Abrahamics: Do you accept 6 Days Creation interpretation by your Prophets and Saints?

[InvestigateTruth]

I skimmed the article. But I'm almost certain he didn't deny all of the literal interpretation. I was looking for the specifics on that and didn't find it there.

What's more important is whether his interpretation is useful and efficient.

Was it his thought that the creation of Genesis is a prophecy of the 7 Ages, using chronology and spiritual detail?

That article there also contains some of the opinion of the auther of that website. In his opinion Augustine completely taken the whole story of creation in 6 Days Allegorical, with the exeption of the creation of human in His image. But that's not what I got from Augustine. What Augustine believed was that God created human in His own image, meaning that throughout 6000 years of Progressive Revelation, and by sending His Word which is like Light against darkness of ignorance, He finally at the end of 6000 years, creates humanity to be in His image.
And What Augustine is talking about is, that prior to six thousand human as a general would not reach to a point to be said his creation in a spiritual sense is completed.
Now look at our time and compare it with prior to late 19th century. In old days, they had wars all the time, Nations against Nations, Kingdoms against Kingdom, the slavery was a normal thing, women did not have right to vote, White were known to be superior to blacks. They were like beasts for thousands of years. Now within a space of 150 years from mid 19th century almost all these things are either vanished or is considered obsolete. So, in this sense a New Cycle of humanity hast started after the consummation of 6000 years. So, I would say, in the eye of Augustine those 6 days had prophetic signs in them for when He lived the sixth thousands years had not ended.

 

[Password]

"But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (II Peter 3:8)
Maybe he is talking about the written Word?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

"But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (II Peter 3:8)
Maybe he is talking about the written Word?

No He is talking about each day of genesis being an age of 1000 years.

I am actually amazed by how Saint Augustine interpreted the Days of Creation in Genesis 1:

"The light of Day One represents the enlightenment a soul receives which leads him to seek after God. The expanse, or “vault” (Augustine 1997, XIII.15.16) as he called it, of Day Two symbolizes the word of God in that just as the sky is stretched out to declare God’s truth to the world, so is God’s word stretched out on skins when a scroll is opened. The dry land of the third day represents those who hunger and thirst for God while the sea represents the masses of individuals who do not seek the Lord. The sun, moon, and stars of the fourth day are the various ways in which God communicates His message to mankind. The stars are likened to the gifts of the Spirit given to individuals, while the sun and moon shine brighter and represent the meatier teachings of God’s word which babes in the faith cannot handle. The swimming creatures of the fifth day symbolize God’s holy signs upon the earth while the flying creatures “represent the voice of [God’s] messengers” (Augustine 1997, XIII.20.26). The land animals of the sixth day are said to be true believers who no longer crawl or swim in the depths of the sea. These are living souls that have been regenerated and no longer need baptism as they once did while sunk beneath the waters"

An Examination of Augustine

 

[Pastek]

Can these verses and Hadithes have an interpretation other than their outward meaning?

No. Or maybe from sufis or other sects.
But from some tafsirs that i've read, they all say that.

It's logical as in the Qu'ran God also talked about what we will say when we'll be resurrected : the humans, the jinns, the devil, the angels and the prophets.

Both are taken as it is, in a litteral sens.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It's logical as in the Qu'ran God also talked about what we will say when we'll be resurrected : the humans, the jinns, the devil, the angels and the prophets.

Both are taken as it is, in a litteral sens.

How according to Tafseers and interpretations of those Scholars, would it be logical to say God taught Quran to our Soul prior to our existance, and/or that God took a covenant with our Souls at the time of Adam regarding the coming of the Day of Resurrection?
Do you honestly remember that such a covenant ever was taken from your Soul or that Quran was taught to your soul before?
... and If you don't remember such a thing, then how would it be logical and useful to assume that God do this, and how would it be logical to think it would be fair from the Just God to expect us to believe that He already told us in Adam'a Time about Ressurection, something that we cannot remember?

P.S. Do you believe that a Tafseer must make logical sense, or you accept it on the account that, Religion does not have to make logical sense?
And If you say, Religion does not have to make sense logically, then why is it Quran constatnly asks us to use our mind, and think?

No. Or maybe from sufis or other sects.
But from some tafsirs that i've read, they all say that.

Should I take this that you mean, the Tafseers given by Scholars in a particular sect is absolutely correct and that there is possibly no other explaination to be useful or that you'd be interested to hear?

 

[Pastek]

How according to Tafseers and interpretations of those Scholars, would it be logical to say God taught Quran to our Soul prior to our existance, and/or that God took a covenant with our Souls at the time of Adam regarding the coming of the Day of Resurrection?

I never said that God taught us Qu'ran (to our souls) or that the scholars taught that.
You interpreted the first verses like that, but i read them separately.
If there's tafsir about those verses, i'm not aware of it. I was just talking about the pre-existence of the souls.

How according to Tafseers and interpretations of those Scholars,(...) God took a covenant with our Souls at the time of Adam regarding the coming of the Day of Resurrection?

In Islam we were all born as muslim. The human being is supposed to be monotheist according to the fact that we attested that God is our Lord.
But i don't understand what you mean about the Day of Resurrection ?

Do you honestly remember that such a covenant ever was taken from your Soul or that Quran was taught to your soul before?

No. But i do believe in God, and i do believe that the Qu'ran is the Word of God.

P.S. Do you believe that a Tafseer must make logical sense, or you accept it on the account that, Religion does not have to make logical sense?

Before even reading the Tafsir, my interpretation was the same that them.
Of course it must make sens. Tafsir is the thoughts of scholars, so i respect them and their work but i can still have my own opinion. Specially if they don't have enought elements to prove what they say or if it's not logical.

Should I take this that you mean, the Tafseers given by Scholars in a particular sect is absolutely correct and that there is possibly no other explaination to be useful or that you'd be interested to hear?

I don't look at the other sects (i don't even like very much this word) with disdain.
And i'm not saying that they are wrong in everything.
It's just that i'm not into the mystical things and i tend to believe (like the majority of sunnis, maybe also shias) that God explained us the religion in a very clear manner.
And i'm not saying there's no metaphor in the Quran, but much less than in the Bible.
Also, the Prophet Muhammad explained many verses of the Quran, many stories of the Prophets in a litteral way.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I never said that God taught us Qu'ran (to our souls) or that the scholars taught that.
You interpreted the first verses like that, but i read them separately.
If there's tafsir about those verses, i'm not aware of it. I was just talking about the pre-existence of the souls.

Well, I had quoted the verse:
"The Merciful, Taught the Quran, Created man" Quran 55:1-3

And I interpreted it this way:

We notice the chronological order of events as expressed in the verses that the Qur'an was "taught" before man was created: "taught the Qur'an, created man".

The meaning becomes clear if the teachings of the Qur'an are considered as creating a new generation of men.
By this I mean, before Quran was revealed to Arab tribes thay were 'Dead' in a Spiritual Sense. The Revelation of Quran was a Life giver. Hence in this sense Quran created a New Generation of men that were different than those Arabs who used to worship idols and bury their children alive.



Then you said, the Souls are pre-existance. What was your purpose of saying this, if you were not suggesting that Quran was taught to your soul?

But i don't understand what you mean about the Day of Resurrection ?

Well, you quoted the verse from Quran, that God took an oath with Childeren of Adam about the coming of the Day of Resurrection. You quoted that to suggest, those childeren of Adam, could be Our Souls Pre-existed. Correct?

Now, you suggest the Quran is very clear. I agree. But with this interpretation that God made acovenant with our souls so we don't forget about the Day of Resurrection, while no one can actually remember such a thing does not make Quran's message very clear, does it?

But to me the verse is very clear, and its message is very meaningful. and it is not a Myth as some suggest.

 

[Pastek]

Well, I had quoted the verse:
"The Merciful, Taught the Quran, Created man" Quran 55:1-3

And I interpreted it this way:

We notice the chronological order of events as expressed in the verses that the Qur'an was "taught" before man was created: "taught the Qur'an, created man".

The meaning becomes clear if the teachings of the Qur'an are considered as creating a new generation of men.
By this I mean, before Quran was revealed to Arab tribes thay were 'Dead' in a Spiritual Sense. The Revelation of Quran was a Life giver. Hence in this sense Quran created a New Generation of men that were different than those Arabs who used to worship idols and bury their children alive.

I did a brief research about tafsirs of this surat, and they all say :

55.1-2 -The Merciful, Taught the Quran
Meaning : God taught the Quran to Muhammad
God taught the Quran to men

55.3 -Created man
Meaning : God created humans, the race of men

So, they read it and understand it separately, like i did.

Well, you quoted the verse from Quran, that God took an oath with Childeren of Adam about the coming of the Day of Resurrection. You quoted that to suggest, those childeren of Adam, could be Our Souls Pre-existed. Correct?

Yes.

Now, you suggest the Quran is very clear. I agree. But with this interpretation that God made acovenant with our souls so we don't forget about the Day of Resurrection, while no one can actually remember such a thing does not make Quran's message very clear, does it?

I think it means (and that just my own interpretation, i don't know what Tafsir said), that people know in their heart that God exists and is their Lord, and that human tend to believe in God by nature.

Also, God said that Adam forgot, and people too forgot. It's our nature.
It was in the same hadith that i quoted in the other post :

Then the death angel came to him.
Adam said to him: You have come earlier. For me, one thousand years have been written.
The angel said: Yes, but out of them you have given sixty years to your son Daud.
Adam denied that so his successors also denied.
He forgot, so his successors also forgot.

But to me the verse is very clear, and its message is very meaningful. and it is not a Myth as some suggest.

How do you understand the same verse ?

And for the pre-existence of the soul, well i don't remember why i talked about it.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

How do you understand the same verse ?

How I interprete this verse:

'And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we have testified." [This] - lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this unaware."' - Quran 7.172



This is How I interpret the verse:

Every revelation that comes from God through His Messengers is a life giver.

Even as He said:


"O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and the messenger when He calleth you to that which quickeneth you, and know that Allah cometh in between the man and his own heart, and that He it is unto Whom ye will be gathered."

al-Anfal 8:24


and again:

“Shall the dead whom We have quickened, and for whom We have ordained a light whereby he may walk among men, be like him, whose likeness is in the darkness, whence he will not come forth?” (An’am – 6:22)​

The Same theme is found throughout the Quran and Bible in many other verses.



Moses made a covenant with His people about the coming of Messiah.

When Jesus came He said:

"I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies" John 11:25


It is written repeatedly in Bible, that those who believed and followed Christ were quickened, from their Death:

“Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.” Romans 6:13

“even when we were dead through our trespasses, quickened us together with Christ” Ephesians 2:5

“For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.” Luke 15:24


Therefore every time God's revelation comes as a guidance, it resurrects the Dead.

In verse 7:172, we read, God made a covenant with Children of Adam about the Day of Resurrection, so when the Revelation of God comes to them again to resurrect them after their Death, they don't say "Indeed, we were of this unaware."

This is about the covenant that every Messenger makes with His community that once their Spiritual Death arrives, God does not leave them alone. He always sends them Guidance to Resurrect them. Adam made the same covenant with His people.

 

[captainbryce]

I didn't read the entire post, but I'm assuming your question is asking whether or not I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. The answer is no. Scientific evidence (a variety of different kinds) confirms that the earth at least billions of years old. The most reliable estimate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years old. Therefore the traditional interpretation is wrong.

If your question is do I believe that the earth was created in "six days" - the answer is yes. :yes:

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I didn't read the entire post, but I'm assuming your question is asking whether or not I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. The answer is no. Scientific evidence (a variety of different kinds) confirms that the earth at least billions of years old. The most reliable estimate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years old. Therefore the traditional interpretation is wrong.

If your question is do I believe that the earth was created in "six days" - the answer is yes. :yes:

No, That's not what I'm asking. To make a reply you need to read the OP. Also there was a lot of discussion was going on. To avoid repeating the same, in addition to OP, you should at least read post #14 and #15.

 

[captainbryce]

No, That's not what I'm asking. To make a reply you need to read the OP. Also there was a lot of discussion was going on. To avoid repeating the same, in addition to OP, you should at least read post #14 and #15.

If you're asking whether or not I agree with Augustine's interpretation, the answer is no. I believe that Genesis 1 is a literal account, though I interpret it differently than the traditionalist/fundamentalist view.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I didn't read the entire post, but I'm assuming your question is asking whether or not I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. The answer is no. Scientific evidence (a variety of different kinds) confirms that the earth at least billions of years old. The most reliable estimate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years old. Therefore the traditional interpretation is wrong.

Here you have assumed, that all the Traditional interpretations are literal.
I have shown the Traditional Interpretations by well-respected Christians was not literal. Moreover I have shown Traditional Jewish Interpretation as quoted in Talmud was not literal. Notice at that time Evolution or Big Bang was unknown, therefore it could not be that those spiritual interpretation had made up as a way to make Bible consistent with scientific discoveries.

If your question is do I believe that the earth was created in "six days" - the answer is yes. :yes:

And if you think it is about physical creation of earth, then your view contradicts with Big Bang, and also requires too much stretching the Biblical verses, for Day 1 to 6 is not talking about only the earth, but also Firmament and Creation of Light. Also, in Scriptures a Day is either 24 hr, 1000 years or 1 year. You have arbitrarily come up with a new idea that is not supported by scriptures, and stretching it with the motive to make it consistent with scientific discoveries.

 

[captainbryce]

I have shown the Traditional Interpretations by well-respected Christians was not literal. Moreover I have shown Traditional Jewish Interpretation as quoted in Talmud was not literal.

What is your point? What other people believe is not necessarily relevant to what I believe (or why).

And if you think it is about physical creation of earth, then your view contradicts with Big Bang,

My view is perfectly consistent with Big Bang cosmology. There are no contradictions between my interpretation of Genesis 1 and the Big Bang.

and also requires too much stretching the Biblical verses,

You just spent considerable time telling how "other people's" interpretation of these texts were not "literal", and now you're going to try to tell me that my literal interpretation requires "stretching". That's pretty ironic and ridiculous if you don't mind me saying so.

for Day 1 to 6 is not talking about only the earth, but also Firmament and Creation of Light.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Also, in Scriptures a Day is either 24 hr, 1000 years or 1 year.

How did you arrive at this conclusion exactly? It's 100% wrong mind you, but I'm just curious as to how you're going to try to justify this statement.

You have arbitrarily come up with a new idea that is not supported by scriptures, and stretching it with the motive to make it consistent with scientific discoveries.

You're entitled to your opinion, but CAN YOU PROVE IT. That's the question! :yes:

Can you actually demonstrate that I have "arbitrarily come up with a new idea", that it is "not supported by scriptures", OR that my motive is to make it consistent with scientific discoveries. The answer of course is no (because this is just your opinion), but I'd be very interested to see how you're going to try to justify these accusations.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

How did you arrive at this conclusion exactly? It's 100% wrong mind you, but I'm just curious as to how you're going to try to justify this statement.

It is in the scriptures, have you not read those?
A day is 24 hrs is obvious. A day is 1000 years is quoted in OP. Have you not read it?
A Day of God is a Year is in Num. 14:34.

Now it's your turn. Show me some examples that in Scriptures a Day, is anything other than 24 hrs, 1 year or 1000 year.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

My view is perfectly consistent with Big Bang cosmology. There are no contradictions between my interpretation of Genesis 1 and the Big Bang.

It is well-known if you believe Genesis is describing physical creation it does contradict the Big Bang.
See here for example:

Genesis 1:1-2


The burden of proof is yours to show how each Day is reconcilable with Big Bang.
Also as I pointed out and you tried to ignore, Genesis is saying the Trees and fruits were there BEFORE there be lights in the
firmament of the heaven. See third and forth Day.

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

I mainly see it as metaphorical. I am a Christian, but I do not subscribe to young Earth Creationism, and do not believe that a "day" refers to 6, 24 hour time periods.

Interestingly in the Hindu Scriptures, a "day" can refer to many different lengths of time as well. For instance in some context a "day" actually refers to a year, and a "day of Brahma" works out to something like 4 billion years. If you multiply 4*6 you get 24 billion years, which is approximately the age of the universe.

 

[captainbryce]

It is in the scriptures, have you not read those?

Of course I've read them. But nowhere does the bible limit the word day to the three meanings you listed.

Now it's your turn. Show me some examples that in Scriptures a Day, is anything other than 24 hrs, 1 year or 1000 year.

Genesis 1:4-5
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”

Nowhere in the world (except perhaps in Alaska during the summer equinox) does the light of day last for 24 straight hours! In the above passage, day means "hours of daylight", not 24 hours.

Genesis 2:4 (King James Version)
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens

God made the earth in SIX days according to Genesis 1, not 24 hours. Therefore the word day in Genesis 2:4 refers to a period of time (at the minimum) 6 times longer than 24 hours, and in reality many times longer than that. The word "day" in Genesis 2:4 means "age" or "era" (ie: "in my grandfather's day"; "the day of the dinosaurs"; etc).

Genesis 2:17 (King James Version)
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

But Adam did not die within 24 hours of eating the fruit. He died 930 years later (Genesis 5:5). Therefore "day" in Genesis 2:17 neither means 24 hours, nor does it mean a year, or a 1000 years, because none of those time periods equal 930 years. Day in Genesis 2:17 means "age", "era", or unspecified, long period of time (as the word yom means in Hebrew).

So that's three usages of the word day (from the first book alone) that don't refer to one of the periods of time you mentioned.

 

[captainbryce]

It is well-known if you believe Genesis is describing physical creation it does contradict the Big Bang.

Santa Claus is "well known" to children. That doesn't mean he is real!

Sometimes, what seems to be "well known" is in fact WRONG. History is replete with things that were once "well known" only to have those well known facts be proven wrong by later discoveries. In any case, we are arguing interpretation here. In my interpretation of Genesis 1, there is no conflict with the Big Bang, and actually the Big Bang cosmology reinforces creationism in my view.

The burden of proof is yours to show how each Day is reconcilable with Big Bang.

It's easily reconcilable when you realize that the creation days are in fact long periods of time (one of the definitions of the word yom in Hebrew). Furthermore, the "order" of creation is perfectly consistent with science.

Also as I pointed out and you tried to ignore, Genesis is saying the Trees and fruits were there BEFORE there be lights in the firmament of the heaven. See third and forth Day.

I didn't ignore anything. The trees and the fruits don't require the lights in the firmament of the heavens to be visible. They only require LIGHT (which existed on the first day). If there is light on the first day, then you can have plants on the third day, because that's all plants require for photosynthesis.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Of course I've read them. But nowhere does the bible limit the word day to the three meanings you listed.


Genesis 1:4-5
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”

Nowhere in the world (except perhaps in Alaska during the summer equinox) does the light of day last for 24 straight hours! In the above passage, day means "hours of daylight", not 24 hours.

Since you are taking the word 'Light' literally here, likewise you should take the word 'Day' literally to mean, about 12 hours, during which there is light. So, that is not an Age. Nice try.

God made the earth in SIX days according to Genesis 1, not 24 hours. Therefore the word day in Genesis 2:4 refers to a period of time (at the minimum) 6 times longer than 24 hours, and in reality many times longer than that. The word "day" in Genesis 2:4 means "age" or "era" (ie: "in my grandfather's day"; "the day of the dinosaurs"; etc).

Wrong. According to your literal reading Day corresponds to about 12 hours when there is light, and night would be the other period when there is darkness.

Genesis 2:17 (King James Version)
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

But Adam did not die within 24 hours of eating the fruit. He died 930 years later (Genesis 5:5). Therefore "day" in Genesis 2:17 neither means 24 hours, nor does it mean a year, or a 1000 years, because none of those time periods equal 930 years. Day in Genesis 2:17 means "age", "era", or unspecified, long period of time (as the word yom means in Hebrew).

Only if you take the story literal. By death of Adam, here is meant 'Spiritual death' caused by going against the will of God.

So that's three usages of the word day (from the first book alone) that don't refer to one of the periods of time you mentioned.

What you are missing the Author of Peter has already determined what each day of genesis should be. 1000 years. See OP.