yes, even with the Big Bangers, you must speak of "days" prior to the creation of our sun.

Secondly, the framework view is a literary, not scientific, theory . . . granted. But, most of the people who see Genesis in terms of a literary reading seem to do so because they want to accommodate the billions of years of scientific "consensus." Otherwise, the normal reading of Genesis would militate against looking for a more elegant/complicated theory (Ockham's razor).

I am talking about a day of ordinary length.

When "day" is used with limiting descriptors (first, second, "morning and evening," etc.), I cannot find ANYplace where it does not mean a normal day. The burden is on those who allege greater elasticity of meaning to substantiate their view.

The Reformers fought against the opposite problem. Arguing that it took a full six days to create ran counter to the prevaling ideololgy of the day that saw creation as a more instantaneous example of ex nihilo. Luther argued for taking the creation as six days because the Bible said so contrary to the scholars of his day. I hold to six days contrary to the scholars of our day for the very same reason . . . the Bible says so.

And, Daniel is correct. Look at Exodus 20:11 and try to interpret it without the presumption that Genesis 1 describes ordinary days. It just doesn't work.

BTW - Joel S. comments . . .
I hope that I have not been perceived as denying this insight or in calling great scholars names. My admission that this was my position for at least 40 years before moving to the normal sense view 2 years ago should demonstrate that in my mind at least, this is an intramural conversation between orthodox brethren. Both of us affirm the full inspiration and authority of Scripture. We just disagree on the right application of hermeneutical principles to a particular passage.

All must be literal or nothing at all? Who here is taking John's Revelation literally? It is correctly taken by most, "literarily" not to be literal. If Genesis allows for a poetic or figurative way to express that Yaweh the only god has created all from nothing, it should not threaten us. I happen to see it that way, it actually makes more sense of the text and the harmonizing difficulties that have been discussed are not needed. The core message is the same Yaweh creates and ceases striving with his creation unlike the egyptian and mesopotamian gods.

__________________
Bruce
PCUSA
Ocean City NJ

I find it amusing that we who so readily accept the limits of human understanding when it comes to the secret will of God can so readily battle to limit God's acts to a naturalistic time delineation.

A day to God is like a 1000 years - one can easily begin to understand that the boundaries of time are not relevant in relation to the acts of God - He can compress any amount of activity into any amount of "time", since time is a created thing, also.

I'm quite certain nobody on either side of the debate would doubt that God is able to do whatever He wills with regard to creation and time. What we're debating is what He in fact did according to the Scriptural account.

I've become a literal 6 day proponent within the last 10 years or so. One thing that proved to be extremely powerful in bringing me to this position was making myself answer this one question as honestly as I could:

"What is it that would cause me to think that a day in Genesis 1-3 doesn't mean a day as I normally understand it?"

I had to confess that had I not come to the text with certain scientific presuppositions, I would never have doubted the plain reading of the text.

FWIW,

Steve

__________________
Pastor Steve Bradley
Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA)
www.trinityrpc.org
www.sermonaudio.com/trinityrpc
www.reformedvoice.com/trinityrpc
Riva, MD

And I started off as a day-ager (but even then I didn't have the exegetical gymnastic abilities to go wtih Framework) and I gleefully ridiculed YECers. Doug Phillips at VisionForum exposed my humanistic thinking.

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

I have not found a theologian or Church Father having to "wrestle" with the Creation account pre Darwin.

Why do you suppose people have so much trouble with it now?

__________________
Chris Mangum
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte
student, GPTS
.357 Mangum

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27