|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 4:49PM
#1
|
|
|
The Six Days of Creation
I am disappointed in the great Astrophysicist Carl Sagan for committing the same mistake of most literal interpreters of the Genesis account of creation, as to criticise our People for believing that the universe is only six thousand years old. (Cosmos p. 259) Since He has been dead already, I would like to share with his disciples still left behind, the following piece of wisdom.
No, we, the Jewish People, save exceptions, do not advocate that the universe is only six thousand years old. This idea comes from the need to establish the weekly cycle, which would end with the establishment of the Sabbath day of rest; and for us, mind you, and not for God, Who has never ceased creating, hence the expansion of the universe. But it seems that Jewish prejudice insists on Jewish literal interpretation, perhaps to curb Jewish excesses of wisdom.
Since a day in prophecy is compared to a period of time, which could run into thousands, millions, or billions of years, the six days of creation can very well be interpreted as six periods of thousands, millions, or billions of years.
The order of the days IMO, is not relevant, as it is meant to culminate with man, as the crown of creation. It is only obvious that the sun was in the sky for light by day and the moon and stars for lights by night, to account for the first three days. Anyways, the whole thing is just an allegory to other ends than to creation itself. The bottom line to this thread is to bring to light that we do not take the six days of creation in the literal sense of the word.
Ben
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 4:59PM
#2
|
|
|
The issue is not Carl Sagan, but the fact that to this very day we can easily find adults who believe in young-Earth creationism. Many of them are even allowed to drive cars and own weapons. Scary.
I prayed for deliverance from the hard world of facts and logic to the happy land where fantasies and prejudices reign. But God spake unto me, saying, "No, keep telling the truth," and to that end afflicted me with severe Trenchant Mouth. So I'm sorry for making cutting remarks, but it's the will of God.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 4:59PM
#3
|
|
|
I'm curious why you are posting about Carl Sagan, a well known atheist, on a discuss Christianity board? Do you have an example of Sagan's alleged error in attributing a 6,000 year old worldview to Jews? It's currently 5772 by the Hebrew calendar, no?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 5:17PM
#4
|
|
|
The order of the days IMO, is not relevant, as it is meant to culminate with man, as the crown of creation. It is only obvious that the sun was in the sky for light by day and the moon and stars for lights by night, to account for the first three days. Anyways, the whole thing is just an allegory to other ends than to creation itself. The bottom line to this thread is to bring to light that we do not take the six days of creation in the literal sense of the word.
Catholics already understand this, as it is part of the Catechism, paragraphs 342-343:
342 The hierarchy of creatures is expressed by the order of the "six days", from the less perfect to the more perfect. God loves all his creatures and takes care of each one, even the sparrow. Nevertheless, Jesus said: "You are of more value than many sparrows", or again: "Of how much more value is a man than a sheep!" 343 Man is the summit of the Creator's work, as the inspired account expresses by clearly distinguishing the creation of man from that of the other creatures. (source)
So you're not really bringing anything to light, at least not for those of us who were raised Catholic. We've known this since we were children.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 5:32PM
#5
|
|
|
I am an unabashed six day creationist ; that believes scripture when it says the morning and the evening were the first day-that believes that God was the source of Light until He created the Sun Re 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. that humans were created as an adult pair in a mature state on a planet that was geophysically mature and ready to support life
Non Quis, Sed Quid
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 6:18PM
#6
|
|
|
The issue is not Carl Sagan, but the fact that to this very day we can easily find adults who believe in young-Earth creationism. Many of them are even allowed to drive cars and own weapons.
Scary.
I find the idea of the Thought Police much scarier.
Christianity: Seeking an END to religion, one decision at a time.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 6:51PM
#7
|
|
|
I am an unabashed six day creationist ; that believes scripture when it says the morning and the evening were the first day-that believes that God was the source of Light until He created the Sun
Re 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
that humans were created as an adult pair in a mature state on a planet that was geophysically mature and ready to support life
How true Dave. To even consider anything else is just wishful thinking.
The term day..yom..could be used to mean an age..but when the word day is coupled with evening and morning it indicates a literal 24 hour time period.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 7:37PM
#8
|
|
|
I am an unabashed six day creationist ; that believes scripture when it says the morning and the evening were the first day-that believes that God was the source of Light until He created the Sun
Re 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
that humans were created as an adult pair in a mature state on a planet that was geophysically mature and ready to support life
How true Dave. To even consider anything else is just wishful thinking.
The term day..yom..could be used to mean an age..but when the word day is coupled with evening and morning it indicates a literal 24 hour time period.
It also indicates the beginning and end of whole eras of time. Each era has its morning and its night. The terms are used poetically in that sense.
So why should anyone accept literal 24-hour periods (especially when there wasn't even a sun to measure them by during the first three days?).
There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 9:39PM
#9
|
|
|
The issue is not Carl Sagan, but the fact that to this very day we can easily find adults who believe in young-Earth creationism. Many of them are even allowed to drive cars and own weapons.
Scary.
I find the idea of the Thought Police much scarier.
They exist. Think about it.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 10, 2012 - 11:49PM
#10
|
|
|
It also indicates the beginning and end of whole eras of time. Each era has its morning and its night. The terms are used poetically in that sense.
So why should anyone accept literal 24-hour periods (especially when there wasn't even a sun to measure them by during the first three days?).
because it was used as the basis for an actual day of rest-
the scripture intrepreted itself literally
Non Quis, Sed Quid
|
|
|
