Were the seven days of creation in Genesis seven twenty four hour periods? - The implications.
By moving away from a strictly literal only interpretation of the days in Genesis 1 we can start to examine the account for other intricacies.
But first a bit of a summary:
- A strictly literal interpretation of Genesis 1 has deep roots that extend well before the age of enlightenment and the knowledge of the earth we have since uncovered.
- A young earth creation (7 x 24 hours)would require the ignoring of a lot of geological and other evidence.
- An old earth creation (7 x 1000 years or longer) still has challenges regarding the order of the Days of creation in the Genesis 1 account.
- The order and repetition of elements within the Creation account hint rater at a literary structure rather than a detailed literal account.
- The structure is used to elevate and emphasize the 7th day as a day of rest.
- This same literary structure is used elsewhere in the books of Moses and is not unique.
- It is used in the account of the plagues of Egypt to elevate and emphasize the final plague that would institute the Passover and establish the start of the Israelite Calendar.
So lets see what other intricacies we can find when freed from a strictly literal straitjacket.
The account uses some interesting phraseology that literalists ignore:
On days three, five and six the phrases go as follows:
Let the earth bring forth grass
Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life
Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind
In all these phrases, the very interesting expression "bring forth" is used. In each instance the earth or waters are directed to "bring forth" plants, fish, birds and animals in such a way as to imply that the capacity is in them to do this.
This is not out of line with what we have so far discovered regarding the emergence and differentiation of life on this planet.
This phraseology could easily accommodate the emergence of diversity via natural processes.
This emergence by natural processes is later, in the respective verses, associate with God Creating and Making:
And God created great whales
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind
Hereby we see that the act of "Creating" and "Making" is considered one and the same as the earth and waters naturally "bringing forth" all forms of life.
If we take this further to the other "Let there be" phrases:
Let there be light
Let there be a firmament
Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together
Let the earth bring forth grass
Let there be lights in the firmament
Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life
Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind
Let us make man in our image
If we review these phrases from this perspective it seems that the phraseology can quite easily accommodate the natural and emergent process that have been uncovered by observational and scientific methods.
What we know of biological evolution is the importance of reproduction and inheritance in the process.
Both of these principles are emphasized repeatedly in the account.
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind
Now some may accuse me of trying to sneak evolution in the back door of the creation story, however its my opinion that the creation story seems to have had it in there as a possibility all along and that the creative process may have be a perfectly natural and now more increasingly understood evolutionary process.
There will be others that object in that this seems to contradict the story of Adam and Eve... but we will look into those objections next week.
So my question at this stage is; does the possibility that God may have used completely natural and increasingly understood processes to create the universe, the solar system, this planet and all life on it, make the prospect any less miraculous and glorious?
For me, the more I learn about emergent and evolutionary processes, the more I am filled with Awe at the majesty of this entire enterprise called life.
Previous parts of this Series.
Were the seven days of creation in Genesis seven twenty four hour periods? - Delving a little deeper
Were the seven days of creation in Genesis seven twenty four hour periods? - Into the detail
Were the seven days of creation in Genesis seven twenty four hour periods? - Some conclusions
Were the seven days of creation in Genesis seven twenty four hour periods? - Some more conclusions
I hate coming in on number 6 in a series.
There go the next few days binge reading your previous posts.
Your title grabbed me first because I've had the same thought before. i.e. Why would an omniscient, omnipotent being with infinite power be constrained by a 40 hour work week, so to speak?
Does god answer to the Federal Bureau of Labor or the AFSCME?
There are far too many different translations of the Bible for people to rationally consider theirs as the one true doctrine.
The commonly held, Thou Shalt not Kill commandment that, in the original Hebrew(?) is Thou Shalt not Murder should be enough for people to step back and consider the message, not the words.
Rewrites, edits, purges have all been intended to keep those who "bring god's words to the people" in power.
In my opinion anyway.
You're one of those authors aren't you @gavvet?
You make people think. You're obviously a dangerous person. ;-)
Dangerous indeed, thanks for the compliment.
@theblindsquirl got you a $1.29 @minnowbooster upgoat, nice! (Image: pixabay.com)
Want a boost? Click here to read more!
Creation myths (or any religious tales) were not made with natural processes as advocated by science in mind. These texts are more like poetry or even dreams, trying to make sense of what a human existence entails. They are humanity's attempt to express its own profundity.
I think that explanation may be a bit simplistic, a just so story...
Simplistic how? I certainly did not advocate them as mere stories. You can hardly find a better teacher than the bible when it comes to answering questions about human psychology. This is absolutely not diminishing its value, as the mind encapsulates all things.
Oral traditions are so far back in the mists of time, the amount of speculation required to explain them is on a par with any other explanation.
Religious tales however claim divine revelation and if that claim is true, the Revalator in this case, would have such knowledge and could layer it into the revealed narrative.
That I think would set such tales apart from oral myths as these would reflect other complexities.
Of tales which have survived through millennia, we can be sure as to their gravity. We strongly relate to them. Why else would they survive, reemerge or have the power to change one's convictions? Ever since speech first took place, the ideas within the stories and dreams we have conjured up have had to stand the test of time. Only the common themes among them; the most repeatable; relatable; and true (true from the human perspective) makes it to the end, written or not. These are so refined that their significance becomes religious.
To me, it matters little if the ideas we have come to call gods are found outside or inside the mind (is this distinction even possible?). They are equally true regardless.
I do find it interesting to see a different take on these old texts. The way they are often taken just doesn't do it for me scientifically but putting it like above does, if that makes sense!
That is the intent, at least that's how it works for me...
The principle that God is all knowing, that He encompasses all knowledge of the universe past, present, and future. In the beginning, God created the world and everything in it, including knowledge. So, we should never use science to prove and justify the holy books sent by God. God knows everything, but the more we study, the more we come to understand what an incredible truth it is. More importantly learning the original language in which the Holy books have been sent should be learnt to remove all the errors in the interpretations.
If you can't read Greek and Latin its pretty tough and even the Catholics don't do latin anymore. The "fundamentalists" in the United States read only the English King James bible and take it word for word like it was the original scripture. I stopped taking the bible literally as soon as I learned about the council of Nicea.
Revealed knowledge and observational and studied out knowledge are facets of the same gem of truth
To be fair, the verses on this post are only an English translation out of the original language, Hebrew. At some point, in-depth analysis of these phrases is useless, unless we're looking at the original language. English is great for getting the general idea across to us, but throughout the Bible, greater insight to the meaning of a text can be gained by understanding the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words and phrases.
Good points, hence, I've looked at these phrases in the Hebrew, the translation is sufficiently accurate for these purposes.
@gavvet, It becomes even more amazing when you look deep into physics and see the universal constants, such as the relative strengths of the forces (gravity, strong nuclear and weak nuclear, etc), the speed of light, Planck's constant, etc. If one of these constants was just a little TINY bit off, there would be no life in the universe. That is pretty freaky. Now, consider that from the beginning, we have believed in Angels. They are not just harp aficionados. They are tasked with the actual mechanics of the universe, and there is a hierarchy of them, with the highest being the most powerful and knowledgeable. The knowledge of God is delegated down thru the ranks, and each angel, according to its nature, carries out its task.
With something as amazing as evolution, nobody can tell me that there is not a preternatural hand guiding it along. We did not arrive here by accident, but at the same time, we did not just get placed here. There is a recorded process, and it is good to try to see the hand of God in it, rather than cower in one of the extreme positions: that there is no God and everything is totally random (this is insane), or that there is a God and he made everything in 6 human days, just as Genesis literally states it. (childishness)
yup, there are so many enthralling options besides the intellectually lazy binary responses.
As commented further up, environment can be used to guide selection... in that way evolution can be directed and guided.
6 Days of Creation:
Day 1: the heavens and the earth are created and "Let there be light".
Day 2: God created the horizon
Day 3: the land is separated by the sea; Grownups are created
Day 4: The sun, moon and stars are created
Day 5: Animals in the oceans and birds in the air
Day 6: Animals on earth, cattle and creeping creatures, First humans created (Adam and Eve)...
Fii Sittati Ayyam in Tafsir Klasik
In the Qur'an, has explained about which of Fii Sittati Ayyam which is in the seventh letter of Al-A'raf (Place of High) verse 54 which reads:
"Your Lord is the God who created the heavens and the earth in six days".
According to the size of the world day or the equivalent of it, for in those days there was still no sun. But if God wills it He will be able to create it in a moment's eye, as for the mention of this, in order to teach His creatures to be diligent and patient in doing something
The Qur'an often uses the term sittati ayyam or commonly called "six days". This term is, among other things, in letters [7]: 54, [10]: 3, [11]: 7, [25]: 59, [32]: 4, and [50]: 38.
In addition to these verses, there are also several verses relating to the creation of the universe as in letters [41]: 9, 10, 12 and [79]: 27-33.
To understand the meaning of ayyam sittati in the context of the creation of the universe, each of these verses can not be interpreted separately. The mufassirs believe that some verses of the Qur'an interpret some of the others (Qur'anu yufassiru ba'dluhu ba'dlan). So the term sittati ayyam should be interpreted by looking at other verses related to the creation of the universe.
However, if we compare those verses, it would appear a problem in the Fushshilat Epistles 9, 10, and 12. In verse 9 it says: "... who created the Earth in two days ......", then in verse 10: " ... ..determine to him the content of his food (occupants) in four periods ... ", and verse 12:" then he made it seven heavens in two days ....... ".
If the periods in the three verses are summed, then the number becomes 8 periods, not the six periods (sittati ayyam) as mentioned in the other verses. Does this mean there is a contradiction in the Qur'an? Of course there will be no mufassir who think so.
A little of my question after giving me my reading, how do you respond mr @gavvet
Unfortunately I'm not sufficiently versed in the Qur'an to do your question justice
Your #1 handicap is the literal interpretation of a flawed text.
Voltaire a french author said 'The universe embarrasses me, and I can not think that this clock exists and has no watchmaker'.
Evolution theory and god creating the universe could be the same thing.
Agreed
I think you could find this article interesting Gavvet http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html
This quote from Einstien fits perfectly your article : "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
I just don't dig into this "god created all", nor do I believe in god even a little bit, but it's still interesting read these kinds of topics from time to time. After all, we were all raised hearing about god as our creator :)
good of you look in from time to time
the creation story seems to be more of a de-evolving story. Just look at the life time of
man, it goes further and further down. After the flood it is possible he change of weather implied a nature that created environment hard for humans to handle. Plus giants, technology lost.. more to the story that's for sure. Love your posts!
Eden describes a fall... a fall from what is the question.
I'm writing up exactly about that. Stay tuned!!!