# Is Genesis 1-3 Myth or Historical? Literal or symbolic?



## Jon 316

Ok, I've pretty much been a fundamentalist since I got saved. 

As far as I'm concerned...

a day meant a 24 hour period
A week meant a week
Evolution does not come into it
And yes, the serpeant actually spoke to Eve...

Question... is it all literal? Do you think the snake actually spoke or is it symbolic? Explain your answer...

Oh, also, how do you answer the whole literal Adam and Eve thing, the first thing my pupils say is 'that would be incest' (I have my own idea about this but want to see what others say.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

I'll leave the snake question for others. But by default, I take it literally.

Regarding Adam and Eve, I'll venture my take on it. Incest became taboo as the gene pool became more and more corrupt (over time) due to the sin and condemnation resulting from the Fall. It appears that the law forbidding close relatives marrying was not given until the time of Moses. 

Adam and Eve were created pure. So their marriage is not really a problem. What must be postulated is that Adams sons had to marry sisters at first, then eventually men would have access to marry cousins or nieces, etc. This apparently was not a problem in the beginning.

See also, Cain?s Wife?Who Was She? - Answers in Genesis


----------



## LadyFlynt

Literal.


----------



## TimV

> Question... is it all literal? Do you think the snake actually spoke or is it symbolic? Explain your answer...



If anything that seems strange in the Bible needs to be symbolic, why not just gratify all of our basest instincts, because when we're dead we can't enjoy them anymore, and there is no heaven or hell.



> Num 22:23 And the donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand. And the donkey turned aside out of the road and went into the field. And Balaam struck the donkey, to turn her into the road.
> Num 22:24 Then the angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on either side.
> Num 22:25 And when the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she pushed against the wall and pressed Balaam's foot against the wall. So he struck her again.
> Num 22:26 Then the angel of the LORD went ahead and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left.
> Num 22:27 When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam. And Balaam's anger was kindled, and he struck the donkey with his staff.
> Num 22:28 Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?"
> Num 22:29 And Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have made a fool of me. I wish I had a sword in my hand, for then I would kill you."
> Num 22:30 And the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Is it my habit to treat you this way?" And he said, "No."






> Oh, also, how do you answer the whole literal Adam and Eve thing, the first thing my pupils say is 'that would be incest' (I have my own idea about this but want to see what others say.



Something is sin when God says it is sin. Abraham married his half sister, and it was fine, since God never said not to. But God told Moses that marrying a half sister was sin, so now it's sin.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Jon 316 said:


> Ok, I've pretty much been a fundamentalist since I got saved.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned...
> 
> a day meant a 24 hour period
> A week meant a week
> Evolution does not come into it
> And yes, the serpeant actually spoke to Eve...
> 
> Question... is it all literal? Do you think the snake actually spoke or is it symbolic? Explain your answer...
> 
> Oh, also, how do you answer the whole literal Adam and Eve thing, the first thing my pupils say is 'that would be incest' (I have my own idea about this but want to see what others say.



I'm not convinced the Genesis 1 account describes a literal 24hr/day week, but the rest I take as historical and literal. Yes, I believe the serpent really spoke to Eve, most likely under the influence of Satan. And I agree evolution does not have much to do with the Genesis 1-3 account. 

Adam and Eve had to have intercourse and procreate (we are told that specifically), and their children had to "get married" and have children amongst themselves as well. Technically it is incest, but in very broad terms all copulation is technically incest, even today, because we are all ultimately related to Adam and Eve.

By the way, even atheistic evolutionists believe in Eve. The origin of the human race can be traced back to a single woman through analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Evolutionists call her "Mitochondrial Eve" and she is considered the mother of all humans. Not only that, but using genetic frequency studies she can be shown to have "originated" in the Middle East or North Africa. So there is one area where evolutionary science clearly supports the Genesis account.


----------



## Hippo

Dispenationalists make great play of their "literal, grammatical, historical hermenuetic" however it is soon obvious that claiming a literal interpretation is not usually as clear cut as it may first seem.

What we can say about Genesis 1-3 is that it is a historic record with no element of myth. What each word means is not nearly as simple as claiming one meaning is the only literal meaning of a word, only when the meaning of a word is established can a consideration of the literal meaning even begin. 

We then have to consider the presupositions that should underpin how we determine the meanings of the Genesis text and these presuppositions are of a soverign creator God who controls (rather then being controlled by) the laws of nature. 

My understanding is that incest is only sin under God's law, and this law was not yet in force at that time. A sin is a sin because God says it is, there is no moral law outside of God.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Literal--Jesus refers to the events without saying it was simply a nice story.


----------



## lynnie

Literal.

One interesting subject if anybody ever wants to pursue it is the diameter of the sun. They've been measuring it since maybe the mid 1800's....if I recall correctly it uses the retrograde motion of mercury across the face, and there are measurements taken during eclipses. 

It is shrinking at a very steady small rate ( most things shrink as they burn up) and if you extrapolate the figures back, allowing for slight errors 150 years ago, somewhere between 100,000 and 2 million years ago the entire surface of earth boils off.

It leaves room for pre fall longer "days" that could have been many more hours long. But billions of years, or even hundreds of milllions- no way.

This is only one of many problems with the billions of years old earth theory.

Re the snake- he was cursed to crawl on his belly after the sin of Adam. When he first spoke he was probably incredibly beautiful and magnificent, a light emanating fallen angel.


----------



## Grymir

Historical and Literal. Gomarus hit the nail on the head about the incest thing. It didn't become taboo until the time of Moses.


----------



## Wannabee

Literal, but not necessarily 24 hours. Lynnie hit on this. The flood was so catastrophic that we really don't know the extent of all that happened. Life on earth literally changed forever. It is possible that the rotation of the earth changed as well, which would change the day length. I'm not saying that days were long or shorter. Honestly, I'm not worried about it. But to claim that they were literal 24 hour days goes beyond Scripture, which gives us an evening and a morning only. Due to atrophy I would expect that the days were shorter. But if the flood happened from some collision with another object then, as far as I know, the earth's rotation could have been given a boost. 

So, literal days; literal first parents; literal creation; no evolution; literal millennium (oh, how did that get in there?  ).


----------



## larryjf

It's written as a historical narrative, so it shouldn't be taken symbolically.


----------



## charliejunfan

All Literal, the earth is older than 7,000 years though...


----------



## DMcFadden

Genesis is highly stylized, deliberately constructed to confute the pagan cosmologies of the day (e.g., the pagan Gilgamesh Epic), and reflects a high degree of literary features (cf. Jonah's VERY tightly parallel construction between its chapters or the book of Ruth with its literary structure) . . . 

But, it IS intended to be historical narrative (nor merely to mimic it) and therefore I take it literally and am a 24/7 YEC.

My personal epiphany came late in ministry, after years of being taught/teaching the Hugh Ross Big Bang approach to origins. I formerly said that as long as you believe in a literal Adam and Eve, it really doesn't matter how long the Lord took to create or what mechanism he used to complete it. A few comments by theological heroes of mine (e.g., R.C. Sproul, Sr., Al Mohler, etc.), reading some of the material produced by people like that on the Answers in Genesis web site, and looking at material by people like Kelley and Pipa proved too devastating to my former view.

Looked at exegetically, theologically, and even scientifically, the contemporary crop of YEC folks have a solid and strong case for their view, not to be confused with some of the foolish cul de sacs tried by the early pioneers of the YEC position back in the 60s.

I now REPENT of ever holding to the Hugh Ross view, sincerely feel that I have personally led people astray by my ill-conceived too-easy acceptance of the arguments promulgated by my former professors (and a sinful desire--let's be frank--for me to "fit in" and be accepted by the sophisticates in our culture and academia), and intend to use the rest of my life in the proclamation of the truth of Scripture without equivocation or mental evasion.

I would still say that one's orthodoxy is not at stake. Who wants to say that Kline is a heretic for the framework view? OK, so some of you do, but not me. It is not a matter of orthodoxy but of consistency.

Personally, I believe that the compromising views of Genesis provided the intellectual incubator for a host of gainsaying approaches to the Bible, specifically the tendency to adopt egalitarian interpretations of the New Testament, which in turn, has led to the major denominations debating homosexual ordination today.

This is one slippery slope that is more like a water slide to apostasy with the destination being much scarier than that "tehom" (deep) of Genesis 1!


----------



## larryjf

charliejunfan said:


> All Literal, the earth is older than 7,000 years though...



It's 7,143 years this year!


----------



## Wannabee

Dennis! You must be a dispensationalist!


----------



## he beholds

There's no way it is a myth. I don't think a Christian could think it was a myth, could he? 

Even if you think a day equals 1,000 years, I don't think you'd consider it a myth. 

Adam and Eve--I don't even think of them as related? I think they were just man and wife from the beginning. Now their children must have been related, but I like Tim's explanation.

I think it was a snake, although different in form since he only crawled after the Fall.


----------



## Webservant

I haven't heard anyone touch on whether the days in Genesis were consecutive. BTW, I believe in a 6 day creation and a literal Adam and Eve. I used to not believe in any type of evolution, but as I get older and see the genius behind the flexibility of creation, I think that God did build in a lot of variability. In fact, seeing what I now believe to be evolution does not lead me away from the Creation account - it leads me closer to it! It's why Chihuahas and Great Danes can be related but very different - and there is intelligence behind that, too (ours).


----------



## Jon 316

> There's no way it is a myth. I don't think a Christian could think it was a myth, could he?



Myth seems to be the language of modern scholarship regarding these types of accounts. And yes, Some Christians believe it is a 'mythical' story with a symbolic meaning


----------



## Wannabee

We have to be careful not to confuse "evolution" with "adaptation," "engineering" or "selective breeding." It's a play on words that evolutionists like to play in order to gain inroads (macro, micro, blah, blah, blah).


----------



## historyb

Jon 316 said:


> Ok, I've pretty much been a fundamentalist since I got saved.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned...
> 
> a day meant a 24 hour period
> A week meant a week
> Evolution does not come into it
> And yes, the serpeant actually spoke to Eve...
> 
> Question... is it all literal? Do you think the snake actually spoke or is it symbolic? Explain your answer...



I believe it's all quite literal, I believe it is the late 20th century man who has brought more questions into it than needs be. It is almost as if since we are so modern we must explain everything away.



Jon 316 said:


> Oh, also, how do you answer the whole literal Adam and Eve thing, the first thing my pupils say is 'that would be incest' (I have my own idea about this but want to see what others say.



I really never thought about it. I don't think it would be because they wouldn't really be related like we understand it.


----------



## sofarawaykisses

Webservant said:


> I haven't heard anyone touch on whether the days in Genesis were consecutive. BTW, I believe in a 6 day creation and a literal Adam and Eve. I used to not believe in any type of evolution, but as I get older and see the genius behind the flexibility of creation, I think that God did build in a lot of variability. In fact, seeing what I now believe to be evolution does not lead me away from the Creation account - it leads me closer to it! It's why Chihuahas and Great Danes can be related but very different - and there is intelligence behind that, too (ours).




When you mean 6 days, do you mean a 24 hour period for each day? Or do you think that each day is a thousand years?


----------



## Zenas

Literal. If you don't take it as historical the rest of the Bible is pointless and mostly a lie.


----------



## MW

Jon 316 said:


> Do you think the snake actually spoke or is it symbolic?



I follow the grammatico-historical conclusion of the apostle Paul, 2 Cor. 11:3. The ancient serpent figure of Revelation makes no sense if there is not a literal referent. It would be like trying to understand the symbolism of the "beast" an an usurping of human dominion if God didn't actually make animals on the same day as man, which is day 6, and also accounts for the number of the beast. Without literal referents the figurative language of the Bible makes no sense at all.


----------



## PresbyDane

Literal


----------



## Webservant

sofarawaykisses said:


> Webservant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't heard anyone touch on whether the days in Genesis were consecutive. BTW, I believe in a 6 day creation and a literal Adam and Eve. I used to not believe in any type of evolution, but as I get older and see the genius behind the flexibility of creation, I think that God did build in a lot of variability. In fact, seeing what I now believe to be evolution does not lead me away from the Creation account - it leads me closer to it! It's why Chihuahas and Great Danes can be related but very different - and there is intelligence behind that, too (ours).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you mean 6 days, do you mean a 24 hour period for each day? Or do you think that each day is a thousand years?
Click to expand...

No I think it's clear (to my mind anyway) that each day is 24 hours.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Zenas said:


> Literal. If you don't take it as historical the rest of the Bible is pointless and mostly a lie.



Historic poetic. That it is different from any other historic section was reported by the committee on creation to the OPC. The evidence that it is poetic is rather overwhelming ... while I now have held a framework view for years, having read through the subject in detail recently has convinced me even more. 

Age of the earth? Unknown. While it could be young, it has apparent age that it is very old. It makes absolutely no difference to the veracity of the Bible.

Literal Adam.

God created.

While I don't believe the creation account says anything about evolution, I don't think evolution is true for mathematical reasons (probabilities on the order of 1 in 10 to the 75th power are essentially zero, and beyond credible belief ... one would have to suspend any claim to rationality to believe evolution.)

As to what is figurative and what is literal, the things I think are purely literal are few ... literal Adam and Eve. Literal fall. Literal creation (meaning God did create). Literal snake.

The days I take as figurative as they appear to be from anything more than a cursory reading of the account.

What I find amazing is that while many attribute anything but a literal interpretation of 24x6 makes God to be a liar, they don't see the same problem with apparent age of the universe. I also have a problem with some creation scientist knowingly and falsely pushing what they now is false in order to put up arguments for God (who doesn't need their help). There are many of these that are just poor science (Paluxy river, the NASA computer simulation hoax, etc.) which are either entirely baseless, or outright fabrication. These things hurt the cause of Christ in the world.

The real world and the Bible cannot have contradiction; if the real world contradicted the Bible, then general and special revelation contradict each other, and then God would be a liar. That is not true, so the premise is false (general and special revelation must therefore be in perfect harmony).

If we have a world which is less than 8000 years old, then it behooves Christians to understand and find out the explanation for the apparent age of things that seem much older, and to do so logically so there is no contradiction between general and special revelation. We are the ones with a world view that allows science in the first place. We are the ones that say God is not the author of chaos, but order. We are the ones that should make sense of what is revealed in both the natural world and the scripture without resorting to God being "the great deceiver" and making the real world a deception and full of lies.

Our God is truth itself. If we state evidence cannot lead to a particular conclusion because we see something else in scripture, we need to explain the evidence without saying "it has no basis in reality." We should be at the forefront of all the sciences, not on the sidelines taking potshots that don't hold water because it would cause us to change our interpretation of scripture. We need to lead the way, discover the things revealed. Not just by looking at the book of God's Word, but also by looking at the book of God's work.


----------



## Hamalas

> Paluxy river, the NASA computer simulation hoax, etc.



I'm not familiar with those. Do you have a link explaining what those are?


----------



## DMcFadden

Brian Withnell said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Literal. If you don't take it as historical the rest of the Bible is pointless and mostly a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historic poetic. That it is different from any other historic section was reported by the committee on creation to the OPC. The evidence that it is poetic is rather overwhelming ... while I now have held a framework view for years, having read through the subject in detail recently has convinced me even more.
> 
> Age of the earth? Unknown. While it could be young, it has apparent age that it is very old. It makes absolutely no difference to the veracity of the Bible.
> 
> Literal Adam.
> 
> God created.
> 
> While I don't believe the creation account says anything about evolution, I don't think evolution is true for mathematical reasons (probabilities on the order of 1 in 10 to the 75th power are essentially zero, and beyond credible belief ... one would have to suspend any claim to rationality to believe evolution.)
> 
> As to what is figurative and what is literal, the things I think are purely literal are few ... literal Adam and Eve. Literal fall. Literal creation (meaning God did create). Literal snake.
> 
> The days I take as figurative as they appear to be from anything more than a cursory reading of the account.
> 
> What I find amazing is that while many attribute anything but a literal interpretation of 24x6 makes God to be a liar, they don't see the same problem with apparent age of the universe.* I also have a problem with some creation scientist knowingly and falsely pushing what they now is false in order to put up arguments for God (who doesn't need their help). There are many of these that are just poor science (Paluxy river, the NASA computer simulation hoax, etc.) which are either entirely baseless, or outright fabrication. These things hurt the cause of Christ in the world.*
> 
> The real world and the Bible cannot have contradiction; if the real world contradicted the Bible, then general and special revelation contradict each other, and then God would be a liar. That is not true, so the premise is false (general and special revelation must therefore be in perfect harmony).
> 
> If we have a world which is less than 8000 years old, then it behooves Christians to understand and find out the explanation for the apparent age of things that seem much older, and to do so logically so there is no contradiction between general and special revelation. We are the ones with a world view that allows science in the first place. We are the ones that say God is not the author of chaos, but order. We are the ones that should make sense of what is revealed in both the natural world and the scripture without resorting to God being "the great deceiver" and making the real world a deception and full of lies.
> 
> Our God is truth itself. If we state evidence cannot lead to a particular conclusion because we see something else in scripture, we need to explain the evidence without saying "it has no basis in reality." We should be at the forefront of all the sciences, not on the sidelines taking potshots that don't hold water because it would cause us to change our interpretation of scripture. We need to lead the way, discover the things revealed. Not just by looking at the book of God's Word, but also by looking at the book of God's work.
Click to expand...


No argument here. I find the work of some so-called "creation science" types to be rankly dishonest and dishonoring to the cause of Christ. However, the work of some of the PhD types at Answers in Genesis are of a different order, in my opinion. The allow for a sensible reconciliation of the data of general revelation and the common sense reading of special revelation. 

For more specifically Reformed folks, I would commend the books by Drs. Kelly and Pipa (*Creation and Change: Genesis 1:1-2:4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms* by Douglas F. Kelly of RTS and *Did God Create in 6 Days?* eds. Joseph A. Pipa and David W. Hall).


----------



## Brian Withnell

Hamalas said:


> Paluxy river, the NASA computer simulation hoax, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not familiar with those. Do you have a link explaining what those are?
Click to expand...


The Paluxy river hoax was one in which human and dinosaur footprints were supposedly found in the same sedimentary rock. Initially people were told they could feel the footprints under the water and see they were human footprints, including one that was inside another footprint of a dinosaur. The first time it was shown false was when someone took a common aquarium and placed it so people could see the impression. It was obviously not human. It took years for those that had pushed it as being human to admit it was not ... their excuse was that even if the evidence was not correct, the truth that humans and dinosaurs had to live at the same time had to be true, so they were reluctant to change their story. 

The NASA computer hoax was one in which someone (never a name given) ran a simulation program at NASA and found evidence the sun had stopped in the sky for a day. Anyone that knows anything about computer programs and simulations would know it was absolutely absurd.

One that I just noticed here is the supposed shrinking of the sun. The original data and error were detected long ago.

Do a google search and you will find people still are pushing the Paluxy river hoax. Back when I was young, I got suckered by it. If the young earth hypothesis is true, then the evidence should be overwhelming and we (Christians) ought to be able to find it, dissect it to assure veracity much more than the secularists would, and submit it to peer review. God does not lie ... in either realm of revelation. And we should be able to have evidence that stands up to critical examination better than anyone else.


----------



## DMcFadden

Agreed. But check out my bibliographical suggestions. 

Also, some of the following scientists are helpful on the subject:

Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. John Baumbardner, Plate Tectonics model pioneer
Dr. Danny Faulkner, Astrophysicist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Science
Dr. Russel Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. David Menton, Cell Biologist
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Microbiologist
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati
Dr. J.C. Stanford, Geneticist (inventor of the gene gun and tenured Cornell prof)

I have listened to more than 75 lectures by them and some of their colleagues and found them more than convincing against the framework theory. Also, along those lines, check out R.C. Sproul's MP3 on creation where he discusses the various models and his preference (in recent years) for a young earth position against the other views held by Reformed thinkers.


----------



## Prufrock

Brian,

Whatever side of the debate one comes down on, I'm not sure one of your premises is valid (with reference to God potentially being a liar in terms of natural revelation). I certainly appreciate your desire to ensure that we don't forget that natural revelation is yet God's revelation (and I certainly stand with you in being embarrassed by much of what is passed off as "fact"). Here is where I differ, however. 

In order to say that God is lying in natural revelation if the earth is not _old_, many assumptions have to be made. One of them is that God has not already provided by clear and special revelation a framework for understanding this. We can return to this later. The second assumption is that natural revelation is _supposed_ to tell us how old the earth is. For brevity's sake, I will leave that comment as is: perhaps we can return to it in discussion.

Returning to the first point, however, it should be acknowledged (whether you think the Bible teaches young earth or not) that _if_ God does provide in his direct and special revelation (scripture) the basis for our understanding the age of the earth, then talk about God lying in natural revelation vanishes. He (within this framework of understanding) already clearly and simply stated the matter. Analogy: if you're in elementary school, and the gym teacher stands up in front of the class and says "We're not going to play basketball this year," and you look around the room and see 2,000 basketballs, there are two possibilities: 1.) Understand as your fundamental principle the clear and direct statement of the teacher, and then interpret the data in light of that; or, 2.) begin by looking at the basketballs, assume this means there must be basketball playing, and thus interpret your teacher's comments in light of that, lest the basketballs being present make your teacher a liar. If we choose option number 1, this certainly does not mean that the teacher is a liar or deceitful or trying to trick you by having basketballs everywhere: for, if I am doing rightly, my first priority is to hear the teacher's voice, and to interpret the data in light of his authority. Word is clear and simple; natural revelation is obscured by sin.

Also, with regards to empirical processes used to determine physical ages: yes, this is a part of God's creation, but I am slightly uncomfortable bringing that generically under the umbrella of "natural revelation." Natural revelation, in a narrow sense, has to deal with God revealed as he is Creator, sustainer, provider, and judge, and with man's relation thereto. Perhaps sometimes we derive more from natural revelation than it is designed to disclose, as though we were asking "What is 2+2?" to a magic 8-ball which only gives "yes" and "no" answers. Indeed, empirical dating processes derive information from God's creation, but (especially considering our extremely limited abilities -- especially apart from anything sure, such as God's special revelation) do we unhesitatingly refer to such things as God's revealed truth? I think rather we simply say they are transient and shifting interpretations of data.

Of course, my statements aren't authoritative pronouncements: this is an invitation to discuss.

*Edited to add*
What _is_ surely true is that there is a certainty which comes from God's word; and this certainly is not found, for us, outside of the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture. This does not diminish the worth of natural revelation or the light of nature in anyway. But I do think a valid consequence is that when scripture seems to suggest one thing, and our current understanding of nature another, these two do not have equal weight, and we must be very _cautious_, at the least, when we adjust our hard-fought exegetical conclusions to accord with scientific inquiry.

Grace and peace, brother.


----------



## MW

E. J. Young, In the Beginning, pp. 18, 19:



> Genesis is not poetry. There are poetical accounts of creation in the Bible -- Psalm 104, and certain chapters in Job -- and they differ completely from the first chapter of Genesis. Hebrew poetry had certain characteristics, and they are not found in the first chapter of Genesis. So the claim that Genesis one is poetry is no solution to the question. The man who says, "I believe that Genesis purports to be a historical account, but I do not believe that account," is a far better interpreter of the Bible than the man who says, "I believe that Genesis is profoundly true, but it is poetry." That latter has nothing to commend it at all. I disagree with the first man, but he is a better exegete, he is a better interpreter, because he is facing up to the facts.


----------



## Brian Withnell

DMcFadden said:


> Agreed. But check out my bibliographical suggestions.
> 
> Also, some of the following scientists are helpful on the subject:
> 
> Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
> Dr. John Baumbardner, Plate Tectonics model pioneer
> Dr. Danny Faulkner, Astrophysicist
> Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Science
> Dr. Russel Humphreys, Physicist
> Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
> Dr. David Menton, Cell Biologist
> Dr. Georgia Purdom, Microbiologist
> Dr. Jonathan Sarfati
> Dr. J.C. Stanford, Geneticist (inventor of the gene gun and tenured Cornell prof)
> 
> I have listened to more than 75 lectures by them and some of their colleagues and found them more than convincing against the framework theory. Also, along those lines, check out R.C. Sproul's MP3 on creation where he discusses the various models and his preference (in recent years) for a young earth position against the other views held by Reformed thinkers.



Regardless of young earth or old earth, I would probably be a framework guy. The framework doesn't speak anything of age, but only of exegesis and looking at the text. That may sound weird, but looking at the text is what brought me to a framework view of Gen 1, not anything to do with earth age. While there may be a lot of people that arrive at it because they find problems with a young earth (even some of the problems I've stated) but my initial problem was day 4, and reconciling without conjecture.

I'm certain I'll look up the references. I appreciate good science. And I certainly want as much information as I can possibly get.


----------



## Confessor

I attempted theistic-evolutionary eisegesis, and it just doesn't work. While I was very proud of myself (in the wrong way) for formulating a cool story of how God could have infused Adam and Eve with souls, and the literary framework hypothesis allows for billions of years, etc., I could never get over the fact that the rest of Genesis flows so smoothly. It is simply not possible to demarcate a point in Genesis wherein "this" is symbolic and "this" is historical. It's a package deal.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Prufrock said:


> Brian,
> 
> Whatever side of the debate one comes down on, I'm not sure one of your premises is valid (with reference to God potentially being a liar in terms of natural revelation). I certainly appreciate your desire to ensure that we don't forget that natural revelation is yet God's revelation (and I certainly stand with you in being embarrassed by much of what is passed off as "fact"). Here is where I differ, however.
> 
> In order to say that God is lying in natural revelation if the earth is not _old_, many assumptions have to be made. One of them is that God has not already provided by clear and special revelation a framework for understanding this. We can return to this later. The second assumption is that natural revelation is _supposed_ to tell us how old the earth is. For brevity's sake, I will leave that comment as is: perhaps we can return to it in discussion.
> 
> Returning to the first point, however, it should be acknowledged (whether you think the Bible teaches young earth or not) that _if_ God does provide in his direct and special revelation (scripture) the basis for our understanding the age of the earth, then talk about God lying in natural revelation vanishes. He (within this framework of understanding) already clearly and simply stated the matter. Analogy: if you're in elementary school, and the gym teacher stands up in front of the class and says "We're not going to play basketball this year," and you look around the room and see 2,000 basketballs, there are two possibilities: 1.) Understand as your fundamental principle the clear and direct statement of the teacher, and then interpret the data in light of that; or, 2.) begin by looking at the basketballs, assume this means there must be basketball playing, and thus interpret your teacher's comments in light of that, lest the basketballs being present make your teacher a liar. If we choose option number 1, this certainly does not mean that the teacher is a liar or deceitful or trying to trick you by having basketballs everywhere: for, if I am doing rightly, my first priority is to hear the teacher's voice, and to interpret the data in light of his authority. _*Word is clear and simple; natural revelation is obscured by sin.*_ [emphasis added]
> 
> Also, with regards to empirical processes used to determine physical ages: yes, this is a part of God's creation, but I am slightly uncomfortable bringing that generically under the umbrella of "natural revelation." Natural revelation, in a specific sense, has to deal with God revealed as he is Creator, sustainer, provider, and judge, and with man's relation thereto. Perhaps sometimes we derive more from natural revelation than it is designed to disclose, as though we were asking "What is 2+2?" to a magic 8-ball which only gives "yes" and "no" answers. Indeed, empirical dating processes derive information from God's creation, but (especially considering our extremely limited abilities -- especially apart from anything sure, such as God's special revelation) do we unhesitatingly refer to such things as God's revealed truth? I think rather we simply say they are transient and shifting interpretations of data.
> 
> Of course, my statements aren't authoritative pronouncements: this is an invitation to discuss.
> 
> *Edited to add*
> What _is_ surely true is that there is a certainty which comes from God's word; and this certainly is not found, for us, outside of the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture. This does not diminish the worth of natural revelation or the light of nature in anyway. But I do think a valid consequence is that when scripture seems to suggest one thing, and our current understanding of nature another, these two do not have equal weight, and we must be very _cautious_, at the least, when we adjust our hard-fought exegetical conclusions to accord with scientific inquiry.
> 
> Grace and peace, brother.



The premise that I find myself at odds with in your post (and probably that of many other people that hold the same view) is the one I emphasized. The Word is not all alike clear in every place the same. Add to that we are just as likely to have our sin corrupt our understanding of the scripture as anything else (we ought to be seeking the wisdom of God and guidance of the Holy Spirit in all areas of learning) then it makes sense that when we think we have a conflict, that we hold both interpretations suspect.

If I take your analogy, and place it somewhat differently ... the basketballs are all well worn showing use, the teacher makes a statement unlike any other he has made in direct teaching, and we see a possible way of looking at the statement differently, do we stick to what he said (was it sarcasm?) when he said nobody played basketball. If there is apparent conflict, me being a sinner, I have no guarantee that I will not err on one side and not the other.

I know of nobody that holds to a geocentric view of the solar system, yet the church as a whole got that wrong by interpretation of the word incorrectly and clung to that misinterpretation in the face of clear evidence to the contrary for many years. Figurative speech is what we say Christ used when he said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" because we see that Jesus knew and used figurative language even when conveying truth.

Given the facts of the textual structure used in Gen. 1, and the unique nature of the subject, I don't see what more could have been done to emphasize it was not literal without just saying it. It only takes a few minutes to read the OPC committee on creation report section on the framework ... and I've never seen anyone go through that report and demonstrate what it says is false. Broad statements "it isn't poetry" but no explanation of the highly stylized structure that is unique in historic writing. Why the tight structure if it is just a narrative? Just to confuse those that want to understand it and give it more than just a cursory view?

I'd love to see someone examine that report and say explicitly why each of the conclusions is wrong with a well thought out argument for each one, not just generalized statements, not "it doesn't fit what I know of poetry". So far, I have not seen point-for-point refutation. And of course given the quality of the persons on that committee, why would it escape them that it was just so much hogwash?


----------



## Theoretical

So one question is whether there's any 6-day, young earth Framework hypo folks?

6 literal days, but with 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6 paired.

Does this position still have the same degree of issues to a 24/6 creationist as a long-day creation account of any stripe has?


----------



## Prufrock

Brian Withnell said:


> The Word is not all alike clear in every place the same. Add to that we are just as likely to have our sin corrupt our understanding of the scripture as anything else (we ought to be seeking the wisdom of God and guidance of the Holy Spirit in all areas of learning) then it makes sense that when we think we have a conflict, that we hold both interpretations suspect.



Hopefully we will be able to move on to other points later, but I'm most interested in this statement; especially as it appears foundational to other things in question. Is this a true statement?

Are we really just as likely to be wrong in hearing the voice of God in scripture as we are in analyzing philosophy or science? Yes, we are corrupt, sinful and fallible: but it is God who speaks in scripture, not our abilities or reason. The certainty which you seem to be describing is a rational, objective, demonstrable certainty; the certainty which I think we should be talking about is subjective and spiritual. We hear and discern the voice of our shepherd. I can't help but fearing the skepticism to which I see your plan leading. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding. 

Is this a topic you're willing/think profitable to discuss?


----------



## Brian Withnell

Confessor said:


> I attempted theistic-evolutionary eisegesis, and it just doesn't work. While I was very proud of myself (in the wrong way) for formulating a cool story of how God could have infused Adam and Eve with souls, and the literary framework hypothesis allows for billions of years, etc., I could never get over the fact that the rest of Genesis flows so smoothly. It is simply not possible to demarcate a point in Genesis wherein "this" is symbolic and "this" is historical. It's a package deal.



Hmmm.... I'd see a fairly straight forward break at 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.



Here you have a separate account either of a single day or the "day" is figurative, or the other account is figurative, or perhaps both? Take that the Bible is true as the starting point, and you might have Gen 2:4 and following a different viewpoint of the account of creation ... and it appears a lot more like a literal account than the first. Could it be the first is historical figurative, the second more literal. Would that fit the text? Certainly seems that it would. Is there a problem anywhere else in scripture with that view? Not that I know (at least not if it isn't a straw man caricature of framework).


----------



## historyb

> I know of nobody that holds to a geocentric view of the solar system








You do now , actually I don't think about it that much.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Prufrock said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Word is not all alike clear in every place the same. Add to that we are just as likely to have our sin corrupt our understanding of the scripture as anything else (we ought to be seeking the wisdom of God and guidance of the Holy Spirit in all areas of learning) then it makes sense that when we think we have a conflict, that we hold both interpretations suspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully we will be able to move on to other points later, but I'm most interested in this statement; especially as it appears foundational to other things in question. Is this a true statement?
> 
> Are we really just as likely to be wrong in hearing the voice of God in scripture as we are in analyzing philosophy or science? Yes, we are corrupt, sinful and fallible: but it is God who speaks in scripture, not our abilities or reason. The certainty which you seem to be describing is a rational, objective, demonstrable certainty; the certainty which I think we should be talking about is subjective and spiritual. We hear and discern the voice of our shepherd. I can't help but fearing the skepticism to which I see your plan leading. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding.
> 
> Is this a topic you're willing/think profitable to discuss?
Click to expand...


I certainly would think we should hear our Lord and Savior's voice in what he reveals. We should not lean on our own understanding, but the same is true when we see general revelation that we should not lean on our own powers of reason. The heaven declare the glory of God the firmament pours forth speech. If all revelation is from God, and if all truth is God's truth, it isn't out of skepticism which I venture, but knowing that we have a loving father that will not lead us astray with any revelation he has given.

I tend to think of the idea that we can only trust special revelation to be accurate as skepticism. Why would God give revelation that is not discernible and useful? My answer is he would not. All revelation is capable of leading us to a greater understanding of God, and none of it has the possibility of contradiction. God does not lie ... he does not lie in general revelation or in special revelation. We don't have to fear that one book will say what the other book does not say. The book of his work (creation) says the exact same thing as the book of his word (the Bible) on any subject in which both speak.

When we see what appears to be a conflict, it is not either one that is wrong, it is we that have made a mistake disregarding what the Spirit has taught. There are many in the church today that reject many of the truths of scripture ... how many reject sovereign election and yet trust Christ and his work for salvation? How often does the church err on so many topics in the Bible? If we can have so many divisions within the church, and yet acknowledge many of them as true brothers, how then can we say we are less apt to err on interpretation of the Bible rather than interpretation of general revelation?


> But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.


The Spirit that teaches us the scripture teaches us all truth, and we are poor students indeed from what we see just in what we have learned of the Bible.

Is it possible the church is right about the Bible more often? Perhaps it is. Yet we are so often wrong that we ought not presume that we do a better job at listening to the Spirit's leading on scripture than we do anywhere else ... and I am not such a skeptic that I believe that we do not have his guidance in all things.

Do we make mistakes in interpreting general revelation? Just as often. How long did the church think the earth was at the center of the solar system? Look at all the changes in interpretation of data. Look at the absurdity of evolution and how it has deceived some in the church! We attempt to think our own thoughts instead of thinking God's thoughts after him and when we do we err (unless by his grace, we fall on what is correct).

Regardless, of the sphere, we are capable of error. We need to admit that and then look carefully at what we pronounce as true.


----------



## Herald

It's as literal and real as Bawb's Samson-like hair!


----------



## Prufrock

Brian Withnell said:


> If all revelation is from God, and if all truth is God's truth, it isn't out of skepticism which I venture, but knowing that we have a loving father that will not lead us astray with any revelation he has given.
> 
> I tend to think of the idea that we can only trust special revelation to be accurate as skepticism. Why would God give revelation that is not discernible and useful? My answer is he would not. All revelation is capable of leading us to a greater understanding of God, and none of it has the possibility of contradiction. God does not lie ... he does not lie in general revelation or in special revelation. We don't have to fear that one book will say what the other book does not say. The book of his work (creation) says the exact same thing as the book of his word (the Bible) on any subject in which both speak.



All _revelation_ is capable of so leading us; not all interpretation of such revelation: thus mis-interpretations arise from our sinfulness, either directly or indirectly. _If_ the earth is new, and _if_ God has clearly stated that in his word, _then_ the fact that we are misinterpreting the empirical data arises not on the fault of the God, but on our own utter blindness refusal to listen to the clear and rather devote ourselves to the unclear. I can just picture this debate happening in paradise: Adam and Eve are sitting around the day after God made the earth, and Adam wanders across a tar pit; then, he pulls out his antelapsum chemistry set, analyzes it and finds out it is composed of decaying plant matter; he then runs and tells Eve, the earth is really old. This situation simply wouldn't happen: before the fall, God's word was, subjectively, sure to man; Adam wouldn't have doubted that God just made the earth 6 days ago (again, this is all hypothetical based upon the assumption that the earth is, in fact, 6000 years old). Having that sureness from God's spoken word, he would have (not become a skeptic) but labored more diligently to understand the data presented him by the tar pits (and with sin not having entered the world, what else could have happened?). Thus, if we, subjectively, hear the voice of God speaking quite literally in the Genesis 1 account, how can we be expected to do anything differently? (Again, this is all within the hypothetical framework of the "new" earth view: I'm not arguing for that view at the moment, I'm simply trying point out that that view does not have to view God as deceitful with regards to natural revelation)

To place priority on special revelation (this being that by which the Holy Ghost speaks to us: see later) over our abilities at understanding natural revelation is not to be a skeptic of God's revealing abilities. In the end, then, this has to come down to exegesis of scripture. Geocentrism -- through careful exegesis (of scripture, not of Aristotle), does scripture mandate that the earth is the fixed center of the solar system, and the sun orbits it? I would say no. We certainly need to be careful and not rash in our exegetical conclusions: Perhaps jumping on the geocentric bandwagon for hundreds of years showed how influenced by the prevailing world-views the church was. When it comes to 6 days, again, it is in exegesis that the battle must lie: if, exegetically, scripture requires the position, then such is the voice of God (and our reasoning abilities, those which pertain to natural revelation -- abilities which have become corrupt by the fall -- ought to yield). I remain convinced that, as far as this debate is concerned for Christians, science ought to come later: primarily, this _must_ be an exegetical question.

*Side note* I'm still really confused why you keep claiming God would be a liar with respect to his natural revelation if the earth were truly young. This is not because I'm ignorant of science.



Brian Withnell said:


> But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
> 
> The Spirit that teaches us the scripture teaches us all truth, and we are poor students indeed from what we see just in what we have learned of the Bible.



This is not a sarcastic question: so can the church do geography, and mathematics, and literature, and economics (etc.) better than the world because we have the Spirit guiding us into all truth? (This is not a deduction from the above quote, but from other portions of your response: I'm merely using this as a spring-board). This is a very pertinent question. I'm not sure I understand this picture of the Holy Spirit speaking just generally through natural revelation: so far as I understanding, the means through which the Spirit speaks is scripture, for scripture is the Word written.

In a way, I think you're absolutely right. For instance, for the young-earth person, he would argue that the church _can_ understand aspects of natural revelation better than the heathen (not because the Spirit is speaking through nature, but because he has spoken through Scripture and thus taught us certain things _about_ creation). The young earth person would say, "The Spirit has revealed that the earth is young; therefore, we have a framework within which to understand the natural data and we don't have to chase certain dead-end roads which other scientists are pursuing." They would say, "God surely isn't being deceitful: if he hadn't told us that the earth was young, but had left all these "clues" scattered throughout the universe, perhaps _then_ we could say he was deceitful. But he has told us, and he _has_ given us the framework in which to understand these clues. This is the opposite of deceit."



Brian Withnell said:


> Is it possible the church is right about the Bible more often? Perhaps it is. Yet we are so often wrong that we ought not presume that we do a better job at listening to the Spirit's leading on scripture than we do anywhere else ... and I am not such a skeptic that I believe that we do not have his guidance in all things.



Here is fundamental difference between us: I don't believe we have his guidance in _all_ things. I don't see it scripturally warranted that God will lead his church to a better understanding of, say, organic chemistry, or cracking Linear-A script.

I do not lessen the value, goodness and importance of natural revelation. I'm Reformed: how can I not place great value on the light of nature? 

I am uncomfortable bringing the church's teaching down to the same level as our ability to do math. Yes, we are fallible: but when we have the promise of the Spirit leading his church into truth (the truth which is contained in scripture), this does not mean we don't or can't have certainty when we've heard _Thus saith the Lord._ I don't like the connection you've raised between fallibility and a corresponding uncertainty.

Anyway, if there's something in here you want to take up, feel free. I apologize for it's long, unorganized nature (and perhaps its entire lack of substance). 

Also, if this is too off topic and requires a new thread, let me know.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Prufrock said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Word is not all alike clear in every place the same. Add to that we are just as likely to have our sin corrupt our understanding of the scripture as anything else (we ought to be seeking the wisdom of God and guidance of the Holy Spirit in all areas of learning) then it makes sense that when we think we have a conflict, that we hold both interpretations suspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully we will be able to move on to other points later, but I'm most interested in this statement; especially as it appears foundational to other things in question. Is this a true statement?
> 
> *Are we really just as likely to be wrong in hearing the voice of God in scripture as we are in analyzing philosophy or science*? [emphasis added] Yes, we are corrupt, sinful and fallible: but it is God who speaks in scripture, not our abilities or reason. The certainty which you seem to be describing is a rational, objective, demonstrable certainty; the certainty which I think we should be talking about is subjective and spiritual. We hear and discern the voice of our shepherd. I can't help but fearing the skepticism to which I see your plan leading. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding.
> 
> Is this a topic you're willing/think profitable to discuss?
Click to expand...


I just realized I did not make a point that I would want to have made here. General revelation is not philosophy or science, it is looking at the book of God's works and reading his hand in it, seeing what he did, and thinking his thoughts after him.

I would not think we would necessarily just look at what "Science" (anthropomorphism intended) tells us and think that it is general revelation. General revelation is the declaring the glory of God by all creation. Thinking that the current rage in the atheistic scientist community is general revelation is foolhardy to begin with. Looking at stars, galaxies, microscopic animals and plants, viruses, subatomic particles, and everything in between is looking at the book of God's work.

I hope you see the difference between what I think you were implying, and what I mean (hmmm.... I could be off on what I think you were implying).

I do hope to continue the discussion.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Prufrock said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all revelation is from God, and if all truth is God's truth, it isn't out of skepticism which I venture, but knowing that we have a loving father that will not lead us astray with any revelation he has given.
> 
> I tend to think of the idea that we can only trust special revelation to be accurate as skepticism. Why would God give revelation that is not discernible and useful? My answer is he would not. All revelation is capable of leading us to a greater understanding of God, and none of it has the possibility of contradiction. God does not lie ... he does not lie in general revelation or in special revelation. We don't have to fear that one book will say what the other book does not say. The book of his work (creation) says the exact same thing as the book of his word (the Bible) on any subject in which both speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _If_ the earth is new, and _if_ God has clearly stated that in his word, _then_ the fact that we are misinterpreting the empirical data arises not on the fault of the God, but on our own utter blindness refusal to listen to the clear and rather devote ourselves to the unclear.
Click to expand...


First, I'd say that yes, if we had absolute, unequivocal statements that the earth is in fact new, then we would certainly be looking to find the how of the material world. We are the best equipped to examine the world, for we know its Creator. I'll hold off on the Spirit guiding for a while, I saw your exception to that later...



> When it comes to 6 days, again, it is in exegesis that the battle must lie: if, exegetically, scripture *requires* [emphasis added] the position, then such is the voice of God (and our reasoning abilities, those which pertain to natural revelation -- abilities which have become corrupt by the fall -- ought to yield). I remain convinced that, as far as this debate is concerned for Christians, science ought to come later: primarily, this _must_ be an exegetical question.
> 
> *Side note* I'm still really confused why you keep claiming God would be a liar with respect to his natural revelation if the earth were truly young. This is not because I'm ignorant of science.



I added the emphasis to "required" because that means absolutely required. Not that it seems probable. Not that it would be convenient for our theological positions elsewhere, but that it be required. To that I agree. If we had a non-historic, didactic section that clearly stated "God created the heavens and the earth in six ordinary days, even when the first three had no sun to mark them" I'd be the first one in line to say we have to figure out how the light from stars millions of light years away got here, and what phenomena allowed them to move that far away so fast, or why light behaves the way it does.

Because I see Genesis 1 as being without doubt figurative in time, but historical in meaning (that is, God created, and he created an orderly universe which follows natural laws) it makes it really difficult to see the evidence in nature as being other than proof the universe is old. I think that if it were not possible to read an old earth interpretation from scripture, the church has a duty to study God's works and figure out how we have "old" light.


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
> 
> The Spirit that teaches us the scripture teaches us all truth, and we are poor students indeed from what we see just in what we have learned of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a sarcastic question: so can the church do geography, and mathematics, and literature, and economics (etc.) better than the world because we have the Spirit guiding us into all truth?
Click to expand...


I'd say that we do have a better grasp on the universe, and can learn science, math and nearly anything better than the world (not every Christian in every subject, but the church as a whole ought to be able to do so) because we have the testimony of both special revelation and the inward work of the Spirit that ought to at least give us an edge in admitting error when we move down the wrong path.

While the Spirit certainly does help us in understanding the scripture, is that the full scope of "all truth" in the passage, or does it encompass all revelation? I see no reason to presume it means just scripture, and it certainly could go to general revelation.

Even an old earth Christian ought to be able to understand the universe more completely because they have both scripture to tell them of the God who created, and the God who maintains. If the earth is young (and that was an inescapable conclusion of scripture) then Christians would be the only ones looking for the how does the data fit (as it would have to).



> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible the church is right about the Bible more often? Perhaps it is. Yet we are so often wrong that we ought not presume that we do a better job at listening to the Spirit's leading on scripture than we do anywhere else ... and I am not such a skeptic that I believe that we do not have his guidance in all things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is fundamental difference between us: I don't believe we have his guidance in _all_ things. I don't see it scripturally warranted that God will lead his church to a better understanding of, say, organic chemistry, or cracking Linear-A script.
Click to expand...


This then does seem to be a difference, though I doubt Linear A script would be any part of general revelation, so I would most likely leave that off. I believe it is both a practical difference (Christians ought not be as pig headed when they are wrong) and that where God speaks, the Spirit will lead us into truth. So if there is natural revelation, the Spirit will illumine our hearts to what the revelation means ... though imperfectly in this age due to the remnant of sin in all of us.



> Anyway, if there's something in here you want to take up, feel free. I apologize for it's long, unorganized nature (and perhaps its entire lack of substance).
> 
> Also, if this is too off topic and requires a new thread, let me know.



It looks like we cross posted at least some. We may be off topic ... and if we need to start somewhere else, so be it....

At this point, I think my view can be stated fairly clearly in that I see absolutely no reason to interpret the 6 days of Genesis as ordinary 24 hour days. In fact, apart from anything else, I see internal evidence of the text they would not be literal days as we know them (4th day problem with a literal interpretation and no statement to support the conjecture the first three would still be 24 hour days).

If the account in Gen 1 is not literal, it appears the Bible has no statement on the age of the earth, and therefore general revelation would be useful in finding out how God created the heavens and the earth. While it might be young, at the present, general revelation points to an old universe even if the Earth is young (starlight transit times).

I fully believe Christians ought to be at the forefront of every intellectual endeavor because of the practical humility of willingness to let go when wrong, and the inward illumination of the Spirit on anything touching revelation.


----------



## JimmieD

Jon 316 said:


> Ok, I've pretty much been a fundamentalist since I got saved.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned...
> 
> a day meant a 24 hour period
> A week meant a week
> Evolution does not come into it
> And yes, the serpeant actually spoke to Eve...
> 
> Question... is it all literal? Do you think the snake actually spoke or is it symbolic? Explain your answer...
> 
> Oh, also, how do you answer the whole literal Adam and Eve thing, the first thing my pupils say is 'that would be incest' (I have my own idea about this but want to see what others say.



Interesting things I notice about Gen 1:

The days in Gen 1 appear to be arranged in some time of parallel structure.
Day 1 - Day 4
Day 2 - Day 5
Day 3 - Day 6
Day 7

On day 1 God creates light and the seperates light and dark
On day 4 God creates the sun moon and stars

On day 2 God creates the sky and seperates the waters
On day 5 God creates birds and sea life.

On day 3 God creates the land and vegitation and seperates the sea from the land
On day 6 God creates things that live on the land; including man who is in His image and rules over everything.

On day 7 - rest.


I guess for this part the questions that need to be answered are who is the author, who is the ideal audience, and what is the purpose? Is the author writing to and for the purposes of 21st century Americans? Or is the author writing to and for Israelites fleeing Egypt? Or something else?

If the author is writing to 21st century Americans then I think a good argument could be made that everything is intended to be very literal and this is a science lesson that is being given. However, if the intended/ideal audience is ancient Israelites fleeing Egypt, the purpose might not be to give a 21st century science lesson. 

I'm sort of open on this one. I tend to think we have an account from Moses to Israelites fleeing Egypt. So the ideal audience is ancient Israelites not modern day Americans. The purpose then might be to explain why they should trust their God and/or to explain why they are to flee Egypt and establish a land of their own and/or explain how they should and shouldn't act in light of God's generosity to them. And given the poetic-type structure of the passage, whether or not the days are literal 24 hour periods isn't even a concern; it's beside the point being made.


----------



## Confessor

JimmieD said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I've pretty much been a fundamentalist since I got saved.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned...
> 
> a day meant a 24 hour period
> A week meant a week
> Evolution does not come into it
> And yes, the serpeant actually spoke to Eve...
> 
> Question... is it all literal? Do you think the snake actually spoke or is it symbolic? Explain your answer...
> 
> Oh, also, how do you answer the whole literal Adam and Eve thing, the first thing my pupils say is 'that would be incest' (I have my own idea about this but want to see what others say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting things I notice about Gen 1:
> 
> The days in Gen 1 appear to be arranged in some time of parallel structure.
> Day 1 - Day 4
> Day 2 - Day 5
> Day 3 - Day 6
> Day 7
> 
> On day 1 God creates light and the seperates light and dark
> On day 4 God creates the sun moon and stars
> 
> On day 2 God creates the sky and seperates the waters
> On day 5 God creates birds and sea life.
> 
> On day 3 God creates the land and vegitation and seperates the sea from the land
> On day 6 God creates things that live on the land; including man who is in His image and rules over everything.
> 
> On day 7 - rest.
> 
> 
> I guess for this part the questions that need to be answered are who is the author, who is the ideal audience, and what is the purpose? Is the author writing to and for the purposes of 21st century Americans? Or is the author writing to and for Israelites fleeing Egypt? Or something else?
> 
> If the author is writing to 21st century Americans then I think a good argument could be made that everything is intended to be very literal and this is a science lesson that is being given. However, if the intended/ideal audience is ancient Israelites fleeing Egypt, the purpose might not be to give a 21st century science lesson.
> 
> I'm sort of open on this one. I tend to think we have an account from Moses to Israelites fleeing Egypt. So the ideal audience is ancient Israelites not modern day Americans. The purpose then might be to explain why they should trust their God and/or to explain why they are to flee Egypt and establish a land of their own and/or explain how they should and shouldn't act in light of God's generosity to them. And given the poetic-type structure of the passage, whether or not the days are literal 24 hour periods isn't even a concern; it's beside the point being made.
Click to expand...


I believe most of us are familiar with the framework hypothesis.  However, if you did come up with that on your own, congrats.


----------



## JimmieD

Confessor said:


> I believe most of us are familiar with the framework hypothesis.  However, if you did come up with that on your own, congrats.



Sorry, I wasn't trying to insult anyone.


I post on various forums, some of which take more explination on things than others. Since this is post #4 here for me, you will have to excuse me for not knowing the level of discussion.


----------



## Ravens

I have never understood why this discussion often centers around Genesis 1 - 3. I can somewhat understand why a person might have questions as to the Creation account, but the inclusion of part of the second toledoth, to me, seems completely and utterly arbitrary.

I can understand why "Genesis 1-3" could handily be taken as a "unit" in a theological sense; it sets the stage for the drama of creation, fall, and redemption. But textually, "Genesis 1-3" as some kind of "unit" doesn't even exist. You have a Creation Account, and the first toledoth, that, if my memory serves me, runs from Genesis 2:4 to the end of chapter 4. When all of the other 9/10 toledoths are strictly and without question dealing with real events that we call "history", what possible reason would lead us to conclude that an arbitrarily selected portion of the first toledoth is some type of "myth"?

There is certainly no textual reason. For those who quibble about the talking snake... it just makes me wonder if we are reading the same Bible, where staffs turn into serpents, donkeys speak, people rise from the dead, axe-heads float, and angels slay 185,000 warriors per outing.

So I think this discussion should be strictly limited to the Creation account, that is, Genesis 1:1 - 2:3. It's a small point, but somehow the narrative about the fall and the serpent always tends to get lumped in by default in this discussion, when there is no textual or rational reason to read it as anything other than history in the fullest sense of the term.


----------



## greenbaggins

The parallel structure of days 1-3 and days 4-6 does not depend on the Framework Hypothesis. I am a literal 6 24-hour guy when it comes to the creation days, but I notice that God created in a parallel structure that then got written down in a parallel structure.


----------



## Wannabee

greenbaggins said:


> The parallel structure of days 1-3 and days 4-6 does not depend on the Framework Hypothesis. I am a literal 6 24-hour guy when it comes to the creation days, but I notice that God created in a parallel structure that then got written down in a parallel structure.



Well said.

In the beginning - time

God - source/originator

Created - action/power

The heavens - space

and the earth - matter


There's a whole lotta thinkin' goin' on 'round here. It's interesting that "science" admits that these are the necessary components for creation (or "everything" if one isn't a creationist), but they refuse to acknowledge the true source. It sure would help them if they'd start with the source of truth.


----------



## Confessor

JimmieD said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe most of us are familiar with the framework hypothesis.  However, if you did come up with that on your own, congrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I wasn't trying to insult anyone.
> 
> I post on various forums, some of which take more explination on things than others. Since this is post #4 here for me, you will have to excuse me for not knowing the level of discussion.
Click to expand...


Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to impute any bad intentions on you. I just wanted to let you know that you were not obliged to give a lengthy explanation. That is all.


----------



## Parsifal23

I would take the young earth view but I am not doctrinaire about it.


----------



## Marrow Man

DMcFadden said:


> Genesis is highly stylized, deliberately constructed to confute the pagan cosmologies of the day (e.g., the pagan Gilgamesh Epic), and reflects a high degree of literary features (cf. Jonah's VERY tightly parallel construction between its chapters or the book of Ruth with its literary structure) . . .



When I first read that, I thought you were saying that there was a tight parallel construction between the books of Jonah and Ruth. I was just about to ask where you had read that, as it was an hypothesis I'd never heard before! 

Thanks for your comment. I know this will absolutely shock the rest of you but -- no it won't. I'm a 24/6 man as well.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

to Tim...


----------



## tellville

The purpose of the passage is to teach us that God is the Creator, and not _how_ the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created.  I will walk away now.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Romans 5


----------



## raekwon

I'm pretty much with Dennis here. "Myth", at its core, is a literary genre, and the Genesis creation account certainly fits into that genre's definition (loosely, "stories that a particular culture believes to be true regarding supernatural explanations for natural events").

But, it's also the truth.


----------



## MMasztal

Literal.

After years as a day-age creationist, I spent a considerable time studying this before i started teaching science at a Christian school. I found that the literal interpretation to be supported Biblically with other positions lacking support given the nature of the fall, etc.


----------



## lshepler412

Brian, could you state for those of us who are not too familiar with it exactly what the framework view is or says. I've never really had a good grasp of it.


----------



## Scott Shahan

Confessor said:


> It is simply not possible to demarcate a point in Genesis wherein "this" is symbolic and "this" is historical. It's a package deal.




Great point, Grudem also makes that point in his systematics, see bottom of pg 278. His argument there is very persuasive.


----------



## Archlute

raekwon said:


> I'm pretty much with Dennis here. "Myth", at its core, is a literary genre, and the Genesis creation account certainly fits into that genre's definition (loosely, "stories that a particular culture believes to be true regarding supernatural explanations for natural events").
> 
> But, it's also the truth.



But, Rae, your initial statement, and your final statement would not gel in any academic discussion of "myth". The genre of mythology/myth has been shaped largely by sociologists who use the category as a way by which to explain any person or people group's explanation of the "true" secular and materialist view of the universe by means of anything divine, supernatural, and by their definition "false". They would not put it that way, of course, but it is the essence of what they convey in their writings.

Myth, as it was used during my time in the university, was always taken in that way. It was never used in a way that would lend credibility to the myth makers' ideas. At best, the academics would look down in sympathy upon the folk who used these stories as a way of explaining their environment, knowing that although they did so in sincerity, they also did so in ignorance. 

Applying the terminology of "myth" to any part of Scripture, knowing how it is used not only in popular culture, but also in the social sciences as they have crossed into genre studies, is ultimately unhelpful when it comes to maintaining an orthodox position of infallibility, historicity, and inerrancy.


----------



## JoeRe4mer

The problem with calling Genesis 1-3 a Myth is that in our culture a myth is something that is untrue or a fairly tale. 

Professors of comparative religion make a different error when calling Gen 1-3 myth though their definition of myth is more holistic. For them it usually means a story with a moral used to teach us a value like, why children should obey their parents. Myths are also used to help primitive men make meaning out of life experiences. Yet the story itself is _not literally true_ down to the small details. 

Here is a link to a web site that discuses the subject of myth with Joseph Campbell the late scholar of comparative mythology. It is hard to make much sense out of what he says concerning the definition of myth yet he is the greatest scholar in the field living or dead. 

Myths-Dreams-Symbols


----------



## DonP

Brian Withnell said:


> Do we make mistakes in interpreting general revelation? Just as often. How long did the church think the earth was at the center of the solar system?



The scripture never taught the sun went around the earth. It does teach a creation by intent. 

Do we believe in perspicuity or not? I don't think Moses was a latter Jewish poet. Was Joshua?
Moses was Egyptian and a goat herder. Joshua was a slave. None of these men were schooled in Jewish scholastic poetry which would have developed later not while they were slaves in Egypt. 

The earth is old 
The earth is young. 
Both are true 
How can this be? 

God could have created the earth old, or to have the appearance of age either way. 
Stop and think. Adam was not born a new baby, he was born old. 
The grass was not newly seeded, nor the fruit trees else the people and animals would have starved to death waiting for the new everything to grow old. 

Now that we know it was created old, can not not accept that it would have been possible for God to have created it looking older, with fossils, ice ages, etc. already being there? 
It appears to have had seas recede from the land and be gathered which would have left marks we see, pre-Noah. 
*
When we see a narrative we should use care that it MAY not be, but not absolutely can't be taken literally or used to direct life and conduct.
*
Morn and eve and dark and light are extremely clear and literal, else why have both delineated instead of one. Else we have problems with the sabbath day also being a literal day. (who cares how many hours and how fast the earth spun, irrelevant unless it stops) 
Some would say no we don't have a sabbath problem, but yes we would. He used the day to define the sabbath. 
How can we say it went back and forth back and forth between literal and non throughout both of these accounts? What kind of poetry is that?

Gen 1: 5 God called the *light Day*, and the *darkness He called Night. *So *the evening and the morning were the first day*. NKJV

Gen 1:8 So the evening and the morning were the second day. NKJV
Gen 1:13 So the evening and the morning were the third day. NKJV

Gen 1:14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens *to divide the day from the night;* and *let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;* 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 Then 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 God set them in the firmament of the heavens 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 So *the evening and the morning were the fourth da*y. NKJV

Gen 2:2 He rested on the seventh *day *from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed *the seventh day* and sanctified *it*, 
NKJV

Note. The definition of a day and morning and evening and light and dark was made before the sun and moon were created. 

Now no sensible person were have written this unless it is exactly how it happened. But it shows God intended to be able to make a distinction of a day and morn and eve before he created the lights of the 4th day. 

There are so many flawed thoughts in the Framework I spent months writing many of them out from their early draft. Few if any were ever answered by its developers and promoters. Others have done the same. 
Some who have bothered to read these articles have dropped their FW view. 
I don't even bother to argue the issue anymore since leaving the OPC. It is too unperspicuous in my opinion to warrant it.

Also what benefit to we derive from this novel idea? Is there any harm by a literal historical creation? 
Is there an application we miss. Will it effect or change any doctrine? Or is it all simply academic to say we are making sure we don't make the mistake of calling it literal and missing some parallels? 
And if it was written for a nation that had been fleeing, and we could say it did not have to be exact and literal, then it did not have to be. So? Did God think it was only to be read by fleeing Israel? Did He not know it would be read for all ages? Was He trying to trick the 20th century? 
There is no problem with the more literal narrative understanding. It does not do any damage to the text or the doctrine or to application. FW has only caused controversy, schism and the OPC has people concerned about it causing the development of "Designer Presbyteries" which I think lead to schism rather than promote unity. 
If there was a real purpose to the concept other than to say I am a bit more accurate about it not being accurate, then I would not be so critical.

Deut 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. NKJV

Ps 131:1 LORD, my heart is not haughty,
Nor my eyes lofty.
Neither do I concern myself with great matters,
Nor with things too profound for me. 
NKJV


----------



## JoeRe4mer

Herald said:


> It's as literal and real as Bawb's Samson-like hair!



HAHAHHA LOL


----------



## OPC'n

Literal. As to the snake talking....God allowed an ass to speak. God could have easily allowed Satan to use a snake through which to speak. That just like chewing gum for God!....He just got through creating the universe....allowing a snake to talk is no big deal.


----------



## Peairtach

Literal.

It is ironic and sad that those who would make the serpent mythical are heeding the words of the serpent,"Hath God said?"

Having said that, this serpent at the beginning of God's creation was different to the serpents of today:-

(a) More cunning than all other creatures.

(b) Upright, with legs.

(c) Able to talk (?).


----------

