I've tried to answer Laura's questions by numbering them but i do hope that in the article I tried to be equally fair to all the positions. Here's a post where I looked at the actual point of Genesis 1 .
1)If we don’t take the word ‘day’ literally, then why would we take the rest of the passage literally?
I don’t think one necessitates the other. For instance if I said that
“Oh no, you let the cat out of the bag!” I’m using an image to
highlight a literal point: that you told the secret. If the point of Genesis 1 is something other than the process (rather the how) of creation then days being literal wouldn’t matter.
2)If God created the world in 6 undeterminable amounts of time
and then rested for 1 undeterminable amount of time, then what does
that even mean!?
It might just mean that the text is more complex than we make it out to
be. It might also mean that God’s ways are greater. But either way, if
its distracting from the point of the passage then maybe it’s just a
distraction that has recieved undue overattention as time passed.
3)Also, why does no one ever question the other passages where it says ‘day’?
Context mostly, but that’s one of the arguments for the literal interpretation method.
4)What about Adam’s age when he died? He was 930. Why would it
say that specifically if he had lived through day 6 and 7 and they were
not even really actual days?
It doesn’t negate the possibility that time started ticking on the day of the Fall. If
the point of the passage underscores Creation being built up toward man
then having man created on Day 6th as the Ultimate End of the Creative
Work surely underscores Man’s importance: so it could just be that.
Then when we get to Adam living 930 years its talking about the actual
man living that many years. Either way, it still seems hard to
reconcile the years with the idea that man was (1) created on Day 6 (2)
named all the animals on day 6 (3) was put to sleep on day six (4)
woman was created on day 6 (7) Fell on Day 6.
5)Why do you believe that lucifer fell on hour three of day one?
I don’t. It’s an example of a flaw in the literal day system that it
doesn’t address the fall of the celestial beings. Here’s the quote: This view says nothing of the creation of heavenly beings and the fall of Lucifer (did he fall in Hour three of Day One?).
6) How could God have said that everything he created and
everything in the earth was ‘good’ and ‘very good’ if that had already
happened?
Firstly, any origins account looking at a historical Fall of Man has to
deal with the already falllen Serpent. I mean, the dude was wickedly
slick, a liar, an accuser of God and subsequently a murderer. How did
it get so bad before the Fall? Was it after God said everything was
Good? Was it between God saying anything Good about the created order
at all and the chaos of verse 1? Was God’s statements localized to the
things he was referring to in a Terran-Centric creation account? I
mean, If Genesis 1 is Terran-Centric (as in looking out from the point of view of Earth) then a heavenly fall wouldn’t necessarily need
to be mentioned: it can just be taken in as existant when it reveals itself.
 |
Rey's Studies (Topics) 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
