Literally 6 Days

[TruthInLove]

I do not wish to ignore the meaning of "yom". What I'm saying is that one can't tell whether "yom" is being used figuratively or not simply by the word itself. The word may be used literally to mean an actual day relative to the context but if the context itself is largely wrapped in fictional details, the term "yom" may not refer to a literal day relative to reality.

You asked for other occurrences of the term "yom" in Genesis that I thought were non-literal. I think there is a good chance that the days in the flood account of Noah are not to be taken as referring to 24-hour periods in actual history. Yet, obviously in the context of the story, the days are probably normal 24-hour periods. They are simultaneously literal and figurative. Literal with respect to the story, figurative with respect to reality.

The key to determining whether this distinction is justified is not in the definition of the word "yom" or any of the words being used. It's in analyzing the story itself to see if it has any elements of a genre of writing other than historical narrative. There are many things about the accounts in Genesis that suggest that they aren't referring to historic events in details that correspond 100% with how those events played out in history.

Can you present an example of what a figurative occurence of "yom" might look like to you? What criteria would you use to make the determination as to whether it referred to an actual event in history? What criteria would you use to determine whether that actual event occurred in the span of a normal 24-hour day?

[TruthInLove]

By the way, thanks jasonmodar for sharing the Lennox video. It was very entertaining and encouraging. He made a lot of great points.

[dwight92070]

I do not wish to ignore the meaning of "yom". What I'm saying is that one can't tell whether "yom" is being used figuratively or not simply by the word itself. The word may be used literally to mean an actual day relative to the context but if the context itself is largely wrapped in fictional details, the term "yom" may not refer to a literal day relative to reality.

Dwight speaking: Maybe you should call yourself "FictionInLove". Ha - just a little joke there. But it does bring up a point. How do I know that you are telling me the truth? Maybe you are just giving me a fictitious story about what you believe. Or maybe you are giving me literal truth wrapped in fictional details.

Dwight speaking: This is why I said that your beliefs are a confused, tangled web of truth and fiction. That line of thought degenerates into total nonsense and leads nowhere but to total mental chaos.

You asked for other occurrences of the term "yom" in Genesis that I thought were non-literal. I think there is a good chance that the days in the flood account of Noah are not to be taken as referring to 24-hour periods in actual history. Yet, obviously in the context of the story, the days are probably normal 24-hour periods. They are simultaneously literal and figurative.

Dwight speaking: That is impossible - if literal refers to physical facts and figurative refers to fictional details, as you stated in your first quote above. The story of the flood is either fact or fiction - it cannot be both. If there is any fiction, then the whole story must be discounted. You can't mix truth with lies and call it the word of God.

Literal with respect to the story, figurative with respect to reality.

The key to determining whether this distinction is justified is not in the definition of the word "yom" or any of the words being used. It's in analyzing the story itself to see if it has any elements of a genre of writing other than historical narrative. There are many things about the accounts in Genesis that suggest that they aren't referring to historic events in details that correspond 100% with how those events played out in history.

Really? What examples do you have for that?

Can you present an example of what a figurative occurence of "yom" might look like to you?

Dwight speaking: He was a good actor, in his day. This does not refer to either a 12 or a 24 hour period. I really can't think of others right now, even though there may be more. Examples of this are rare, which is another reason why I believe that none of the occurrences of yom in Genesis are figurative.
Dwight speaking: I think we may be mixing up figurative or symbolic and fictional. Something can be true or false and still be figurative or symbolic. But you can't have something that is factually true and then call it figurative fiction. Fact and fiction are total opposites.

What criteria would you use to make the determination as to whether it referred to an actual event in history?

Dwight speaking: I believe it does, until it is proven that it does not.

Dwight speaking: I always give a story or even a person the benefit of the doubt. That is to say, I take it (or him) to be telling the truth, until proven otherwise.

What criteria would you use to determine whether that actual event occurred in the span of a normal 24-hour day?

Dwight speaking: I always assume that a reference to the word "day" means 12 or 24 hours, until proven otherwise.

[TruthInLove]

How do I know that you are telling me the truth? Maybe you are just giving me a fictitious story about what you believe. Or maybe you are giving me literal truth wrapped in fictional details.

Fundamentally, you don't know. But you would use some process of evaluating my writings to help you make a decision about what I intended to communicate at various points. You would be in a better position to describe your method of choice than I would.

This is why I said that your beliefs are a confused, tangled web of truth and fiction. That line of thought degenerates into total nonsense and leads nowhere but to total mental chaos.

I agree with you about the first sentence. It is tangled. I don't think God intended everything He said to be unmistakably clear to everyone in every time and every place. I do think He's left clues that make it possible to sort out His intent in most cases. There is logic behind the appparent chaos that enables one to make good sense out of it.

The story of the flood is either fact or fiction - it cannot be both. If there is any fiction, then the whole story must be discounted. You can't mix truth with lies and call it the word of God.

Do you equate fiction with lies? If the author presents evidence that there are fictional elements to His accounts, can he honestly be accused of lying? Are you saying fiction can't be used to communicate truth? What then are allegories, parables and apocalypes? Are the lessons presented in the morals of fables lies?

Really? What examples do you have for that?

I already presented examples of such indicators. Genesis has literary structure not typical of factual narrative. Numbers notable for their symbolic use elsewhere in the Bible permeate Genesis. The motifs of Genesis pop up in other Biblical contexts that are clearly non-literal. The video shared by jasonmodar gave further indicators that the days of Genesis 1 are not identical durations of time let alone 24 hour days.

Fact and fiction are total opposites.

Yes, but each can be used to communicate the other. Novels use facts to communicate fiction. Allegories, parables and apocalypses use fiction to communicate facts. And there's no prohibition from an author mixing these two techniques in a single writing without being guilty of perpetrating a single lie. God does not lie but He's not always unmistakable clear about what He says either. Veiling of truth is not lying.

I believe it does, until it is proven that it does not.

I take it (or him) to be telling the truth, until proven otherwise.

I always assume that a reference to the word "day" means 12 or 24 hours, until proven otherwise.

Proof will never be possible. There's only reasonable assurance. What types of evidence would you accept as reasonable assurance that a passage that uses literal-sounding language was in fact intended to be non-literal?

[dwight92070]

Do I equate fiction with lies? No, I do not. Am I saying that fiction cannot be used to communicate truth? No, I am not. I am not ignorant. I am not saying that you are accusing me of that, but somehow you are missing what I am saying. Pilgrim's Progress and the Screwtape Letters come to mind. Both are great fictional works that communicate truth. But the authors of those books do not give any suggestion whatever that their books are anything but fiction. Obviously there are thousands, probably hundreds of thousands more books like those, all fiction, and none claiming to be literal reality.

Not so with the Bible. It starts out with unquestionable authority and seriousness, not even a hint that we are reading a fictional account. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." God's word needs no embellishment to make it more entertaining. After all, didn't He create language? In fact, God warns Israel to not add to or take away from His commandments in Deuteronomy 4:2. Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 where God says that "man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord." Do we not see and read about many words proceeding out of the Lord's mouth in Genesis 1? Yes, Jesus use parables but they were labeled as such. There is no such designation in Genesis that would tip us off that we are reading fiction.

I very much enjoyed the Lennox video. What a smart man and it appears, a godly man too. But I don't agree with him on at least one issue. He said that there is no indication whatever in Genesis about the age of the earth. He also seemed to say that the seventh day rest of the Lord continues even to the present. I disagree on both issues. Genesis 2:3 says "Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because IN IT He rested from all His work which God had created and made." God's rest from His creation occurred IN THE SEVENTH DAY. There's no indication that His rest continues beyond that day. Again Exodus 20:11 confirms that He rested only on the 7th day, not beyond that. Also, even though it does not say " And there was evening and there was morning, the 7th day", there is no reason to believe that that day was a different length than the other days. Nor is there any reason to assume that there were gaps of time in between the 6 days. All of that would be speculation. On the contrary, a literal understanding of the creation account would be 7 24-hour days with no time gaps between the days.

Genesis 5 tells us that when Adam was 130 years old, he became the father of Seth. Think about that. We know that Adam was created on the 6th day of creation. So 130 years after Adam was created, he became the father of Seth. We know that the 7th day was already in the past. That occurred 3 chapters earlier, with the whole story of the fall and Cain and Abel occurring in the interim years. So notice that the 7th day occurs between the creation of Adam (on the 6th day) and the birth of Seth
130 years later, also during these same interim years. So what does that tell us about the length of the 7th day? It tells us that it cannot be longer than 130 years, because Adam was created on the 6th day and when he was 130, after the 7th day was long since past, his son Seth was born. So right off the bat, we see that the 7th day cannot be thousands or millions of years in length as some would have us believe. It has to fit into that 130 year period from Adam's creation to the birth of Seth. In fact, I believe the 7th day was far shorter than 130 years - 24 hours to be exact.

Also in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11, simple mathematics makes it easy to determine exactly how many years elapsed from the creation of Adam to the flood and also how many years elapsed from the creation of Adam to Abraham, although the latter calculation is a little more difficult to get an exact figure. That is because Abraham's father, Terah, had 3 sons, Abram, Nahor, and Haran, but we are not told if they were triplets (all born at the same time), or if they were born at different times. But we can get a "ballpark" figure for the years elapsed since creation. We also can get a "ballpark" figure from Jewish history as to what years Abraham lived, i.e. how many years before Christ. Finally we put these figures together, and we can get a reasonable date as to the creation of Adam. Many have put the date at 4004 B.C, If this is the date of Adam's creation, and he was created on the 6th day, then we can count back to the 1st day, so the earth is approximately 6021 years old (4004 + 2017). The Jewish calendar has the year at 5777, so we are in the same ballpark.

[TruthInLove]

God's word needs no embellishment to make it more entertaining.

I'm not suggesting that God embellished His word merely to make it more entertaining. I think His purposes were loftier than that. Even loftier than merely communicating a basic understanding of how He created the universe. As counter intuitive as it may seem, I think His point in conveying Genesis the way He did was at least partially to establish a subtle yet elaborate framework of symbols that pointed to Christ, could be fulfilled by Him, and leave reasonable people looking back on it all with the conclusion that only a God who transcended space, time, chance, and human freewill could have set up such a framework, kept it intact and evolved it so beautifully over thousands of years and many human agents until bringing it to complete fulfillment in actual history. That is what convinces me that the Bible is truly God's word and Christ was the fulfillment of it.

Yes, Jesus use parables but they were labeled as such. There is no such designation in Genesis that would tip us off that we are reading fiction.

Does God's nature obligate Him to always explictly point out when he is using a specifc genre or literary technique in His speech? If explicit indicators are not required of Him, how strong do the implicit indicators need to be? Is there any standard by which we can identify them?

[dwight92070]

God's word needs no embellishment to make it more entertaining.

I'm not suggesting that God embellished His word merely to make it more entertaining. I think His purposes were loftier than that. Even loftier than merely communicating a basic understanding of how He created the universe.

Dwight speaking: Merely? Is God's proactive work of communicating a basic understanding of how He created the universe a small thing to you? Yes, the message of Jesus is the ultimate message, but some details of His work of creating the universe is awesome to me! In fact, it magnifies Jesus all the more. "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." John 1:3

Yes, Jesus use parables but they were labeled as such. There is no such designation in Genesis that would tip us off that we are reading fiction.

Does God's nature obligate Him to always explictly point out when he is using a specifc genre or literary technique in His speech?

Dwight speaking: God is under no obligation to do anything. He does whatever He wants.

If explicit indicators are not required of Him, how strong do the implicit indicators need to be?

Dwight speaking: He is under no obligation to give us any indicators, explicit or implicit.

Is there any standard by which we can identify them?

Dwight speaking: If He gives us any indicators, it's strictly His grace.

How do we identify them?

Dwight speaking: Well, with the parables, it's obvious, He identified them as parables. If He spoke without parables and there is an abundance of His words that are not parables, guess what? We are to take His words literally, allowing for figures of speech and even hyperbole, such as, "if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you." etc. These do not make his words untrue, they are simply a mode of communication, but no lying is involved.

Dwight: When you meet someone for the first time and they tell you they are from Germany and they came to the United States in 2005, do you believe them? I do. I give them the benefit of the doubt, until they give me a reason to not believe them. If someone tells me they were born in 1890, I know one of 2 things: Either they are mentally ill or they are lying.

Dwight: If you pick up a book that you have never read and you know nothing about it - there is no introduction or information on the front or back jacket, and the first thing you read is: "My trip to Hawaii in 1995 was a life-changer, not only for me, but for my whole family.", would you accept that information as being accurate? I would, until such time as additional reading made it obvious that I was reading fiction. Suppose the next sentence said: "My newly built time machine allowed my family and I to not only travel to Honolulu in 3 seconds, but to arrive there in the year 1850." Immediately I realize I'm reading fiction.

Dwight: I think this is human nature. We almost always take someone literally when we first meet them, unless they give us a reason not to. We almost always take an unidentified new book literally, until it reveals a reason for us not to.

Dwight: The same is true with the Bible. God obviously knows our nature. He knows that we will take Genesis literally, unless Genesis itself gives us a reason not to. He also knows that other people can greatly influence us, sometimes even before we ever read Genesis, so that we start reading it with preconceived ideas. The same is true for the whole Bible. I dare say that the first time you read the word day in Genesis one, you recognized it as meaning the same thing that it means to us today, unless someone got to you first with his more liberal understanding of it, and swayed you into his way of thinking. Why would I say that? Because that's our human nature. That's the way God made us.

[TruthInLove]

God obviously knows our nature. He knows that we will take Genesis literally, unless Genesis itself gives us a reason not to.

I've already given you several aspects of Genesis that I believe give us such reasons. You may not find them convincing. I and others do. That's certainly your right. Ultimately, I don't think one's view of creation matters much at all to God or to practical Christian living. However, there's no reason, aside from the preconceived notion that God is a respecter of human nature, to assume these elements couldn't show up in Genesis too. And there is certainly no need to have a biased agenda in order to see evidence that Genesis is somewhat fictional. Such aspects are not uncharacteristic of God's Word in other areas.

Consider the Law of the OT. When it was first given, there was never any obvious indication that it was temporary or that it was prophetic - pointing to something greater than itself. The Law was given as something perpetual that had to be adhered to rigidly to please God and avoid being cursed by Him. Circumcision, clean and unclean foods, temple ceremonies, etc. It isn't until much, much later in other books of the Bible that we see clearly that these were in fact symbols of something greater and that ultimately, God was never really satisfied with the entire establishment! He even says He detested parts of it at times. Ultimately, we find that He never even intended the Law to fulfill the purpose for which most people naturally believed it would fulfill!

And the things He outright said He hated, like shellfish and swine flesh, He ended up embracing in the New Testament. Human sacrifice was forbidden in the OT, yet ultimate redemption was found in the death of a human! Worship of created things was forbidden in the Old Testament. Yet, lo and behold, an unexpressed exception to these rules is when created human flesh has the consciousness of God behind it. It seems like these things are perfectly acceptable in that case.

Apparently, God sees fit to hide His real intentions for centuries on end, despite the confusion it can and does cause when He finally "comes clean".

Adhering to the assumptions you are making with regard to God's "Code of Conduct" in His composition of Genesis, wouldn't you have to concede that God was being more than a little misleading, if not deceptive in the expectations He set forth for Israel in the Law?

[steve7150]

If this hasn't been mentioned i would like to add that when God created the heavens and earth and everything else the physical reasons for a 24 hour day didn't exist until more then halfway through the process. So why would God make each day of creation 24 hours when there was no apparent reason to?
Of course when we are told to observe the Sabbath on the 7th day, we are constrained by the laws of physics to 24 hour days but why would God constrain Himself?
In other words i don't see why a God day must be the same as a Human day since God is not limited like we are. It seems to me God performed other activities outside the laws of Physics like the parting of the Red Sea, Jesus walking on water and many other activities, so why would He limit himself to his own laws of physics for creation and particularly when these laws didn't even exist at the inception of the process.

[Singalphile]

I don't usually have time (or the mental energy) to post during the work week, but I read all the posts.

Briefly, my own view regarding the symbolic or metaphorical nature of Genesis 1-3 (primarily chapters 1 and 3) is based on the apparent nature and genre of those particular narratives. They strike me as having a very unique style.

Someone - TruthInLove perhaps - mentioned the first 11 chapters of Genesis. My take on the rest of Genesis is that it seems to be regular historical narrative, so I've always taken it as such. (I don't know of a reason to necessarily be concerned that others do not.)