I must admit that my reasons for wanting the days in genesis to be
figurative is because I believe the universe to be an old place. I've never
really thought about that before, but I suppose that's where my opinion comes
from. When you really get down to it, I'm not much of an expert on those
particular passages. I've read the book of genesis a number of times, but my
familiarity with ancient hebrew is certainly very lacking. Also, I've never
studied the text closely enough to make a decent conclusion on whether or not
the text implies a literal or figurative definition of "day".
However David, I'm sure you agree that any serious contradictions between
the Bible and science would be problematic. If science declared (beyond a
shadow of a doubt) that the universe was a billion years old, and the Bible
declared (with equal certainty) that the universe was 6000 years old, clearly
there was a contradiction that must be worked out in some manner. I
suppose it
would come down to who you trusted more :)
What do you believe about creation? I can imagine a nice compromise in my
head, whereby the universe was created 15 billion or so years ago, and our
planet (or the life on our planet) was a much more recent creation. Of
course,
thinking it doesn't make it so. I suppose that, in the end, the only
conclusion
I can make is that the universe is an old place. I don't really know
enough to
truly decide between a literal or figurative day. To be completely honest,
it's not something I've given a huge amount of thought to. I find
astronomy to
be very interesting and entertaining, but there are many aspects of
christianity
that are much more important in my personal life, and get much more attention.
Quoting David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
John wrote:
To your first question , "no."
If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you.
John wrote:
To your second question, either you
did not read my post or you have
decided to insult my presentation?
I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all.
Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a
figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars,
but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good
theology, in my opinion.
The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses
the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but
the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First
Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days
are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling with
the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as
being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and
morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly
extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative
chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having plants
created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a biologist's
perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious
explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation.
What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is
that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must be
figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this
way. I have no trouble understanding that it might be read this way. I
have trouble with the idea that it should be read this way.
What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the motivation
is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and the claims
of science, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach to Genesis
1. Do you see it different? Is there any way to argue directly from the
text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a very long process of creation?
David Miller
====================
John, I have a couple questions for you.
1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological treatment concerning the
length of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and even
discussed this personally with him before, but he comes from a theology
background and I come from a science background, so I don't know how well he
is accepted as a "theologian." His arguments for why the day is not
figurative made a lot of sense to me.
2. Is there any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the day
figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with someone saying
that perhaps we should take the meaning figuratively, but I wonder if there
is any reason other than reconciliing with the assertions of science that a
theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis 1 as
figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding us, what
would be the reasons to view the day figuratively in Genesis 1?
David Miller
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you
have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
