How can anyone reach the conclusion that God created everything over the course of six 24 hour days?

[QuestioningMind]

Even if you choose to interpret the bible literally, the book itself indicates that the six ‘days’ of creation were NOT six 24 hour days.

An Earthly day has been determined by the fact that it takes the Earth 24 hours to make one full rotation in relation to the sun. Yet the bible clearly states that at the very beginning of the very first ‘day’ that God had yet to create the Earth or the sun upon which humans measure the length of a day. The first ‘day’ of creation obviously was not based upon an Earth and sun that didn't even exist yet.

So even if you do insist upon reading the bible as literal, doesn’t a literal reading force you to conclude that the first ‘day’ was not an Earthly day, but rather a Godly day?

 

[Ouroboros]

An Earthly day has been determined by the fact that it takes the Earth 24 hours to make one full rotation in relation to the sun. Yet the bible clearly states that at the very beginning of the very first ‘day’ that God had yet to create the Earth or the sun upon which humans measure the length of a day. The first ‘day’ of creation obviously was not based upon an Earth and sun that didn't even exist yet.

Also, right now it's dusk here where I live, and dawn 9 time zones farther to the west, while it's night a couple of time zones to the east. There's morning, day, evening, night, everywhere, all the time on this planet. There's no single event of "now morning is coming" simply because it's happening 24 hours a day, all around the planet.

Another thing is that even with a sun in the creation story, from space, from another galaxy, there's no night and day in relation to our single, very average to small, yellow sun. There are stars that are thousands times larger than our sun. There's really no day or night in space.

 

[Nietzsche]

Even if you choose to interpret the bible literally, the book itself indicates that the six ‘days’ of creation were NOT six 24 hour days.

An Earthly day has been determined by the fact that it takes the Earth 24 hours to make one full rotation in relation to the sun. Yet the bible clearly states that at the very beginning of the very first ‘day’ that God had yet to create the Earth or the sun upon which humans measure the length of a day. The first ‘day’ of creation obviously was not based upon an Earth and sun that didn't even exist yet.

So even if you do insist upon reading the bible as literal, doesn’t a literal reading force you to conclude that the first ‘day’ was not an Earthly day, but rather a Godly day?

Also, right now it's dusk here where I live, and dawn 9 time zones farther to the west, while it's night a couple of time zones to the east. There's morning, day, evening, night, everywhere, all the time on this planet. There's no single event of "now morning is coming" simply because it's happening 24 hours a day, all around the planet.

Another thing is that even with a sun in the creation story, from space, from another galaxy, there's no night and day in relation to our single, very average to small, yellow sun. There are stars that are thousands times larger than our sun. There's really no day or night in space.

It makes a lot more sense when you factor in them believing the earth was flat, despite the Greeks(amongst many, many others but they're closest geographically) having worked out the circumference before the earliest known record of the Judaic faith.

 

[Thief]

Saw it written somewhere......a day in the life of God is like unto a thousand years.

not exactly a thousand.....just something like that.

Of course, in the days of the author........a thousand years would seem like 'forever'.

 

[RedDragon94]

Even if you choose to interpret the bible literally, the book itself indicates that the six ‘days’ of creation were NOT six 24 hour days.

An Earthly day has been determined by the fact that it takes the Earth 24 hours to make one full rotation in relation to the sun. Yet the bible clearly states that at the very beginning of the very first ‘day’ that God had yet to create the Earth or the sun upon which humans measure the length of a day. The first ‘day’ of creation obviously was not based upon an Earth and sun that didn't even exist yet.

So even if you do insist upon reading the bible as literal, doesn’t a literal reading force you to conclude that the first ‘day’ was not an Earthly day, but rather a Godly day?

Saw it written somewhere......a day in the life of God is like unto a thousand years.

not exactly a thousand.....just something like that.

Of course, in the days of the author........a thousand years would seem like 'forever'.

So, what if God actually was the designer of the evolutionary process 15 million years ago? That sounds much more plausible to me. The Bible is not a science textbook, the declarations it makes have to read with spiritual lenses. Some things may be more literal than others, other things are metaphorical. Such as when the Bible talks about outer darkness, most Christians would say that this is a literal hell. However some evangelicals would debate about hell, whether it is a done deal once you are sent there. 1 Peter 3:18-20 is a verse that sparks this controversy, focus on verse 19. Where would spirits be in prison? What is the point in Jesus preaching to them when their choice has been made? I believe in a literal hell but I don't think it has to be forever.

So anyway, back to the creation. The Day-age theory, I think, works the best.

 

[psychoslice]

I think most people are starting to wake up, and realize that its all a metaphor, taking it literally and arguing about it is childish to me.

 

[Ouroboros]

It makes a lot more sense when you factor in them believing the earth was flat, despite the Greeks(amongst many, many others but they're closest geographically) having worked out the circumference before the earliest known record of the Judaic faith.

I think so too.

Once, I read that the creation story in Genesis has its roots, or at least being influenced, by northern African tribe stories. Many of them, because of their location in steps and desert landscapes, had the story tying in God, sand (dirt, dust), and man. That man came from the dirt or dust of the ground, where also the great tiger (or lion? can't remember which) and such came from. Basically, the idea of man coming from dirts/dust might have roots in stories made by people living in deserts and not close to the ocean. Later, the story got embellished with the sea and so on, but the origin might be from tribal people that didn't have a concept of the ocean. I don't know, but it's fun stuff to contemplate on.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think most people are starting to wake up, and realize that its all a metaphor, taking it literally and arguing about it is childish to me.

Agree.

The spirit of the word is hidden in the metaphorical/allegorical understanding. The literal interpretation kills the spiritual understanding.

 

[Nietzsche]

Agree.

The spirit of the word is hidden in the metaphorical/allegorical understanding. The literal interpretation kills the spiritual understanding.

That's the least of the problems with the literal view.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Even if you choose to interpret the bible literally, the book itself indicates that the six ‘days’ of creation were NOT six 24 hour days.

An Earthly day has been determined by the fact that it takes the Earth 24 hours to make one full rotation in relation to the sun. Yet the bible clearly states that at the very beginning of the very first ‘day’ that God had yet to create the Earth or the sun upon which humans measure the length of a day. The first ‘day’ of creation obviously was not based upon an Earth and sun that didn't even exist yet.

So even if you do insist upon reading the bible as literal, doesn’t a literal reading force you to conclude that the first ‘day’ was not an Earthly day, but rather a Godly day?

If said 'day' was not 24 hours, it would probably have used a different measurement of time. A day is the unit for 24 hours. If this message was meant for man to understand, why confuse the poor humans with calling it a day when it isn't?

 

[psychoslice]

Agree.

The spirit of the word is hidden in the metaphorical/allegorical understanding. The literal interpretation kills the spiritual understanding.

Yes I like that.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I think most people are starting to wake up, and realize that its all a metaphor, taking it literally and arguing about it is childish to me.

Couldn't this be a bad thing, though? Sure it is a little more rational than literal interpretation, and rationality is a good thing. But is this what we should expect to accomplish through debate? It could be seen as cherry picking, extending reason to unreasonable things (fanboyism, never giving up to logic, just working around it), and controversy over not only different congregations but now it's down to controversy of individual Christians.

And things go wrong under certain "metaphors", like taking a taable cover off with stuff on it. For example; if the story of Adam and Eve was entirely metaphorical, why do we need to be saved? If the great flood never happened what exactly is the metaphor there? Don't F with God? XD

 

[psychoslice]

Couldn't this be a bad thing, though? Sure it is a little more rational than literal interpretation, and rationality is a good thing. But is this what we should expect to accomplish through debate? It could be seen as cherry picking, extending reason to unreasonable things (fanboyism, never giving up to logic, just working around it), and controversy over not only different congregations but now it's down to controversy of individual Christians.

And things go wrong under certain "metaphors", like taking a taable cover off with stuff on it. For example; if the story of Adam and Eve was entirely metaphorical, why do we need to be saved? If the great flood never happened what exactly is the metaphor there? Don't F with God? XD

Well of course if you want to believe the bible to be literally true then that your choice, but something such as believing the earth was made in 6 days is totally wrong, so by realizing its wrong will makes us dig deeper. Its the literal meaning that keeps most from realizing what is behind the metaphors, just like the parables, you can cling to the story, or you can go deep within and see where the stories point to, and this is the whole idea of a parable. Yes I will F with god until I know what is true.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's the least of the problems with the literal view.

Sure. Literalism is dangerous, in my opinion.

But just as when we say things here, we have intentions and meaning carried in our words. The meaning (spirit of the word) gets lost when people dissect the words without looking at the whole context. When it comes to the old religious texts, people who reads it literally overlook the culture, history, people, ideas, etc that those texts are built upon.

 

[Ouroboros]

And things go wrong under certain "metaphors", like taking a taable cover off with stuff on it. For example; if the story of Adam and Eve was entirely metaphorical, why do we need to be saved? If the great flood never happened what exactly is the metaphor there? Don't F with God? XD

Salvation can also be seen as metaphorical. What are we really saved from, and what does it really mean to be saved?

 

[psychoslice]

For me I meditate on whatever text, I let it sink within and just see what happens, if the certain text has a message from me, I will by spiritual discernment understand that which is for me, if its not for me, then its not there fro me, but it maybe there for you, or whoever.

 

[QuestioningMind]

If said 'day' was not 24 hours, it would probably have used a different measurement of time. A day is the unit for 24 hours. If this message was meant for man to understand, why confuse the poor humans with calling it a day when it isn't?

I beg to differ. A 'day' is 24 hours here on EARTH. A 'day' is twenty-four Earth hours and forty Earth minutes on Mars, and approximately 59 Earth days long on Mercury. So a 'day' is simply a term for a measurable unit of time. So if you are interpreting the bible literally, then it's completely illogical to conclude that at the very first 'day' of creation, that the day was based upon the 24 hour day of an Earth that had yet to even be created.

As for '"why confuse the poor humans..." I'd have to reply that it God didn't want to confuse the poor humans, then he shouldn't have delivered his Sacred Word in the form of ancient texts written in a long dead language that seems almost designed to be misinterpreted and misused over the centuries to the point where no one can agree on which words are really God's or agree on what they mean.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The spirit of the word is hidden in the metaphorical/allegorical understanding. The literal interpretation kills the spiritual understanding.

But what is the spiritual understanding here? Does anyone agree on it?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

When it comes to the old religious texts, people who reads it literally overlook the culture, history, people, ideas, etc that those texts are built upon.

Indeed, and reading old religious texts without considering the cultural context is foolish.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Even if you choose to interpret the bible literally, the book itself indicates that the six ‘days’ of creation were NOT six 24 hour days.

An Earthly day has been determined by the fact that it takes the Earth 24 hours to make one full rotation in relation to the sun. Yet the bible clearly states that at the very beginning of the very first ‘day’ that God had yet to create the Earth or the sun upon which humans measure the length of a day. The first ‘day’ of creation obviously was not based upon an Earth and sun that didn't even exist yet.

So even if you do insist upon reading the bible as literal, doesn’t a literal reading force you to conclude that the first ‘day’ was not an Earthly day, but rather a Godly day?

Obviously, the argument is that God would have talked in a clear way to people, so would have said days even the earth did not exist yet, but indicating the same timeframe as a day.