Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[George Affleck]

There is a problem with your explanation of why day is literal. Morning and evening have always meant "when the sun rises" and "when the sun sets." In Genesis the first few "days" occur prior to the existence of the sun. So how could there be a morning or evening?

I understand it this way.
When God instituted "day" (morning and evening), He invented a concept and declared that it was so. This means that nothing physical is required to validate His devices - there was morning and evening before the sun was in place. Neither does He need man to prove that it could be that way - God simply decided. Those who require God to have a sun first have a lesser god.

Had He done it the other way round, some would be able to say, "See? God required something physical to exist before using it". But He doesn't and He decided on the architecture and put the physical laws in place first. Then He formed the celestial bodies for our convenience and compelled the whole universe to comply with His design, showing that He is infinitely omnipotent. There is no end to His intelligence.

Besides, He divided the light from the darkness before He made the celestial bodies anyway. He, therefore, eliminates those who try to approach Him without faith which is another of His declarations. Heb 11:6KJV This is why naturalists cannot know Him; because He has decided they should not, but still be guilty of their self-inflicted blindness. 1 Cor 2:14KJV

 

[Greg Jennings]

Thank you.
Am I also welcome to my opinion that the earth is not flat?

Of course. But you have yet to explain exactly what language cues lie in Genesis that don't lie in the passage about "four corners" that makes one clearly literal and the other clearly not.

Greg....
*Its easy to find people who want to prove the Bible wrong, or find people who claim to believe it but are willing to compromise it with secular ideas. But, as I said above, the Hebrew language and context does not allow for longer periods of time.*

Gen. 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day

About this I'll ask you the same question I asked George. From the beginning of language morning has meant "when the sun rises" and evening has meant "when the sun sets." If the sun wasn't created until day four then how could there have been three days prior to that?

Your question is mostly answered above. But let me ask you a question.... if you listen to the weather report telling you the temperature was 10 degrees when the sun rose this morning; can you give me a reason why you believe the temperature, but don't believe the sun really rose?*

Respectfully it wasn't a very satisfactory answer. More elaboration and detail would be nice.
To answer your question here: I would obviously believe that the sun rose. But a weather report isn't a 4000 year old religious document. It's a weather report that is easily verifiable. Nothing in it contradicts what we know about the world. The Genesis creation account on the other hand does contradict what we know.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I understand it this way.
When God instituted "day" (morning and evening), He invented a concept and declared that it was so. This means that nothing physical is required to validate His devices - there was morning and evening before the sun was in place. Neither does He need man to prove that it could be that way - God simply decided. Those who require God to have a sun first have a lesser god.

Had He done it the other way round, some would be able to say, "See? God required something physical to exist before using it". But He doesn't and He decided on the architecture and put the physical laws in place first. Then He formed the celestial bodies for our convenience and compelled the whole universe to comply with His design, showing that He is infinitely omnipotent. There is no end to His intelligence.

Besides, He divided the light from the darkness before He made the celestial bodies anyway. He, therefore, eliminates those who try to approach Him without faith which is another of His declarations. Heb 11:6KJV This is why naturalists cannot know Him; because He has decided they should not, but still be guilty of their self-inflicted blindness. 1 Cor 2:14KJV

You can believe that and I won't fight you on it. But you do see the mental gymnastics involved with that explanation don't you?

 

[George Affleck]

So what is the difference in language between Genesis 1-2 and Joshua 10 that makes the former literal and the latter allegorical?

I do not believe that the account in Joshua 10 is allegorical.

We are not told how it happened, just that, from an observer's point of view, it did. This, of course requires a certain amount of faith.

Although I have no proof, it seems to me that natural conditions could have been massaged to provide a celestial refraction/mirror effect to make it appear that the sun was still above the horizon.

The other theory that has some merit is a "space wobble" of the earth caused either by asteroid impacts on the opposite side or a close flyby of a large space object.

 

[George Affleck]

You can believe that and I won't fight you on it. But you do see the mental gymnastics involved with that explanation don't you?

I agree with you that the concept is not easy for fallen man to comprehend. We can just barely understand the idea of God at all and require supernatural regeneration (according to Jesus) just to worship Him.

But the Bible always encourages us, as believers, to have a God's eye view of things; even though we are finite.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I do not believe that the account in Joshua 10 is allegorical.

We are not told how it happened, just that, from an observer's point of view, it did. This, of course requires a certain amount of faith.

Although I have no proof, it seems to me that natural conditions could have been massaged to provide a celestial refraction/mirror effect to make it appear that the sun was still above the horizon.

The other theory that has some merit is a "space wobble" of the earth caused either by asteroid impacts on the opposite side or a close flyby of a large space object.

Well if you think that one is literal then I'll give you a different comparison: what makes Genesis creation in six days literal but "four corners" of Earth figurative?

 

[Greg Jennings]

I agree with you that the concept is not easy for fallen man to comprehend. We can just barely understand the idea of God at all and require supernatural regeneration (according to Jesus) just to worship Him.

But the Bible always encourages us, as believers, to have a God's eye view of things; even though we are finite.

I guess that just seems strange to me when your faith is easily reconcilable with Earth's age according to science. There are countless Christians who accept both. I'd venture to say most.

 

[George Affleck]

Well if you think that one is literal then I'll give you a different comparison: what makes Genesis creation in six days literal but "four corners" of Earth figurative?

I answered that in post 275.

Here it is again:

"Four corners of the earth"
This is meant in the sense of "extremities". It's an expression in English that we all understand as "the extents of" and is not meant to pinpoint locations but as generalities. We sometimes forget that God inspired authors to produce literature on the subject of redemption which just happens (because God is accurate) to be completely accurate literature. Kanaph generally means extremities, borders or ends. It is like saying "to the ends of the earth". If "cornerstone" was intended, the word pinoh is available.

Not so with "day"; especially when it is spelled out in the specific terms of "morning and evening" and "the next day".

 

[Greg Jennings]

I answered that in post 275.

Here it is again:

"Four corners of the earth"
This is meant in the sense of "extremities". It's an expression in English that we all understand as "the extents of" and is not meant to pinpoint locations but as generalities. We sometimes forget that God inspired authors to produce literature on the subject of redemption which just happens (because God is accurate) to be completely accurate literature. Kanaph generally means extremities, borders or ends. It is like saying "to the ends of the earth". If "cornerstone" was intended, the word pinoh is available.

Not so with "day"; especially when it is spelled out in the specific terms of "morning and evening" and "the next day".

Yes I did miss you posting this earlier. My fault.

And what is your reasoning for the Genesis creation account not being a story (one using the words day to mean 24 hour days) meant to illustrate the importance of the Sabbath as a day of rest but not being meant as a historical account? This is the meaning that most old testament scholars today attribute to it.

Something important to note is that the same arguments you are putting out here for a literal six day creation were once put out to defend geocentrism prior to advances in astronomy. And even up to the point that the first pictures were taken of the Earth that proved it was round, there were some who argued that the Earth was a flat surface with a dome stretching over it as portrayed in Isaiah 40:22 - "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

While we're on Isaiah 40:22, what in your mind makes Genesis literal while this passage isn't?

 

[alwight]

I answered that in post 275.

Here it is again:

"Four corners of the earth"
This is meant in the sense of "extremities". It's an expression in English that we all understand as "the extents of" and is not meant to pinpoint locations but as generalities. We sometimes forget that God inspired authors to produce literature on the subject of redemption which just happens (because God is accurate) to be completely accurate literature. Kanaph generally means extremities, borders or ends. It is like saying "to the ends of the earth". If "cornerstone" was intended, the word pinoh is available.

Not so with "day"; especially when it is spelled out in the specific terms of "morning and evening" and "the next day".

What about the pillars? Figurative? :think:
The pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them. (1 Samuel 2:8)

Pillars would fit quite nicely to four corners.

 

[Stripe]

Maybe I haven't been clear enough in what I am asking you for.

Youve been clear. The problem is you think we are committed to taking every phrase and simile literally. We're not. We respect the plain meaning. When the Bible says the sun stands still, we understand that it is spoken from a human viewpoint, just as when we say "sunrise" we don't accuse each other of being a geocentrist. The meaning is obvious.

I want you to explain to me how you can tell that "six days" is literal and the other examples are not.

Because that is what they plainly mean.

So what is the difference in language between Genesis 1-2 and Joshua 10 that makes the former literal and the latter allegorical?

The phraseology. The Bible clearly teaches "six days" and when it teaches "the sun standing still," it is perfectly reasonable to assume that those are words spoken from a human perspective.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Because that is what they plainly mean.

Clearly it's not plain or there wouldn't be heavy debate amongst those who study scripture on whether or not it was meant literally. Why to YOU is it plainly literal? What exactly is unique about it?

 

[George Affleck]

Yes I did miss you posting this earlier. My fault.

And what is your reasoning for the Genesis creation account not being a story (one using the words day to mean 24 hour days) meant to illustrate the importance of the Sabbath as a day of rest but not being meant as a historical account? This is the meaning that most old testament scholars today attribute to it.

Something important to note is that the same arguments you are putting out here for a literal six day creation were once put out to defend geocentrism prior to advances in astronomy. And even up to the point that the first pictures were taken of the Earth that proved it was round, there were some who argued that the Earth was a flat surface with a dome stretching over it as portrayed in Isaiah 40:22 - "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

While we're on Isaiah 40:22, what in your mind makes Genesis literal while this passage isn't?

The first thing I need to do is get you on the same page (whether you agree or not) with regard to the word "literal".

A literal interpretation is that which discovers the authentic meaning of the text in its grammatical forms with consideration for (1) the historical, cultural and linguistic context, (2) the author's presentation style and literary devices, and (3) the integrity and harmony of the Scriptures.

Hence, a proper interpretation of; "Our God is a consuming fire." will be true and literal but in a non-physical sense.

Too many people think that "literal" equates to "physical". It does not always. It relates, in theology, directly to that which the original author "literated".

When we keep in mind that there are always 2 authors involved in God's Word, a holy man of God and the Holy Spirit, who worked in perfect harmony, all scripture becomes timelessly true and must always be interpreted "literally" and "spiritually" but not necessarily physically. In other words, what the Spirit has literated by the process of inspiring men to write is inerrant truth.

We need to delineate in terms of "physical" vs. "figurative". There is either a physical or figurative interpretation or both.

 

[Stripe]

Clearly it's not plain or there wouldn't be heavy debate amongst those who study scripture on whether or not it was meant literally.

Well, no. The Bible says "six days" — the meaning is clear. The Bible says "the sun stood still" — the meaning is clear. The Bible says "the four corners of the Earth" — the meaning is clear.

That people argue about the meaning does not change the fact that the words are there for anyone to read and understand.

Why to YOU is it plainly literal? What exactly is unique about it?

:idunno:

It says "six days." I don't know any other way to take it.

 

[6days]

But you have yet to explain exactly what language cues lie in Genesis that don't lie in the passage about "four corners" that makes one clearly literal and the other clearly not.

It's very simple.
*Do you have trouble when reading a history book if a metaphor is used?

* Is it really challenging when you read one book that is history, to yhen read a poetry book, erotica, prophecy etc?*

* If UPS advertises they deliver to the 4 corners of the earth..... are you confused?

In other words, I think your question is goofy.... you are smarter than that.

Its easy to find people who want to prove the Bible wrong, or find people who claim to believe it but are willing to compromise it with secular ideas. But, as I said above, the Hebrew language and context does not allow for longer periods of time.

Gen. 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

About this I'll ask you the same question I asked George. From the beginning of language morning has meant "when the sun rises" and evening has meant "when the sun sets." If the sun wasn't created until day four then how could there have been three days prior to that?

Actually...terms were defined in Gen.1:5. Again....it isn't difficult. Yes...there was 3 days before the 4th day. What did God create the first day?

Your question is mostly answered above.

Respectfully it wasn't a very satisfactory answer.

Respectfully, you aren't really looking for answers. As the Hebrew prof mentioned earlier, the author clearly meant six normal days.*

The Genesis creation account on the other hand does contradict what we know.

Correct..... We know that ...
*God created in six days.

*God created plants before the sun.

*God created whales before land animals.

*God created woman from man's rib.

*And we know that we as humans reject God having dominion over us and that our sin separates us from a Holy God.*

*And we know that He loves us as individuals even when we are rejecting Him.

 

[George Affleck]

And what is your reasoning for the Genesis creation account not being a story (one using the words day to mean 24 hour days) meant to illustrate the importance of the Sabbath as a day of rest but not being meant as a historical account? This is the meaning that most old testament scholars today attribute to it.

Something important to note is that the same arguments you are putting out here for a literal six day creation were once put out to defend geocentrism prior to advances in astronomy. And even up to the point that the first pictures were taken of the Earth that proved it was round, there were some who argued that the Earth was a flat surface with a dome stretching over it as portrayed in Isaiah 40:22 - "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

While we're on Isaiah 40:22, what in your mind makes Genesis literal while this passage isn't?

Having properly defined "literal", it needs to also be pointed out that, as sinners (even regenerated ones), we need to eliminate as much of ourselves as possible from the interpretation process. It is not us who figures it out, it is God who reveals.

How then, do we allow God to speak for Himself? There are rules of interpretation that have been put forward by those who are concerned with handling the Word of God carefully.

One of the most helpful of these rules is to compare scripture with scripture. When faced with a passage that is doubtful, as much as possible, let the Word of God be its own interpreter. Find all the other passages that pertain to the subject or include the same words and phrases and observe the surrounding verses as they are probably insightful.

 

[Stripe]

It's very simple.
*Do you have trouble when reading a history book if a metaphor is used?* Is it really challenging when you read one book that is history, to yhen read a poetry book, erotica, prophecy etc?** If UPS advertises they deliver to the 4 corners of the earth..... are you confused?In other words, I think your question is goofy.... you are smarter than that.

It is similar to the poetry gambit. Evolutionists love it.

The thread has since been deleted, but here is the funniest example:

Genesis 1 is a POEM. You wouldn't try to convince someone that The Raven (Poe) or Auspex (James Lowell) are literal accounts of events.

Or The Charge of the Light Brigade.

He seemed to Buzz off never to return after that. :idunno:

:chuckle:

 

[Jose Fly]

Shoot, if you want to ask questions about literal interpretations and how they match with the real physical world, then what about Matthew 4:8, where Satan takes Jesus up to a mountain and shows him "all the kingdoms of the world".

 

[Jose Fly]

Stripe,

Question for you. Do you agree that populations adapt and diverge to the point where they become reproductively isolated from each other, and that the process is part of the "Biblical model of creation"?

 

[George Affleck]

While we're on Isaiah 40:22, what in your mind makes Genesis literal while this passage isn't?

In the case of Isaiah 40:22KJV consider the context.

"as grasshoppers"
"as a curtain"
"as a tent to dwell in"

This is a true allegory. It is a symbolism device where a greater concept is conveyed with the aid of a more corporeal object or idea being used as an example. And it is presented in comparison format as an understatement - almost humorous irony.

This is in stark contrast to the rigid presentation of the word "day" in the creation chapters of Genesis.