// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Literal Genesis 1:3

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Literal Genesis 1:3

    Could creationists please comment on Genesis 1:3?

    I'm trying to get a feel for the concept of a literal Genesis, since that's the main point of contention in rejecting Deep Time and evolution.

    Originally posted by Ge 1:3, AJKV1611
    And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    In what sense are the following literal, i.e. clearly mapped to physical reality? An unambiguous mapping would be nice.

    1) God (Elohim) said... Is this speech in the sense of audible sound? Is "speech" a metaphor for God's creative power? Something else?

    2) What is meant by "light" here?

    K54

  • #2
    I believe you mean Young Earth literalists. I believe in a literal understanding of Genesis and I am Old Earth Creationist.
    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
      I believe you mean Young Earth literalists. I believe in a literal understanding of Genesis and I am Old Earth Creationist.
      As Ed McMahon used to say to Johnny Carson, "You are correct, Sir!"

      K54

      P.S. But you are still a Genesis literalist, so I assume you have a mapping of the Ge 1:3 to either a physical or spiritual interpretation.

      Comment


      • #4
        A general observation, it's instructive that the YEC literalists go silent when one asks for a literal verse-by-verse reading of the Genesis stories.

        I mean, isn't that the ONLY reason they reject Deep Time and History?

        K54

        Comment


        • #5
          "Literal" does not necessarily have a single, clear-cut meaning. Anyway, what's yours?

          It may be too restrictive, considering how "unliteral" much of the Bible is. "And then God said . . . " That does not necessarily mean he spoke something, creating sound. That may have been a poetic attempt to describe something that is rather inexplicable.
          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

          [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

          Comment


          • #6
            Every 'literal interpretation' is still an interpretation.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον∑
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              Every 'literal interpretation' is still an interpretation.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                "Literal" does not necessarily have a single, clear-cut meaning. Anyway, what's yours?

                It may be too restrictive, considering how "unliteral" much of the Bible is. "And then God said . . . " That does not necessarily mean he spoke something, creating sound. That may have been a poetic attempt to describe something that is rather inexplicable.
                Literal to us? Literal to Biblical "Scientific" Creationist? I really want to know about the latter, since they reject the modern ideas of Deep Time and History and Cosmic and Biological Evolutions. And they do so on the premise that the Bible not only states THAT God creates but HOW in a sufficient enough sense to reject the conclusions of OEs, TEs, and AEs.

                You want MY interpretation? I would try to interpret in terms of ANE knowledge, but that's not "literal" in any sense acceptable to YECs.

                K54

                P.S. Jesus turning water into wine at Cana can be read in an unambiguous, obvious, plain, simple, direct, literal sense.

                "God said, 'Let there be light'" I'm asserting cannot.

                Show where I'm wrong, please.
                Last edited by klaus54; 07-19-2014, 03:57 PM. Reason: p.s.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  Every 'literal interpretation' is still an interpretation.
                  Many YECs don't like to say the "interpretation" word. They would say a straightforward, plain, simple, direct, literal "reading" of the text.

                  K54

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                    Many YECs don't like to say the "interpretation" word. They would say a straightforward, plain, simple, direct, literal "reading" of the text.

                    K54
                    Oh, I know, but they are completely wrong about that. Texts can be ambiguous, ancient texts especially, and Hebrew is, of course, no exception, originally being written without vowels or punctuation. Genesis 1 can be read to support creatio ex nihilo or not, to advance the idea that the heavens were created first, or that the earth was created first, or that they were created at the same time, or not created at all and that light was created first, and all of these would be very straightforward, plain, simple, direct, and literal readings of the text. The ancient Hebrews from before the time of Jesus were very comfortable with such ambiguity and I would imagine that Jesus was as well. Traditionalists, be they Masoretes or Christian fundamentalists (or anything in between, merismus), usually try to nail down one single authoritative interpretation that oftentimes ends up being more innovative than traditional.
                    Last edited by robrecht; 07-19-2014, 04:17 PM.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον∑
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      Oh, I know, but they are completely wrong about that. Texts can be ambiguous, ancient texts especially, and Hebrew is, of course, no exception, originally being written without vowels or punctuation. Genesis 1 can be read to support creatio ex nihilo or not, to advance the idea that the heavens were created first, or that the earth was created first, or that they were created at the same time, or not created at all and that light was created first, and all of these would be very straightforward, plain, simple, direct, and literal readings of the text. The ancient Hebrews from before the time of Jesus were very comfortable with such ambiguity and I would imagine that Jesus was as well. Traditionalists, be they Masoretes or Christian fundamentalists (or anything in between, merismus), usually try to nail down one single authoritative interpretation that oftentimes ends up being more innovative than traditional.
                      Good points all!

                      But now, I'd like to hear from a Henry Morrisanian/Ken Hamist "Scientific" Biblical Creationist. What is THEIR interpretation of Ge 1:3?

                      Again, I will state my main thrust in this thread -- if YECs reject "historical" science in favor of a "literal" Genesis, what IS that "iiteral" reading or interpretation or whatever you want to call it?

                      I'd like to work through the entire first Genesis story this way.

                      And I'm NOT trying to be snarky or do a "gotcha". I want YECs to justify their rejection of Deep Time and History from a "literal" Genesis (reading, interpretation, or whatever.)

                      My general experience both personal and via communications from OEs and TEs is that you can hardly EVER convince a YEC on scientific evidence. It's God Word first and foremost. So use God's Word and give your narrative that supersedes what we can glean from studying Creation (Nature) itself.

                      K54

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                        Literal to us? Literal to Biblical "Scientific" Creationist? I really want to know about the latter, since they reject the modern ideas of Deep Time and History and Cosmic and Biological Evolutions. And they do so on the premise that the Bible not only states THAT God creates but HOW in a sufficient enough sense to reject the conclusions of OEs, TEs, and AEs.

                        You want MY interpretation? I would try to interpret in terms of ANE knowledge, but that's not "literal" in any sense acceptable to YECs.

                        K54

                        P.S. Jesus turning water into wine at Cana can be read in an unambiguous, obvious, plain, simple, direct, literal sense.

                        "God said, 'Let there be light'" I'm asserting cannot.

                        Show where I'm wrong, please.
                        Nobody cares where you are wrong.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          And I'm NOT trying to be snarky or do a "gotcha".
                          You don't have to lie.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            Every 'literal interpretation' is still an interpretation.
                            Yeah!
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                              Nobody cares where you are wrong.
                              MODERATORS: I request that this nitwit not post on this thread. Thanks!

                              K54

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              26 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              20 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              49 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                              33 responses
                              210 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Leonhard  
                              Working...
                              X