Genesis 2

[captainbryce]

I don't think "God" tempted anyone. I am talking about a creator deity in a mythological tale. THAT character most certainly DID tempt Adam and Eve

I'm not interested in arguments of semantics, I'm interested in arguments of substance. Tomato/tomato!

by placing the tree in the Garden (or at least situating the Garden to include the tree).

Unfortunately, that's not what "tempting" actually means.

Temp 'v': entice or attempt to entice (someone) to do or acquire something that they find attractive but know to be wrong or not beneficial

There is no biblical evidence to suggest that "God" (or whatever you want to call him) actually did this. In fact, there is biblical evidence that shows he specifically tried to entice them NOT to eat from the tree. And inasmuch as we can tell from the story, he succeeded, until Satan "tempted" them. Therefore you have no case!

 

[captainbryce]

You are simply engaging in hermeneutic gymnastics.

No, what's happening is that you are AVOIDING the points I'm bringing up and trying to duck out of the argument because you're now trapped in a hole. I've just demonstrated why your interpretation is faulty, while you have failed to back up any of your attempts to find fault in my interpretation. Your last comment is likely an example of the frustration you are feeling upon coming to that realization. Unfortunately, this doesn't advance your argument at all!

If I warn you that the day you do something you will die I am not talking about some "age" .

But we're also not talking about YOU warning ME. We're talking about a story of a supernatural entity warning the first humans, retold in an age with a language and culture that is vastly different from ours. What YOU would do could not logically be applied to this biblical account! This is a very narrow way of thinking. The fact of the matter (and what is actually relevant) is that when God warns Adam and Eve that in the day THEY do something, he IS talking about an age, because that's what the biblical context consistently suggests!

 

[nazz]

I'm not interested in arguments of semantics, I'm interested in arguments of substance. Tomato/tomato!

Unfortunately, that's not what "tempting" actually means.

Temp 'v': entice or attempt to entice (someone) to do or acquire something that they find attractive but know to be wrong or not beneficial

There is no biblical evidence to suggest that "God" (or whatever you want to call him) actually did this. In fact, there is biblical evidence that shows he specifically tried to entice them NOT to eat from the tree. And inasmuch as we can tell from the story, he succeeded, until Satan "tempted" them. Therefore you have no case!

If the deity did not want them to eat from the tree then he shouldn't have had the tree in the garden. Having the tree there was a temptation. Especially since he is supposed to be all knowing so he knew they would eat from it! If I put a jar of cookies down and tell my child "Don't you dare eat any or you will be punished" the cookies are a temptation. There's no way around it.

 

[nazz]

No, what's happening is that you are AVOIDING the points I'm bringing up and trying to duck out of the argument because you're now trapped in a hole. I've just demonstrated why your interpretation is faulty, while you have failed to back up any of your attempts to find fault in my interpretation. Your last comment is likely an example of the frustration you are feeling upon coming to that realization. Unfortunately, this doesn't advance your argument at all!

But we're also not talking about YOU warning ME. We're talking about a story of a supernatural entity warning the first humans, retold in an age with a language and culture that is vastly different from ours. What YOU would do could not logically be applied to this biblical account! This is a very narrow way of thinking. The fact of the matter (and what is actually relevant) is that when God warns Adam and Eve that in the day THEY do something, he IS talking about an age, because that's what the biblical context consistently suggests!

Are you suggesting "day" CAN'T mean a literal day in this context? On what basis?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Please don't argue about how long each 'Day' 'Was'. Lets be real. Trees and fruit don't give you knowledge. Light comes from the sun and lights the Earth. Genesis has to be allegorical or metaphorical to be consistent with the Christian New Testament. The moment you insist that knowledge comes from eating a piece of fruit (for example), you introduce paradoxes. Jesus says that evil thoughts come out of a person and do not come from what they eat. There are many other ways that a 'Literal' static interpretation of Genesis is incompatible with a literal reading of Jesus in the New Testament.

 

[captainbryce]

Please don't argue about how long each 'Day' 'Was'. Lets be real. Trees and fruit don't give you knowledge. Light comes from the sun and lights the Earth.

Please don't patronize everyone who has a different view of the creation texts than you do. How about you let the rest of us argue about the content of Genesis 2 (the topic) in the direction we see, fit instead of you declaring to the rest of us whether or it's allegory or not. As individuals WE will be the judge of what is allegory and what isn't. YOU are entitled to your opinion, and YOU can interpret it and justify your interpretation in the manner in which you see fit! How about that?

Genesis has to be allegorical or metaphorical to be consistent with the Christian New Testament.

I assure you it doesn't! But again, you're entitled to your OPINION.

The moment you insist that knowledge comes from eating a piece of fruit (for example), you introduce paradoxes. Jesus says that evil thoughts come out of a person and do not come from what they eat. There are many other ways that a 'Literal' static interpretation of Genesis is incompatible with a literal reading of Jesus in the New Testament.

I'd be very impressed if you could actually name some. Your first examples fails in the most basic way possible. What Jesus says applies to mankind AFTER THE FALL, not before it! So there is no paradox here. Knowledge doesn't come from eating fruit for anyone living today. But for the first two people, specific knowledge was gained by eating the fruit of a specific tree. And there is nothing about the New Testament that is incompatible with that literal reading.

 

[captainbryce]

If the deity did not want them to eat from the tree then he shouldn't have had the tree in the garden.

Your opinion is irrelevant since you aren't in full possession of the facts. This is like a 7 year old child chastising a 50 year old judge for sentencing a criminal to prison for grand theft. If you didn't want him to steal the car, you should have told the owner not to park it in front of the criminals house with the keys inside!

Having the tree there was a temptation.

No it wasn't. Because A) that's not what temptation means (as I've already indicated) and B) there is no evidence that they were enticed to eat from the tree (until the serpent tempted them). So you're just wrong, sorry!

Especially since he is supposed to be all knowing so he knew they would eat from it!

That's not relevant! This is called a red-herring argument. What God knows does not impact the choices we make! If it did, then we don't have any "choices" at all, but clearly we do, (as you believe) and as scripture says!

If I put a jar of cookies down and tell my child "Don't you dare eat any or you will be punished" the cookies are a temptation. There's no way around it.

There's no need to get around something when you can go straight through it (ie: lack of substance)! The cookies are only a "temptation" if you provide no other opportunity for the child have cookies and this child has a propensity for doing things that he's not supposed to do. But if there are five other jars of cookies that he IS allowed to eat from, then the "off limits" cookie jar that would result in the spanking would no longer be tempting! :yes:

 

[Brickjectivity]

Please don't patronize everyone who has a different view of the creation texts than you do. How about you let the rest of us argue about the content of Genesis 2 (the topic) in the direction we see, fit instead of you declaring to the rest of us whether or it's allegory or not. As individuals WE will be the judge of what is allegory and what isn't. YOU are entitled to your opinion, and YOU can interpret it and justify your interpretation in the manner in which you see fit! How about that?

I wasn't entitled to my own opinion when Christians of your stripe taught me in school or when they said evolution was a plot by Satan. Me patronize you? Its ludicrous. You've done nothing but tell other people they are wrong since you got here.

WE will be the judge of what is allegory and what isn't.

You appear to be the judges of much more than that to me.

I'd be very impressed if you could actually name some.

Show me a post where someone else has every impressed you with anything.

Your first examples fails in the most basic way possible.

In being heard.

What Jesus says applies to mankind AFTER THE FALL, not before it! So there is no paradox here.

What, you weren't impressed?

Knowledge doesn't come from eating fruit for anyone living today. But for the first two people, specific knowledge was gained by eating the fruit of a specific tree. And there is nothing about the New Testament that is incompatible with that literal reading

"What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up." (I Corinthians 14:26)

 

[captainbryce]

Are you suggesting "day" CAN'T mean a literal day in this context? On what basis?

No. I'm suggesting that it means a DIFFERENT "literal" definition of the word day. Day LITERALLY means "age" in Hebrew! And in this context, that is the logical usage of the word based on the supporting evidence.

Do you believe that the word "day" is used in various ways throughout scripture that do not necessarily mean 24 hours? The answer is either yes or no. If your answer is no, well then quite frankly you'd be wrong (in which case I'm prepared to provide scriptural evidence). If your answer is yes, then now the argument comes to do determining how we decide which usage of the word should be used (in which case I'm equally prepared to provide scriptural evidence). So, as far as I'm concerned, you can't really win this either way. But I am nonetheless interested in what your argument actually is in terms of finding specific fault with my interpretation.

 

[nazz]

No. I'm suggesting that it means a DIFFERENT "literal" definition of the word day. Day LITERALLY means "age" in Hebrew!

This is false. "Yom" literally means "day" in Hebrew.

And in this context, that is the logical usage of the word based on the supporting evidence.

Nonsense.

Do you believe that the word "day" is used in various ways throughout scripture that do not necessarily mean 24 hours?

Yes.

The answer is either yes or no. If your answer is no, well then quite frankly you'd be wrong (in which case I'm prepared to provide scriptural evidence). If your answer is yes, then now the argument comes to do determining how we decide which usage of the word should be used (in which case I'm equally prepared to provide scriptural evidence).

Go for it. Let's see what you got.

So, as far as I'm concerned, you can't really win this either way. But I am nonetheless interested in what your argument actually is in terms of finding specific fault with my interpretation.

Maybe you are right afterall. Maybe something was left out of the conversation. Maybe it went down like this:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. But bear in mind, Adam, I'm not talking about a literal 'day' here. What I really mean is 'age'. You see this is the first day, and here I mean a literal day, of what I will call the 'Age of Obedience'. It won't last long because real soon I know you are going to eat from that forbidden tree. On the day you do that, er, I mean in the age that you do that, I'm gonna call that the first day, I mean literal day now, of the 'Age of Disobedience'. And don't get me wrong. You are not going to actually die on the day you eat the fruit. That will happen much later when you are over 900 years old. But see it will all be taking place in that new age. Oy, I should have made more than one word for 'day'!”

Yeah, right.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Day can also mean the period that the sun is up!

Runsaway!!!

 

[captainbryce]

I wasn't entitled to my own opinion when Christians of your stripe taught me in school or when they said evolution was a plot by Satan.

I'm truly sorry that you were forced to be indoctrinated into something that you no longer believe. But making generalizations based on childhood anecdotes is hardly worthy of discussion here. Two wrongs don't make a right! What these so-called "Christians of my stripe" allegedly taught you is nobody's concern except yours. And casting your own opinion off as fact makes you just as bad as the people who tried to indoctrinate you in the first place. Bringing your childhood prejudices and preconceived notions about "Christians" to this forum will not benefit you here. I've ALWAYS maintained that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I expect nothing less from any other person who considers themselves "reasonable".

Me patronize you? Its ludicrous. You've done nothing but tell other people they are wrong since you got here.

There is a difference between being "factually wrong" (in terms of what scripture, or science, or historical records, say) and telling someone else that their OPINION on something that is inherently subjective and has multiple interpretations is "wrong". I've never done that!

You appear to be the judges of much more than that to me.

Noted, but for aforementioned reasons, I find that your statement lacks credibility!

Show me a post where someone else has every impressed you with anything.

Only one? How about two? Here ya go!

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3450180-post41.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3529789-post272.html

What, you weren't impressed?

Not by anything you've said yet.

"What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up." (I Corinthians 14:26)

Thank you for this. Now, feel free to point out exactly how this in any way contradicts the literal interpretation of the knowledge of good and evil gained from the tree of knowledge? :sleep:

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Considering that they had no knowledge of Good and Evil, they had not performed Good or Evil. Their action to eat from the tree, was not one in defiance of God, because they would not have been able to tell if what God wanted was good or if it was evil. The whole concept of "the fall" doesn't really work anyway...condemning an entire group because an actions of one persons is unnecessarily cruel. Especially if you go by the idea that Adam and Eve were not the first humans, in which case it's even worst as an entire group of people became at fault for the actions of two individuals who "brought sin into the world"

 

[nazz]

Your opinion is irrelevant since you aren't in full possession of the facts. This is like a 7 year old child chastising a 50 year old judge for sentencing a criminal to prison for grand theft. If you didn't want him to steal the car, you should have told the owner not to park it in front of the criminals house with the keys inside!

No, because we are not talking about punishment but temptation. I would say a car parked outside of a car thief's house with the keys in it would be mighty tempting! In fact there is a tv show called "Bait Car" and the whole premise is that if you leave a car with the keys in it in the vicinity of criminals they are mostly going to steal it. That is the whole point of why the police do it! They are trying to tempt the criminals into stealing the car. And lo and behold it works!

That's not relevant! This is called a red-herring argument. What God knows does not impact the choices we make! If it did, then we don't have any "choices" at all, but clearly we do, (as you believe) and as scripture says!

It is VERY relevant. If I know someone if going to be tempted to do something I don't want them to then I don't put temptation to do it in their path.

There's no need to get around something when you can go straight through it (ie: lack of substance)! The cookies are only a "temptation" if you provide no other opportunity for the child have cookies and this child has a propensity for doing things that he's not supposed to do. But if there are five other jars of cookies that he IS allowed to eat from, then the "off limits" cookie jar that would result in the spanking would no longer be tempting! :yes:

Except that we are talking about magic cookies that confer wisdom. Once Eve knew the truth of the matter she was naturally inclined to eat them.

 

[captainbryce]

This is false. "Yom" literally means "day" in Hebrew.

Uh, not it's not false. You are correct in that "Yom" literally means "day" in Hebrew. What you apparently don't know is that there are at least 3 different literal definitions of the word Yom. In fact the FIRST usage of the word Yom in Genesis 1 does NOT refer to 24 hours.

Genesis 1:3-5
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 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.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So the first time we see the word Yom in the Hebrew bible, it refers to a period of time LESS than 24 hours (at most 12 hours). That's ONE literal definition of the word day. Here's another example!

Genesis 2:4
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,

This verse proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that "day" literally means "age". Because it indicates that the rest of Genesis is talking about multiple generations of people living in the same "day" that God made the earth, indicating a six day event. And these examples were just from Genesis alone. I can cite numerous other examples throughout scripture, but the point is, "yom" means more than just 24 hours in Hebrew, just as "day" means more than just 24 hours in English. The words have multiple definitions, and the definition that should be applied is the one that is applicable within the context of the text.

Nonsense.

Really? That's all you got? Okay, you disagree. Fine, your entitled to that opinion. But you don't seem to be able to articulate WHY it's nonsense, or provide any justification for that assessment. Therefore I can easily dismiss it under the assumption that you just don't really know what you're talking about. [yes]

Yes.

Then you just completely invalidated your previous argument about how "yom" only means 24 hours in Hebrew. Clearly, it means more than that!

Go for it. Let's see what you got.

Let's start with the above. First, your acknowledgement that Yom can means something OTHER than 24 hours, and that we should determine which definition should be applied to the word based on the context of the preceding and following passages. Are you willing to admit that? Because if you're not, then there's no point in going on.

Maybe you are right afterall. Maybe something was left out of the conversation. Maybe it went down like this:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. But bear in mind, Adam, I'm not talking about a literal 'day' here.

That extra dialogue isn't necessary. Nothing was "left out" because Adam fully understood what God was saying (as did those in the generations that followed, who recorded the story and passed it down). It's made obvious by the fact that God's first commandment was to be fruitful and fill the Earth, and knowing that this was required before Adam died. So we know that the definition of the word yom as used did not refer to 24 hours. Only by ignoring that basic logic can you make a claim that this was the definition of the word that was intended. It's not about what is "literal" or not, it's about what is consistent with the rest of the text. Again, Yom has multiple LITERAL definitions. This is true in Hebrew AND English. Insisting that their is only one "literal" usage of the term is a demonstration of ignorance!

 

[captainbryce]

No, because we are not talking about punishment but temptation. I would say a car parked outside of a car thief's house with the keys in it would be mighty tempting! In fact there is a tv show called "Bait Car" and the whole premise is that if you leave a car with the keys in it in the vicinity of criminals they are mostly going to steal it. That is the whole point of why the police do it! They are trying to tempt the criminals into stealing the car. And lo and behold it works!

Correct. But you're missing my point! The law doesn't excuse the criminals by saying that they were "tempted" to steal the car. The law doesn't blame the police for providing the bait! The law in fact holds the criminal accountable for doing something he knows is wrong. That's the first point. The second point is that anyone who WOULD actually defend the criminal by accusing law enforcement of "tempting" them, doesn't have their priorities in the right place. The third point is that if it wasn't for THIEVES, we shouldn't have to lock our cars in the first place. Moral people KNOW not to steal something that doesn't belong to them. And unlike the criminal in this hypothetical (child logic comparison), Adam and Eve never had any intention of stealing the car in the first place, so there is no reason why God would have to take the keys. The car being there is NOT a temptation for people who don't steal! It's only a "temptation" for people who have a propensity to steal cars. My neighbor could park his brand new Lamborghini in his driveway next door to me, and leave the keys in his car, and it would never cross my mind to steal it. Why?

A) Because he's my neighbor and my friend
B) Because I know right from wrong
C) Because I'd be afraid of the consequences (going to jail)
D) Because God commands "thou shalt not steal".

So for all of these reasons (two of which God gave me), a brand new Lamborghini with the keys inside of it would not tempt me. Tempting me would be trying to convince me that since my neighbor is rich and his insurance would pay for the car, that stealing it wouldn't really hurt him. And then telling me that the cops would never find out. And then telling me that his Lamborghini is "faster" than my own brand new Lamborghini. And then telling me that there is no such thing as God, so I don't have to worry about going to hell. THAT is tempting me! That is what Satan does!

It is VERY relevant. If I know someone if going to be tempted to do something I don't want them to then I don't put temptation to do it in their path.

But God DIDN'T put a temptation there, SATAN DID. That's the point that you don't seem to be getting. The better argument for you to make is to ask why God would allow Satan to tempt Adam and Eve (which he did). But saying that HE tempted them himself is just not accurate (according to the dictionary definition of the term). There is no biblical evidence that God ever enticed Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge, nor is there any biblical evidence that they were enticed to eat from it...UNTIL the serpent showed up.

Except that we are talking about magic cookies that confer wisdom. Once Eve knew the truth of the matter she was naturally inclined to eat them.

Eve already knew a certain truth that she ignored! That truth is that they would be PUNISHED for disobeying God. What she learned from the serpent before eating of the fruit was in fact a LIE! In addition to conveying wisdom (which God already implied by calling it the tree of knowledge), these "cookies" also conveyed the punishment of the DEATH PENALTY! Adam and Eve were not inclined to risk that in order to satisfy their curiosity about things they didn't know. Only after they were TEMPTED by the serpent did they decide that the potential benefit outweighed the risk!

 

[nazz]

Captain Bryce, I really don't have the energy for this. Let's just agree to disagree. I don't think there is anything I could say to change your mind and that's not my goal anyway. I just see no good reason to translate "day" as "age" and it seems the translators of the KJV agree with me. In fact I checked and there is not a single time they did translate yom as "age" in any OT book.

I also see no good reason to have the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden to begin with other than to test Adam and Eve's obedience. And if it were a test that means there had to have been some possibility they would disobey. If God knew beforehand they would disobey then he set them up for failure.

And I see no lie told by the Serpent. It was the only one telling the truth from what I can see.

Now if your intention is to change my mind about any of this you are going to have to do a lot better than you have. But I assure you I am quite flexible and amenable to changing my view and have done so many times in the past. But you are going to have to provide a superior argument to accomplish that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm truly sorry that you were forced to be indoctrinated into something that you no longer believe. But making generalizations based on childhood anecdotes is hardly worthy of discussion here. Two wrongs don't make a right! What these so-called "Christians of my stripe" allegedly taught you is nobody's concern except yours.

So you don't 'fess up to being a Christian of that stripe? Then I release you from responsibility. Your lack of concern is I hope overstated, because it does have to do with you if you call yourself Christian at least marginally.

Bringing your childhood prejudices and preconceived notions about "Christians" to this forum will not benefit you here.

I will allow you to continue bringing them for me then with your arguing over the meaning of a Yom.

I've ALWAYS maintained that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I expect nothing less from any other person who considers themselves "reasonable".

Oh, well then. I don't consider myself to be perfectly reasonable but often very.

There is a difference between being "factually wrong" (in terms of what scripture, or science, or historical records, say) and telling someone else that their OPINION on something that is inherently subjective and has multiple interpretations is "wrong". I've never done that!

Then factually speaking, Genesis does not make literal sense. I should have mentioned that the question asked in the opening thread was not about the meaning of 'Yom', but was a list of practical questions such as "Why would god place a tree in the garden only to forbid them from touching it?" Perhaps you can see how a raging battle over the meaning of a 'Yom' is beside the point?

Noted, but for aforementioned reasons, I find that your statement lacks credibility!

It can wait.

Thank you for this. Now, feel free to point out exactly how this in any way contradicts the literal interpretation of the knowledge of good and evil gained from the tree of knowledge?

It releases us from arguments about the length of yoms. It contradicts a fundamentalist approach to Genesis, which (perhaps your are the exception) is the evangelical non-denominational charismatic etc etc position. It does allow for attempting literal interpretations though, quite right.

 

[captainbryce]

Captain Bryce, I really don't have the energy for this. Let's just agree to disagree. I don't think there is anything I could say to change your mind and that's not my goal anyway.

Fair enough!

I just see no good reason to translate "day" as "age" and it seems the translators of the KJV agree with me.

The translators of the King James were largely ignorant because the King James is a corruption of the Hebrew and Greek texts, with known translation errors that have been acknowledge by nearly all modern scholars. More to the point, translating "day" into "age" is not necessary when one recognizes that the words are synonymous. Only in contemporary English would one require a new "translation" in order to understand what the Hebrews would plainly interpret without one.

In fact I checked and there is not a single time they did translate yom as "age" in any OT book.

Again, the point is THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO. "Age" is already implied by the context of the scripture. There are many examples of the word day being used to represent a period much longer than 24 hours. You've already conceded this point, so I don't know what you are looking for. It is clearly understood to the reader that in these specific instances, the word day in fact refers to AGE, not 24 hours.

I also see no good reason to have the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden to begin with other than to test Adam and Eve's obedience.

That's exactly what it was for. But there is a difference between "testing" someone, and "tempting" them!

And if it were a test that means there had to have been some possibility they would disobey.

Naturally! :yes:

If God knew beforehand they would disobey then he set them up for failure.

Correct. These facts are not in dispute!

And I see no lie told by the Serpent. It was the only one telling the truth from what I can see.

Genesis 3:2-4
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.

LIE!

Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Genesis 3:24
After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

The serpent told Eve she would NOT die. Yet immediately after committing a sinful act, God prevented them from eating of the tree of life, thus condemning them to death. Eve is DEAD, and she's dead because she sinned (just like everyone else who sins will die)!

Now if your intention is to change my mind about any of this you are going to have to do a lot better than you have. But I assure you I am quite flexible and amenable to changing my view and have done so many times in the past. But you are going to have to provide a superior argument to accomplish that.

My intent is merely to show you why my interpretation is not faulty according to scripture. You don't have to agree with me. But unless you can point out specific flaws in my logic, you cannot say that I am wrong. I'm glad that you are "flexible" in your views. I am as well, which is what led me to this interpretation in the first place. I find that the traditional interpretation is very inconsistent and contradictory.

 

[captainbryce]

So you don't 'fess up to being a Christian of that stripe? Then I release you from responsibility. Your lack of concern is I hope overstated, because it does have to do with you if you call yourself Christian at least marginally.

Professing a belief in Jesus Christ does not mean that a person is a champion of religious indoctrination. I am not a school teacher, and I have certainly never equated evolution with Satan. So any attempt to lump me in with the people you carry a disdain for (presumably because they did this to you) is not fair, and you're creating a false dichotomy in doing so.

I will allow you to continue bringing them for me then with your arguing over the meaning of a Yom.

Again, FALSE DICHOTOMY. Expressing an opinion over the correct Hebrew word usage in any particular example does not equate me with someone who is suppressing your opinion in any way. Yom has at least three distinct definitions, all of which correlate to the word day. That's not an opinion, it's a fact! I've always maintained that you are entitled to your opinion. But if/when you can't justify your opinion with known facts (like I just did), it doesn't mean that I am suppressing your opinion, it just means that you have no case!

Oh, well then. I don't consider myself to be perfectly reasonable but often very.

I appreciate your honesty!

Then factually speaking, Genesis does not make literal sense. I should have mentioned that the question asked in the opening thread was not about the meaning of 'Yom', but was a list of practical questions such as "Why would god place a tree in the garden only to forbid them from touching it?" Perhaps you can see how a raging battle over the meaning of a 'Yom' is beside the point?

Well, MY POINT was that day LITERALLY means age. Now, to your question, the answer is obvious: it was a test of faith!

It releases us from arguments about the length of yoms.

But the argument about the length of yoms is essential when it comes to establishing whether or not Genesis is consistent with science (in terms of aging the Earth). One of the principle arguments against the creation texts is that the Earth is proven to be 4.5 billion years old, and that the scripture somehow contradicts this. But only by insisting that Yom means 24 hours (something that is not even biblically justifiable) can one arrive at that conclusion. If you're willing to concede that the creation account does not contradict scientific evidence in this matter, then I'm willing to abandon any and all arguments concerning the word Yom.

It contradicts a fundamentalist approach to Genesis, which (perhaps your are the exception) is the evangelical non-denominational charismatic etc etc position.

I agree. But my opinion and position has always been that the fundamentalist approach is fundamentally flawed, and therefore wrong.

It does allow for attempting literal interpretations though, quite right.

The word "literal" is thrown about here often, but I find that people here generally consider something "literal", at the expense of another "literal" possibility, thus creating a false dichotomy. For example, it's not that Yom means EITHER 24 hours OR a long period of time, it's that it literally means BOTH (and which one it means depends on the context).