We all know from elementary school that day and night are due to the rotation of the earth, and the inhabitants position in that rotation compared to the sun. How can the Bible claim that there was day and night before the sun and moon was even created, and people take it literally, knowing the things we know in this day and age? The sun was not placed in the sky for the sole purpose of lighting the earth, there are at least 8 other planets receiving warmth and light just from our star (sun) alone, not to mention the billions of other suns we have discovered.

I am not being snide or sarcastic. I just would like to know how someone could take the book of Genesis literally, given all the things we have discovered since it was written? And if you take Genesis metaphorically, where do you draw the line as far as what else in the Bible is a metaphor??

You take it all metaphorically, or not at all, and don't let religion prevent you from treating all people with dinity and respect.

Not at all, and you ask a good question


Shortly after where you leave off, we learn at 3:1 that a serpent explains to Eve how things are. But we are not supposed to take this literally. We are supposed to read the serpent as being Satan, despite all of the details pointing to an animal (albeit a talking animal, although it could simply be that Eve speaks snake - Mom was a very clever gal).

Swapping a fallen angel for a snake is not a metaphor, as sympathetic as I am to the spirit of what Neognosis wrote. It's a rewrite.

It is also based on new "information," that contained in Revelations, written centuries after Genesis was recorded canonically.

So, if new information from John of Patmos can warrant reinterpretation of Genesis 3, why can't new information from another visionary, Charles Darwin, cast light on Genesis 1 and 2?

Whats even worse is the fact that YEC'S think that the universe was STILL created in 7 days. I guess they didnt stop to think that there are no 24 hour periods if there is no sun revolving around the earth.

Hairston

I'm not a bible-believing Christian. I don't think swapping a fallen angel for a snake is a metaphor at all. Is that what Christians are taught?

I think the WHOLE story is a metaphor - an anecdote meant to teach that you should obey God, even if something tempts you. The characters are just characters, the setting just a setting.... no more than the girl, the wolf, the forest, and granny's house in Little Red Riding Hood.

Indeed, its a story with a purpose in mind......its a guide book for obiediance and worship for those that follow it..

Neo, if my child at 14 say beleived that there was a tooth fairy..would it be disresepctful to say oh son that is a metaphore and broaden his awareness?? if i don't know how to compute decimals and you do and show me are you disresepcting me or helping me.

What do we "know" in this day and age? What can we truly "know" but what other people (who we've decided are believable) have told us? In any case, the fact that we use the sun and moon for 24 hour days in this day and age has nothing to do with when the Earth was created and when Moses wrote Exodus. The Light could be anything. Who is to say that the light is the sun and not something else? I myself take Genesis (and all of the Tanakh) in a metaphorical and literal sense. I believe that in the Tanakh and in each and every scripture there is the Metaphorical meaning and the literal meaning. Only if you take both meanings together can you truly understand the purpose of a scripture. The only exception to my belief is that I don't think that the geneaologies and such things as that have any metaphorical meanning. I believe that the Creation story in Genesis refers to the creation of the soul and the dimensions of existence as well as our existence as well. In any case, one cannot take Genesis completely literally because of the fact that the nature of God prohibits him from creating something outside of himself and thus anything he creates is a part of him. I don't really ponder existence because I find it pointless to mull over our origin, and I find it foolish to get in a tizzy over stupid arguments such as evolution V. creationism which doesn't really matter. I believe that God craeted the Earth in 7 days and that it happened as described in Genesis. I don't understand it, and that largely contributes to why I don't engage in discussions concerning it, and why I don't think it has all that much importance in the final matter of things.


You can't take it literally or metaphorically, but must take it as both. People often like to live in one of two extremes not realizing that everything is in fact gray and that extremes are foolish.

7 days does not necessarily mean sun-sat. Days and years and times in the bible can refer to periods of time instead of literally a day.

it could really mean 7 centuries and a day being 100 yrs. God is timeless.

Light doesn't necessarily have to be the sun, light is metaphorically refered to mnumerous times in the bible, the best way to answer this one is to look up the hebrew meaning. of the specific word. It could literally mean light or it could metaphoricaly mean love, joy, truth, or any number of things before literally being light. Translation is one of the most important things to consider in reading and understanding the bible.

These quotes, among others are nothing more than speculation, with no solid foundation to stand on, which invalidates any form of belief.





That sounds a lot like light in the literal sense, rather than love or joy.


Because if we didn't take the time to transgress the boundaries of what the bible tells us then we will still be thinking the Earth is the center of the solar system, among other things. It is also because evolution plays a huge role in biology and if we have people trying to suppress information that is known to be fact in the scientific community, then we will have a theocracy that inhibits science.

You have misunderstood my words dear friend. I didn't say that we shouldn't transgress what Tanakh says. If Tanakh says one thing, and another thing is obviously and thoroughly in direct contradiction to Tanakh then Tanakh was wrong. I didn't say that it is pointless to question some of the claims made in what you call the Bible. I said that discussing our Creation/Origin is pointless because knowing the details and specifics of how we were created doesn't give or take any value to the life we have. What's more important is why we exist, why things are as they are, and how we can change such things if we don't like it. These are the things that Philosophy and Religion answer. Scientists are people who have decided to look into how things got the way they are, how things are the way they are, and how we can change such things. While the how is certainly interesting, and contributes to the many discoveries of the world, the how (in my opinion) isn't as important as the why. The how doesn't always yield results, and in the case of origin I think that knowing the how won't do much to help us.

Of course it is speculation...I certainly was not there when the world was created. But as speculative as it may be, it is a widely considered possibility. Nothing biblical has a solid foundation to stand on, thats why we have faith. please check out this link... http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis.html

Yes you are right...exactly what im implying

Hairston

Another thing to consider is the fact the in the geneologies fathers could be grand fathers or great grand fathers...Therefore we cant just say well the geneologies ran about 6000 years...if one was a great grandfather then thats 2 generations right there.

Hairston

In chronological order, it says that God created night and day, and THEN he created the sun.

If there was no sun, how was there a day?

Why would God use the word day when he means centuries? And if that's the case, does that mean that all time frames in the Bible are incorrect, or just that one? Did Methuselah live to be 900+ years old or was that a mathematical metaphor as well? Was there really only X amount of generations before the flood or is that one too? For that matter, is the mark of the beast really 666 or is that a mistake or misunderstanding of a metaphor?

We can deduce logically that the world was not created literally as it is stated in Genesis. We assume that it is metaphorical, and that the time frames are meant to be something else. What makes that any different than any of the 'facts' in the Bible?

When you say day your assuming that the "day" used there and the "day" we use now have the same meaning. The only way to know that would be to define day now, and to look at the word used in Genesis and see if the meanings match.

Yes, "day" meant 3 different things in hebrew. 12 hour period, 24 hour period, and an unspecified amount of time. So yes millions of years could have existed to make up "days". Another hint on long days is the fact that God let the vegetation grow on its own without his intervention. This implies that he allowed it to grow from a seed, which takes more than a day. Adam probably couldnt have named all the animals in a day either.

Hairston

Six hundred and sixty-six is the numerical value of Nero Caeser, the anti-Christ. Revelation was nothing more than a metaphor used to speak out against the Roman empire for persecuting the early church. It was never intended as a prophecy and was not made out to be one until anyone living during the time was dead. It was then turned into a futuristic, science fiction, one world order story describing the end of the world.

light doesn't have to come from the sun. it comes from the sun, but what if God started out with a different idea and then decided on a more efficient method of light and heat. Why does it have to be thought of unrealistically?

Considering our earliest reliable manuscripts do NOT contain the numbers 666 but are allegedly a later interpolation. 616 would be the correct number that was originally used.

Hairston

Because...the thought that God decided one method and then changed his mind is blasphemous and assumes that God messed up the first time.

That isn't completely true. We aren't sure which number was the original. But it doesn't matter, the number six hundred and sixteen has connections with him too.

Well, not really.



This is on the 4th day. The bible even claims right here that the sun is to be used to measure day and night, seasons, years, etc.




One evening and one morning equals one day. Isn't that the same definition we use today?

rev- is of then and it is of now the end -time ,me thinks were comming up on the 5th seal .

of course those that were put in place will be given white rowbes.

this light you speak of is from within

666 is a numerical value of a lot of things.


not it doesn't imply he messed up. It implys that he created light out of a spiritual place first and then decided to make it a physical light. that is not blasphemous, especially since God isn't necesarrily infallible he is omniscient and omnipotent which could concievably mean that he knew he was going to make a mistake and that right after that he would fix it. God sat on a mountain with Moses, allowed him to go down a mountain and break the law all over the ground

There's also no light before the stars, nor can plants live without light. Alot of it is ludicrious. Another thing that stands out to me.. Even 7 days seems like too long for an omnipotent being to create. He could just snap his fingers and BAM. I see no reason to take any longer than the blink of an eye.

Chapter 13

And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.

One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast.

Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?"

The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months.

He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven.

He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

He who has an ear, let him hear.

If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.

Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon.

He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed.

And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men.

Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.

He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead,

so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

Chapter 17

The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits.

They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while.

------ ------ ------

Each line represents a verse, I put spaces between the verses for easy reading. Now first of all, there are seven heads on the beast. The beast represents the Roman empire. Nero is the sixth head that was slain as Nero was also the sixth emperor of Rome. Then in Chapter 17, we are told that the seven heads are seven hills. Rome was referred to as the kingdom of seven hills. It says that they are also seven kings, as I said before. The first five emperors are dead, Nero, the sixth, is, and the seventh has not yet come. The seventh will remain for a little while. The seventh emperor of Rome ruled for only one month. Put all this together, and you have undeniable evidence that it was a politcal allegory speaking out against an oppressive Roman empire.

God probably could snap his fingers, but I don't get the impression he is a snap-happy kinda guy.

I can agree for the most part. I dont think Genesis has anything to do with literal interpretation. If that be the case we would have to say God has wings and that the grass grows in the morning and dies in the evening. Now tell me that was meant to be literal. If you want to get really technical, we could say that Genesis is very possibly taken from the sumerian or akkadian creation stories.

Hairston

Because now there is no logic involved in the discussion at all, hence no point in even talking about the subject. Why is it that everytime we find something that just doesn't add up, Christians always have to muffer up those ridiculous claims. "Maybe this", "Maybe it was that...", "Well, God is mysterious"..

Why would God create night and day before the sun? Doing it this way, he'd have to setup a temporary source for light for day, and a temporary way to block out most of that light just to make night, then remove those upon making the sun. Sounds silly.

http://www.theopedia.com/Interpretations_o...reation_account



http://www.path-light.com/Genesis03b.html

do either of these help explain it better than I can?

As ravegirl pointed out there is indication that God did not create the stars on day 4, but had created previously and now gave them a particular role in relation to His activities on Earth.

There are indications in the text that the "Creation" story is not intended to be the account of the creation of the universe, but simply of the preparation of the Earth to be a life-bearing planet. God is perfect, therefore, His Creation would be perfect, yet, in verse two we read that there was chaos. So, something (entropy? the impact of the rebellion of Satan and the angels that followed him?) had happened between the time God created the universe and the time He prepared the Earth for life. Therefore, the light that is referred to before the creation of the sun could be the stars. Additionally, some theologians see in the Hebrew, a sense of ordering things, in other words, that part of "Creation" was not so much making some of these things as it was setting them in order, or setting them up as they would be needed to support this new creation of life on Earth. So, it may be the sun had been created prior to day 4, but maybe the sun was not stable enough to support life on Earth.

Although I agree that there is enough documentation in the Scriptures to support the idea that a "day" could be millions of years, my question here has always been, "So what do you do about the repeated phrase, 'and it was evening and morning the x day'?" Are we to assume that the "day" part of a day was millions of years, but the night was 12 hours?


I don't think there's any indication in the Scriptures that the naming of the animals by Adam took one day.

If God indeed is all powerful all of could have been made in an instant. It wasn't and we have proof to that so time really makes no difference.

what does make a difference is that the story of Genesis isn't a hebrew on but a borrowed Sumerian one written long before the hebrews ever worshipped one God or thought of 12 tribes


http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch01.htm


so it's kinda like ' Love your christianity /judism ? bible ? thank a Sumerian.' bumperstickers should be passed out.

Although there are various "Genesis" stories found among other cultures at earlier dates than when the Torah is believed to have been written, there is no proof that the stories in the Torah were borrowed from these cultures.

Genesis 1
- Day one - heavens and earth are created. "Let there be light." Day and Night.
- Day two - Atmospheric waters separated from earth waters.
- Day three - Land appears separating the seas. Vegetation is made.
- Day four - Sun, moon, stars are made.
- Day five - Sea life and birds are made.
- Day six - Land animals, creeping things, and man (male and female) are made.

• Genesis 2
  States heaven and earth were created. no plant yet on earth, no rain yet, no man. but, a mist rose watering the surface of the ground. Then the Lord formed man from dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Then God made Eve.

There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.



Source

We don't even know what dark matter is for sure right now, so how can we start relating the light God created to it?



This entire explaination seems more of a wild interpretation attempt to have the story harmonize more with science.



Why exactly would an all-powerful God make light in a form that will later be changed into stars? Why not just make them into stars from the beginning? It just does not make sense to me.



Ok, so God creates the light, but not in the form we know it today. At this same time, he creates night and day as well, but how? You need the sun for night and day, but it was not created yet. We have the light, but why would this light be in a temporary form, still be able to create night and day, yet be changed later into stars when God "spreads out the light" just for the light to sustain the same purpose?

According to the link you provided, the hebrew text reads this:


So, I guess we'll go by what this says, since the NIV says ""Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate". Anyhow, why would your God now change this "light" that already existed, and already provided night, day, morning, evening, and a source of light for plants into another form(Stars) just for it to serve the same purpose? The interpretation seems a bit wacked out.

I can't speak for those who take the creation account as literally six 24-hour periods, but I see the creation account as a metaphor. But, as you say, using this reasoning then, where do you draw the line? Essentially, I would answer this as it being a matter of context. I don't simply say that the creation account is a metaphor as a means to "rationalise" the event, but rather base this on the figurative and poetic nature of the passage itself. There are clear textual reasons for my saying this is a metaphor.

The passage is filled with conventions of figurative language that is consistent with Hebrew poetry. The relationship between the days of creation is quite telling. If you have ever had the chance to study it, you will note that the 1st day and the 4th day are inextricably related, as are the 2nd and 5th day, and the 3rd and 6th day. To break each day down into its relation, what you really have is:

Day 1: God creates light
Day 4: God creates the source of light

Day 2: God creates the seas and the sky
Day 5: God creates creatures to live in the seas (fish, etc) and the sky (birds, etc)

Day 3: God creates land
Day 6: God creates creatures to live on land.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Day 7: God rests from creation

As you can see there is a distinct relationship between the first half of the creation story to the second - six parts to the poetry of the story, completed by the 7th day of creation, when God rested from his work - the seventh day was added to address one of the symbolic numbers of the Hebrews - 7, which represents perfection and completion (read up on other pieces of symbolic writing and the number 7 is used extensively for just that purpose).

To me, the structure of Genesis 1 is a clear indication that this is a piece of poetry and thus not necessarily taken literally. So to your question as to why I should take this metaphorically but not other parts, I would say that the context of this passage for me supports a metaphorical interpretation. Other parts of the Bible may or may not do the same. You'll just have to read it and see, won't you. Unfortunately, many people don't think that way these days (at least about the Bible). They take the view that either you take everything literally, or everything metaphorically. To me, that's a lazy way of looking at the Bible, because it ignores everything to do with every bit of context.

Just a few thoughts to consider

~ Regards, PA

Not at all, Neognosis. See above for further information. It's not as simple as either taking it all literally or all metaphorically Your quote here is a very clear case-in-point of what I was discussing. However, I do agree that all people should be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of what their beliefs are

According to some beliefs of Creation, the world was created in the order that is suggested in Genesis, but that the "days" are not literally 24-hour periods. This is based largely on the scripturally accurate statement that "a thousand years to the Lord is a day, and a day a thousand years". Furthermore, taking into account the figurative nature of numbers, the number 1000 is representative of a large but ultimately finite number. Hence if we take this into consideration, the seven days of creation can simply be considered to be seven periods of large time in which each of the elements of creation happened - over thousands or even millions of years. I do think my previous post is a more accurate possibility of what happened, but this is also a popular interpretation of Genesis......

~ PA

If you look at Psalms 90:6 "In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away", you see that evening and morning do not always represent 12 hours a piece. It was just a reference to the short life span of a human. There wasnt a specific period of time given to it. The problem with "and it was evening and morning the x day" is the fact that english translations of the hebrew ADD "and there was". Its used to make the english flow better. If you were to look at this translation in actuality it would say "evening and morning 'n' day". There really isnt a way to discern that this is referring to 24 hour periods. 24 hour periods would probably fit a little better if Genesis was read like this: "God did x in the morning and God did y in the evening instead of him ending with both evening and morning side by side occuring at the end of the day. Another thing that makes you think is this...In Hebrews, you see the author reminds us of laboring to enter into God's 7th day of rest. If we were to use the YEC'S model of creation then his 7th day would have already consisted of 6,000 or more years already...thats 1 day.

Here is an excellent site that goes VERY much in depth on the long creation days if your interested Click Here

Kindly,

Hairston

Very interesting outlook. It makes a lot of sense, and I had noticed the similarities between the lines like you pointed out, but I didn't know that was common for Hebrew poetry.

With that, what does that mean for the creation story itself? Do you believe it was made up completely by humans? Was it inspired by God, but the humans were unable to express the true nature of creation, therefore they put it into words understandable at the time?


Sandee:

I am not trying to point out differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, I was pointing out the contradictions in Genesis 1 alone..



I have about a zillion other questions about Genesis, so whenever you guys want me to ask them so you can answer them, I will be glad to.

I think I can see attempts to bend the facts and make the bible acceptable ,which is the norm when faced with dodgy passages however .it would seem that christian sites don't agree with that position


According to Genesis, the sun, moon, and stars were made on the fourth day of the creation week. There have been many attempts to stretch the creation days into vast periods of time in order to accommodate Scripture with secular science. However, the problem is not with Scripture, but with our attempts to rationalize and understand the creation week, something that cannot be done by finite minds! There are many details of God's creative plan that simply cannot be compromised with current scientific opinion. Some of the unanswered questions are:

1. How could plants exist on the third day, before the sun was present (Genesis 1:11-13)?
2. "Light" existed before the sun (Genesis. 1:3). What light source did God use to mark the first three days?
3. Since the seas were also formed before the sun (Genesis. 1:9-10), why didn't they quickly freeze? Why didn't the "water above" fall to the ground as snow (Genesis 1:9)?
4. Did the earth initially move in a straight line, or did it orbit the position of the yet-to-be-created sun?

An entire book could be filled with such questions from Genesis 1-2. All the answers would be speculative and probably wrong! The creation week was supernatural and therefore beyond our understanding. God had his own reasons for the order of creation events. We are in no position to question them or to offer suggestions for improvement. Yes, I believe that the days of creation were literal 24-hour time periods. Scholars have shown that this is intended meaning of the text. The week of seven, 24-hour days, so familiar to us, had its beginning at the creation. God could have made everything in six microseconds or in six trillion years, but he chose literal days as a general pattern for mankind.



When the word "day" (yom) is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that "day" is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

There is no biblical indication that "day" is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis than it is throughout the rest of the book, or the rest of the Old Testament.

The "days" in Genesis 1 are always used specifically in connection with the words "evening and morning." This phrase is used with "day" 38 times in the Old Testament, not counting Genesis chapter 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24 hour type day. It is also important to note that this phrase is never used in the Old Testament in a manner which is obviously metaphoric.

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/day.html

I hope im wrong but as I said earlier...there are earlier accounts of creation stories and they are almost identical. These stories were in existance way before the Genesis account. We have to resort back to a circular argument IMO. Only from a theological standpoint can we reconcile this problem and that is to say "Well the hebrews got it right" or "Satan and demons made up the others" or "This was known from God very early but was just now put into words". These all stem from the idea that the bible cannot be wrong, we have to convince ourselves or make it FIT. I really hate going here as I am a christian myself but this is just where the evidence leads us. If someone has something that will refute this, by all means feel free to post it.

Respectfully,

Hairston

The early church fathers believed that the creation periods were long periods of time and not 24 hour periods (though there were a slight few who believed in 24 hour periods)....and this was before we "knew" this scientifically. I dont think anyone can know with certainty as some of these fundamentalist sites quote that they can.

(Doubting Thomas' brother)

Hairston

That's the problem with the Bible everybody interprets it to suit their own mindset

fullywired
there are a lot of us about

I can agree with you on that.

Yes there are many

Hairston

Well, yes, the evidence does point to earlier creation stories, which could be a whole new topic on their own, there are so many things I want to know about them as well. Maybe I will open a new topic just for that.

I don't think it necessarily has to take away from your beliefs though, as you could just consider the Sumerians or Akkadians the ones who were first inspired by God to pass on the stories to future authors.

Here are a few links that may be of some help SunDog.

Link

Link

Link

Kindly,

Hairston

I assumed I had included the source, Was tired. I do read the bible and while I have not read it cover to cover I interpret it the way I think is right for me, That doesn't make it right just my opinion. When you interperet the bible you do so in your own veiw just as I do and there is nothing wrong with that I am just making the point that not everyone can read a scripture from the bible and agree on its meaning, Always a pleasure

My view is that everything in the Bible was inspired by God, and this section is no different. However, I do not believe that this section was written as an attempt to explain HOW the Earth and all that is in it came to being - I'm happy to leave that part up to science. Rather it was written to convey two other important pieces of information - WHY it is created, and WHO is responsible for its creation. And to this end, I feel, Genesis 1 does exceptionally well.