The cosmic microwave background.
What reason do you have to back up your assertion that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Allegory/Symbolism in Genesis 1
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
What reason do you have to back up your assertion that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You haven't moved from your initial circular reasoning.
I didn't say you did.
Talk about false accusations... We've rarely "discuss[ed] the Bible," nor have Il shown that I "don't believe a thing it says", nor am I "clearly railing against God and His Word." My Catholic faith allows for an allegorical understanding of Genesis. So does the faith of many Jews and many Christians. Genesis 1 shouldn't be used to define a believer or unbeliever.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Would the cosmic microwave background support the plant life of day 3?
Referring back to the Hebrew word "yom:"
Theological wordbook of the Old Testament : Harris, R. Laird (Robert Laird), 1911-2008 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Includes bibliographies and index
archive.org
Genesis plainly says six days. Those six days can be read as allegorical. We're not limited to a literal understanding.
I don't know.
You do know that plants can survive for a day even without sunlight, right?
We know your opinion.
We're looking for a reason that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Some appeals are to authority, whereas other appeals are to "authority".
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
And you haven't moved beyond 'because I and those whom I assert to be authority say so'.
I prefer to stick with what God says, rather than with what Bible-despisers like you say.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
@annabenedetti is appealing to "authority," whereas @Right Divider is appealing to authority.
Do you agree with her in calling people who oppose God's Word, "authority"?
The Darwinist asserts that Genesis is "allegory." They say that plants could not have survived Day 3 without sunlight. However, even if this were a sensible objection — it's not because plants can thrive after being afloat for a year and go a day in the dark — but even were it halfway coherent, it would not be reason to call the Bible allegorical, it would be reason to call it wrong.
Darwinists want to deny the plain meaning of scripture, but for some reason they don't want to deny its accuracy.
This all leads into the inherent failure of the poetry gambit. Declaring scripture to have elements of a particular literary type does nothing to show that the words cannot mean what they plainly say.
Last edited:
While holding the literal view is not a salvific issue, it is unchristian to hold that view, which is to say that the non-literal view is in contradiction to the Christian worldview. More accurately, it is in contradiction to the biblical worldview in that the early chapters of Genesis isn't the only place where the bible explicitly (i.e. not in figurative or in any sort of poetic language) affirms a six day creation.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ ”
Derf
Well-known member
I don't know your position on the hydroplate theory espoused by many here, but those "many" would call Walt Brown an authority, though not an infallible one. Anna has the right to seek out authorities for her position, too. These might be rabbis, or Hebrew experts, or her uncle who told her bed-time stories as a child.
It's no different than us saying "I'll stick with God," if someone has already had to translate the words for us or someone has to develop a system by which to understand the words. It's pitting our "authority" against hers. And that's ok--now let's find out how good her uncle was at telling stories. Let's compare the two sets of "authorities" to see which we should believe.
Right Divider
Body part
So God's Word cannot be understood?
I never said that it was. Why the false accusation?
Oh course I have. Does it have different requirements than regular science. Can an expert make a claim that is automatically considered true? NO. They have the same requirements as everyone else.
I guess that I have to be more clear for you. I assumed that you could understand plain English. Shame on me. I meant no normal human.
I take the plain and obvious reading of the scripture as opposed to the twisted and often dishonest type.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
There was nothing circular about my reasoning.
You certainly implied it.
Right Divider
Body part
Right Divider
Body part
The difference is that we do NOT claim that Dr. Walt Brown is correct because he's an expert. We claim that his explanations are scientifically valid.
We don't compare two sets of authorities, we compare their explanations of the facts. The literal six day creation of consistent with the facts throughout scripture, the "poetry/allegory/symbolism" story is not.
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
No authority is for @annabenedetti's position. Were she to seek out authority and be willing to agree with authority, then she would be one of our fellow young-earth creationists.
Of course she has the freedom to wrongly call the non-authorties to which she has appealed, "authorities". I, for one, would never say that freedom to be wrong is a right, though.
You don't consider believing what God states in Genesis 1 to be sticking with God?
God is only "authority" and not authority?
You're lumping God in as one of two sets of "authorities"?
way 2 go
Well-known member
all the matter of the universe in one place that was spread out on day 4
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
day one earth and light without form but both in existence on day one
day two and three gave form to the earth
day four form to the light
Right Divider
Body part
Gen 1:3-5 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (1:4) And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (1:5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
We disagree.
No I didn't. You inferred it when you inserted yourself into "a long history."
Anyway, thanks for the thread. It's been interesting.
Right Divider
Body part
That's because I'm right and you're wrong.
Thanks for nothing.