__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I'd like to read the article. Do you have access to it? And were these pre-Enlightenment theologians struggling with the days as we've been discussing?

I don't see how they would or why they would exegetically or philosophically. I mean to say, where in the text would we find something that indicates that the days were not actual 24 hour solar days? We then read how Christ talks about it (NT) and still we find nothing in the text to indicate other than the plain reading.

__________________
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

I wonder what Adam did for the rest of the day (could have been hundreds, thousands of years) after he was created. Or did God take all day (hundreds, or thousands of years) to form him from the dust?

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

You are correct that some of us have been raising points that others are ignoring. I have twice referenced a statistical analysis of the verbal patterns in Genesis by a Hebrew scholar that militates AGAINST taking it figuratively. It is not a matter of whether any section of the Bible needs to be interpreted figuratively but was GENESIS 1-11 intended to be interpreted figuratively?

Interpreting "literally" means taking a text in its normal reading according to its genre. A poem is interpreted as poetry and symbolism; a metaphor or similie is taken figuratively; a narrative intends to speak "narratively" or historically. The "literal" method is a cipher for the "grammatical-historical" method.

My postings in this thread so far have referenced the use of "yom" (day) in the Hebrew Bible (considered contextually and in terms of word statistics), the admitted presence of anachronistic language in ALL statements about creation (including those by Big Bangers), the use of Exodus 20:11, and several other points.

Obviously the theological concern of Genesis was not to teach science, it was to affirm that God and God alone created and he did it without the machinations of intermediaries such as recorded in the Babylonian and other near eastern creation myths.

However, that does not mean that we can dismiss the accuracy of its teaching. What we allow in Genesis will come back to bite us in the New Testament. Saying that God really does not mean what he says in Genesis 1 will set you up for some very painful collateral arguments on everything from the role of women to the ordination of gay persons. Get into the habit of allowing that the Bible does not really mean what it says in Genesis in a narrative passage and you will be surprised at how difficult it is to argue with progressives suggesting that it does not mean what it says in Romans 1, or 1 Timothy 2, or even John 14:6.

Having been raised in a mainline denomination, I can remember the assault on Genesis as a child, followed by numerous other issues thereafter. For me and my house, we like the former motto of Answers in Genesis: "Upholding the authority of the Bible from the very first verse."

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

Dear Matthew, to me your explanation shows the problem of the so-called "literal" reading of Gen. 1-3. One starts to move into deep contortions of explanation to keep the ship afloat.

If there is another source of light other than the sun creating a "morning" and an "evening" on the first 3 days, then why is the sun created on the 4th day when this other source of light (not explicitly mentioned in the narrative) was doing precisely that same job? If there was a "morning" and an "evening" at the end of the first day, and we don't have a sun, then we're dealing with a very unique "morning" and "evening", which begs the question whether it can be called a "morning" or an "evening". etc. etc.

God bless you.

__________________
Marty

From Creation to New Creation via Redemption

I'm only following commentators on Genesis who have a conservative (inerrant) view of Scripture.


I've found a Bible big enough to do the same job ...

Which "times" are you referring to, that of the ANE, that of the Graeco-Roman world ... ?

The Scripture explicitly says there were three alternations of "evening and morning" prior to the creation of the heavenly lights, so I am very confident it can indeed be called what Scripture says it was.

The NT times in which the NT was written. When Paul says God commanded light to shine out of darkness, or Peter says the earth stood out of water and in the water, or Paul says He spake in a certain place of the seventh day, or Jesus says the Sabbath was made for man, and elsewhere that God made them male and female at the beginning, or Paul says the serpent beguiled Eve -- in such cases it seems your only line of argument could be that the speakers did not in actual fact believe these things "happened," but merely accommodated their speech to the people they were addressing.

Having been mostly a bystander I agree that Mr. McFadden's points about the verbal patterns have been overlooked: I had also understood the specific points raised about the serpent etc. to be dealt with in the more general replies which is probably why they haven't been individually mentioned. For instance, if one doesn't have a problem accepting a natural reading of a literal day theory of creation regardless of science, why should they have a problem accepting a talking snake? (The 'personality' objection seems rather arbitrary? -but I suppose if it's a real difficulty it's simple enough to point out that we aren't told Balaam's donkey was inhabited by an angelic or demonic being.) If I accept a literal reading of other portions of the Old Testament, for instance where God appears to Abraham, why should I have a problem with God appearing in some way to Adam? If I accept that men approach scripture with presuppositions in the present age, why should it be especially problematic that they had (albeit different ones) to deal with in a former? I don't honestly see that such objections pose real problems for interpreting the text as narrative if one really isn't referencing the meaning of the words to a post enlightenment and largely unexamined approach to science, and what it on its own autonomous authority (which doesn't amount to much) tells us is and isn't possible?

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

Is Satan a literal Snake? Is Satan, as a snake, now crawling around on his belly eating dust all the days of his life according to God's curse in Gen. 3?

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

More of a literal dragon than a snake, to be precise.

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

Actually, like everyone else, they have to wear them when they bat in a cricket match. In light of their recent disputes with the Indians, they may need to wear them a lot more.

I personally have no doubt that Satan took the form of a literal serpent in the Garden. As you well know, snakes today do crawl around on their bellies. It would seem this may not have always been the case. Now, why would God curse serpents just because Satan took their form? I don't know. But we see a similar thing when Jesus punished the pigs in the Gospels which were possessed by demons. Or was that figurative as well? Where does uncertainty stop? "A Mere Housewife" said it well. Once we start down this path, the questions are endless as to what is historical in the account and what is not... Did God really walk with our parents in the Garden? Did the sin of our first parents really cause the sin and death we see in the world? Did God really curse mankind as a result? Did we really come from Adam and Eve? Is there really such thing as a tree of life? The list goes on and on and the answers to these questions will have an impact on what we believe in other sections of Scripture.

With regard to the "apparent" problems that have been mentioned with regard to the sequence in which God created all things, isn't it very possible and even likely that the point of the order is to teach us that God is in absolute control over creation and time? The order given in the creation account shows us that everything is dependent upon God, not creation, for its origin and existence. I.e. plants and vegetation are created before the sun which teaches us God is the One who gives life to the plants and sustains them, not the sun... Of course, we know that once God completed His work of creation He has been pleased to make use of means and therefore since that time plants do need sunlight or they will die. However, that's not to say that the sunlight is absolutely necessary; God could sustain vegetation by whatever manner He chooses; the creation account teaches as much.

Just some more thoughts. Please know that I have many other reasons for believing the Genesis account to be historical narrative. I share these particular thoughts as a result of the direction this thread is taking.

In His bountiful grace,

Steve

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

I posted this on the other thread, but thought I should post this here as well.

Meteorite Craters Challenge Young-Earthism

PaleoScene Prehistoric Wonders for All Ages

Thoughts on these. I have been talking with Glen via email ( His Bio )

StatCounter.com code for Glen Kuban's Paluxy sites 12-4-04

who has done some extensive field work on the Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy (Dinosaur Footprints)

Paulxy site near Glen Rose, Texas.

Thoughts?


Paluxy

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

Denial of the Six day creation presupposes death prior to the fall.

__________________
Benjamin
FPCNA
Indianapolis, IN

All the endes of the worlde shall remember themselues,
and turne to the Lord: and all the kinreds of the nations
shall worship before thee. For the kingdome is the Lords,
and he ruleth among the nations. Psalm 22:27-28

Please consult Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, pp. 33, 34. He states it well when he says, "It therefore becomes necessary to adopt the old, traditional view according to wich there were present both a real serpent and a demonic power, who made use of the former to carry out his plan. So far from there being anything impossible in this, it finds a close analogy in the demoniacs of the Gospels, through whose mouths demons speak."