The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Creation

In one of the links that rmwilliamsjr provided it talked about people such as Origen and Augustine who believed that the days of creation were not literal 24 hour days, mainly because they had trouble with the creation of the sun on the fourth day, if it was 6/24 hour days.

So my question is, did this belief on the creation affect their over all view of interpreting Scripture? Please show evidence if possible.

Also, what do you believe are the natural consequences of not believing in a literal 6/24hr. days? Please show evidence, if possible.

How would you account for the creation of the sun, on the 4th day if you believe in 6/24 hr. days?

Please understand, I am completely in favor of a literal understanding of the creation account. But thought these questions would prove to be an interesting conversation.

Tom

(Fred) Actually, if you read what these men wrote, they did not have problems with the creation of the sun on day four. There problem was that the creation week itself was just too long for an all powerful God. Augustine, for instance, believed the creation happened in an instant, but still maintained a young view of the universe. His comments that are often cited by long agers as being proof that Genesis has a history of being read figuratively are taken from a work that is specifically responding to long age beliefs about the universe from a pagan perspective.


(Fred) I guess my initial question is, why is this a problem? So the light holders are created on day four, so what? Why does that mean a 6/24 hour understanding of Genesis 1 is in error? I have never understood why long agers believe this day four argument is somehow the magic bullet to shut down a literal reading of Genesis. Usually they don't like light existing prior to the sun and stars, but the sun and stars are not necessary for light to exist. The new heaven and the new earth will be illumined by God himself (Rev. 21:23). God set up some source of light for marking off time for three days, until his creation of the lightholders on day four. Why is that so hard to believe? Perhaps someone can explain?

Fred

I think I am going to have to re-read what that link said. My comments were made because that is what I understood it to be saying. http://www.pcanet.org/history/creation/report.html


Good question

Tom

I frankly don't know, but perhaps it has to do with the Young Earth creationist claims that Genesis 1 diagrams what actually occured. Since there is no Biblical explanation for the light before the sun, the Old Earther would claim that the Young Earther is reading this into Scripture that there was another light - a light not mentioned in the creation account. That is reading a bit into the account, to be sure....but in my opinion this is reading MUCH less into the account than claiming that the days are ages, etc. etc. etc.

Fred

On re-reading what the link had to say, I have to say you are correct. Augustine did not believe in an old earth, though he did treat the text in an allegorical manner, with his instantaneous view.
I find however, the moment someone treats the text in an allegorical or non-literal manner. What is to stop them from going to the other extreme from what Augustine did?
Someone might have some misgivings about accepting a literal interpretation, but by accepting an allegorical or a non-literal approach, it causes more problems than the literal approach.
Namely, it causes one to assume things from their own imaginations, or perhaps go outside (the scientific community) of Scripture itself for an interpretation, thus denying the sufficiency of Scripture.

Tom

The problem of light created(day 1) before the light bearers(day 4) is perhaps the earliest recognized problem with Gen 1 being historical/scientific ordering.

Likewise "there was evening and morning" preceding the formation of either the earth or the sun.

it was exegetical problems such as these that leads into framework interpretation.

It is not difficult to believe, however they do have some arguments. They state for instance: (1) The two-triadic literary framework in Genesis 1. (2) The evidence that Day 4 is a return to the events of Day 1 and describes in more detail how God separated the light from the darkness. (3) The principle of continuity, showing that God established the ordinary means of sustaining a creation before he created it. (4) The argument from semantics showing that the days must mean normal solar days. Neither abnormal non-solar 24-hour periods nor long ages can be considered within the semantic range of the Genesis 1 creation 'days'. (4b) The argument from semantics concerning 'evening' and 'morning' shows that the days must mean normal solar days. Neither abnormal non-solar 24-hour periods nor long ages can be considered to fit with the very narrow semantic ranges of these words, that refer to the time of day when the sun rises/sets. (5) The metaphorical interpretation of the Exodus 20/31 passages is most consistent with the FI view on Genesis 1. (6) The eternal nature of the seventh day requires a metaphorical interpretation. (7) Moses purposely avoided using the standard grammatical pattern of enumerating time periods in his construction of the Genesis narrative. Here is a paper on the FI: Genesis One and Beyond: An Investi...stions of Creation in the Biblical Texts with its addendum One, Two, Three, and an Ordinal for Thee - Grammatical Irregularities, Definitions, and Genesis One. To have a balanced representation of the other view, maybe we can debate these with someone who supports the view, if someone would like to send the author an e-mail (at the top of the papers).

Bruce Waltke, professor of OT at RTS and professor emeritus at Regent College in Vancouver, also supports this view. His book on Genesis is rather informative: Genesis a Commentary (Zondervan).

Here is something that I believe is relevent to this conversation.


Normally "yom" is used in Scripture to mean a 24 hour day. But there are exceptions such as Is. 61:2 where it is used for longer periods of time. Or in the case of Genesis 2:4, where it is used as an idiom "when".
However, in Genesis chapter one it must be interpreted as a 24 hour period.
1.) Elsewhere, whenever "yom" is used with a number, it means 24 hour periods.
2.) The Decalogue bases the teaching of the Sabbath day on the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest.
3.) From the 4th day on, there are days, years, signs and seasons, suggesting that the normal system (24 hour day) is entirely operative.
4.) If "yom" refers to an age, then the text would have to allow for a period of "night". But few would argue for the night as an age. It seems inescapable that Genesis presents the creation in six days.

(From Creation & Blessing 'A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis by Allen P. Ross Page 109)

Tom,

At the risk of being called naive or unscientific I wish to suggest something that may not have been considered by some here. I will also probably be accused of having the disease, ED or "exegesis deficiency".

It is my belief that the Scripture in its entirety may be only understood properly by applying the Gospel or the doctrine of "Justification by Faith Alone". There is no reason why this idea may not be applied to the creation account in Genesis also. (In fact this is what Scripture calls us to do) Why may we not consider the Genesis account not only to be historically factual, but to be extremely prophetic and Gospel centered?

Of course our God may create light before there were heavenly bodies to emit or reflect that light. To reflect upon God's new creation in the truth and LIGHT of Christ all one need do is consider that to our God a thousand years is a day.

In the 4000th year the Son (sun) of righteousness is created and brought to us in the flesh! This is obviously true because, of the fact of sin, there were no heavenly bodies (men) to reflect or emit that light in its fullness.

It is fact that the darkness of sin took up residence in our world BEFORE the Son of light and truth.

For "scientific" men to demand that our omniscient God create the physical world and time itself in the same way that "THEY" would do it is nothing but arrogant and prideful unbelief.

To answer your first question then: The first creation account should not be impossed upon Scripture, but the Second creation in Christ should be impossed upon the first. This is simply because the New Testament has interpretive authority over the Old.

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

Denny

This is only my first reaction and because I haven't had time to think about it, I may be wrong, perhaps others will comment.

It would seem that you are spiritualizing the texts, especially by equating the Son with the sun. Other than the fact that the Son created the sun (John 1:1-3), I see no reason to spiritual this.
Also, though I have read a fair amount on this topic, if I understand you properly, I have never read anybody else say what you did.

Tom

Tom,

I have never heard anyone say this before either.

I don't believe that I am spiritualizing the text but comparing the old creation with the new in Christ.

Also, if I am spiritualizing the text, so does Malachi in Mal 4:2, NKJV.

"But to you who fear my name The SUN of righteousness shall arise With healing in His wings;"

You may be right so I'm not going to quibble over this.

Denny

Denny,

Your idea of making "Sola Fide" the hermeneutical foundation by which all of Scripture must be submitted and therefore understood, unfortunately cannot be substantiated from Scripture itself. There simply is no warrant to do so that I or anyone else that I have ever read have found. Can you offer your reasons for doing so? The literary context of Genesis 1 and 2 presents itself as a historical account and unless one has a valid reason for seeing it otherwise, it must be taken as it was written and intended.

In His Grace,

Denny,

I would dispute the idea that Malachi 4:2 "spiritualizes" the phrase, "Sun of righteousness", again on hermeneutical and exegetical grounds. For your edification, here is a quote from T.V. Moore (1818-1871), a Presbyterian pastor. He served as Moderator of the General Assembly of the Southern Presbyterian Church in 1867. The quote is from his commentary on Zechariah, Haggai & Malachi, Banner of Truth, 1958.

Wings are attributed to the sun, poetically, in allusion to his apparent motion, just as we read of “the wings of the morning,” in Psa. 139: 9. The image of the sun seems to have been suggested by the expression “day,” used in the preceding verse, in order to make the contrast more striking between the day of terror to the wicked, and of gladness to the righteous. The phrase “Sun of Righteousness” is generally applied to Christ in popular language, and if the ultimate ground of this future gladness and righteousness is brought in view, the phrase is undoubtedly applicable to him. But we cannot think that the prophet here meant to predict Christ personally by this phrase, or indeed to look at the ground of this righteousness at all. His object was to show the contrast that this future day would present to the righteous, from the aspect it would present to the wicked; and while it is true that the foundation of this contrast rests on Christ, yet it is the contrast itself, in its bright and joyous character, rather than the foundation that is here contemplated by the prophet. To leap as a young animal, which after confinement exults in the joyousness of freedom, is a striking image of the joy that the righteous shall feel after being kept so long waiting for deliverance.

In His Grace,

As Southern Seminary NT prof Dr. Bob Stein has said, "If you find something new in the Bible that no one has ever found before, there's probably a good reason why no one else ever did."

Couldn't agree more.


God bless,

william