Creation and Garden Story: Instructional Value?

[wenglund]

13 hours ago, zlarry123 said:

Does the biblical "beginning" match the biblical "end"? 

When did God introduce the old covenant order? 

Could Genesis creation speak about the beginning of the covenant world of God's relationship to his people rather than the beginning of the physical universe? 

Why would the Bible open with an account of the creation of the physical universe and then change subjects completely to close with prophecy of a covenant end? 

Larry

Those are some interesting questions. I would enjoy hearing your answers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Alex]

15 hours ago, zlarry123 said:

Why would the Bible open with an account of the creation of the physical universe and then change subjects completely to close with prophecy of a covenant end? 

Beginning, middle, end. We are all in the middle phase- the writers are/were all in the middle phase.

To me this last question you pose isn't such a mystery as the order defines man's very existence. There would be no point in ending with a focus on those who followed satan for example, as they go on to achieve absolutely nothing.

[wenglund]

Is there something to be learned from the following sequence: 1) God created light; 2)  God called the light good; 3) God separates the light from the darkness; 4) God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night? And, this sequence of events constituted "the first day."

In other words, when light was created, it was presumably intermingled with darkness, and then it was later separated therefrom. How does that work?

I like how Traveler explains this in relation to the "creation" of the covenant relationship with God:

On 12/4/2017 at 8:52 AM, Traveler said:

 If we understand the purpose and structure of a Chiasm we see that the “beginning” or first step (blessing) of the covenant is the creation of light....Then, according to covenant G-d begins a process of “separating” the light from the darkness....The plan of salvation is the separation of light from darkness (light being the light of truth) – which is also the separating of those that choose darkness from those that choose light.  The plan of salvation is not completed until the execution of the last or final judgment at which all things of light are accounted for and likewise are all “things” that is dark is also accounted for (separated from the light).

The Traveler

When I get a moment, I will explain how Peterson understands this in relation to the "creation" of consciousness.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

[zlarry123]

 

5 hours ago, wenglund said:

Those are some interesting questions. I would enjoy hearing your answers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You may like this link, Beyond Creation Science, it will answer those questions I copied and pasted from.  

http://beyondcreationscience.com/

Larry

Edited December 11, 2017 by zlarry123

[wenglund]

4 hours ago, wenglund said:

In other words, when light was created, it was presumably intermingled with darkness, and then it was later separated therefrom. How does that work?

When I get a moment, I will explain how Peterson understands this in relation to the "creation" of consciousness.

As previously intimated, Peterson suggests that psychological reality (or "being") may be broken down into three parts: the unknown (chaotic potential or "darkness"), an emotional  dreamlike state--extracted from patterns of observed behavior over thousands of years (the domain of mysticism and art, and the birthplace of thinking), and the known (order or articulated knowledge or "light"). God creates "light" through creating consciousness, and he separates that light from the darkness by way of ancient dream-like stories (such as those in the Bible). 

Instead of "dreamlike state," I would use the word "faith." As explained in Alma 32, faith is the means by which we go from the unknown to knowledge, from chaotic potential to order. It is the means by which darkness is separated from light, the false from the true.

Likewise, language creates light, and separates it from the darkness through formulating conceptual frameworks and on to higher forms of consciousness (i.e. expanded bodies of knowledge or world views).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

On 12/4/2017 at 8:52 AM, Traveler said:

More complication - I posted in another thread and I posted with an error - the variant reading is “When” not “Before” G-d first established his covenant with man.   I am of the opinion that when we think of the creation from what we learn in scripture we think of the origins of our universe and cosmos.   This is not what I believe is the beginning of revelation as we have recorded scripture.  I believe what is really going on is a tutorial of covenants established through the plan of salvation – before the foundations of the earth (this world) were laid.

As suggested by slarry123, you may be interested in this podcast of Lecture 7 of the 2010 Conference on  Covenant Creation, Titled: "The Language of Creation from Genesis to Revelation."

http://cdn.thepodcast.org/audio/CCC2010/CCC2010_Lecture_07_Tami_Jelinek.mp3

Other presentations, debates, articles, and blog post on Covenant Creation are available here: http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-covenant-creation-archive

Very interesting and informative, though I believe both Genesis and Revelations represent many layers of meaning in addition to covenants with God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

On 12/3/2017 at 12:52 PM, wenglund said:

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I have read a number of articles discussing the longstanding debate among biblical scholars, particularly Christians, over the meaning of the word "day."

The debate has been stirred by two main factors. First, the seeming clash between the Bible and science, and second the multiple connotation of the Hebrew word for day (yom).

Positions in the debate range from advocating for a 24hr interpretation to a long age interpretation. In other words, the debates have centered around determining the length of time supposedly inferred by the word "day." 

The same debate is extended to include the words "evening" and "morning" as well as the numbering of days (first, second, etc.)

What I didn't see in all of the debate is something I noticed this morning, and that is that the word "day" was given as the name for light, and the word "night" was given as a name for darkness. In other words, in Gen. 1, the words "day" and "night," and the associated words "morning" and "evening," were not used to designate periods of time, but the instance of "light" as distinguished from "darkness." Which, in my mind, ends the current debate over the correct meaning of "yom" and eliminates the seeming conflict with science.

So, rather than the six day depicting periods of time, the creation account may refer to six instances of light and darkness--which lends itself to multiple layers of meaning and application. It could, as some have asserted, represent various dispensations of God's kingdom on earth (see "Six Days of Creation," by Norm Voss), or six covenant eras, and it could also depict levels of consciousness or truth, knowledge, and understanding, as well as stages of spiritual development, etc.

What do you think?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 11, 2017 by wenglund
Documentation

[wenglund]

Regarding the words "evening" and "morning" used in the creation account, I  found this interesting in relation to what I indicated in the post above:

Quote

The Hebrew terms, Erev,andBoker, now refer to "evening" and "morning" but their origins remain obscure.Erev designates obscuration, mixture (increasing entropy). The time when encroaching darkness begins to deny the ability to discern forms, shapes, and identities; thus, it becomes a term for twilight or evening.²⁰ This also marks the duration of impurity, when a ceremonially unclean person became clean again,²¹ and thus, the beginning of the Hebrew day.

Boker is a designation for becoming discernible, distinguishable, visible; perception of order; relief of obscurity (decreasing entropy). It thus is associated with being able to begin to discern forms, shapes, and distinct identities; breaking forth of light; revealing; hence, denotatively, dawn, morning. (As traditional designations for the Hebrew day, technically it would seem to only designate the nighttime hours, but it is used connotatively for the entire calendar day.)

It is noteworthy that neither of these are recorded on the seventh day, and thus their original significance may have been to designate the increments of creation. 

Why Six Days, by Chuck Missler

Thoughts?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

22 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I have read a number of articles discussing the longstanding debate among biblical scholars, particularly Christians, over the meaning of the word "day."

The debate has been stirred by two main factors. First, the seeming clash between the Bible and science, and second the multiple connotation of the Hebrew word for day (yom).

Positions in the debate range from advocating for a 24hr interpretation to a long age interpretation. In other words, the debates have centered around determining the length of time supposedly inferred by the word "day." 

The same debate is extended to include the words "evening" and "morning" as well as the numbering of days (first, second, etc.)

What I didn't see in all of the debate is something I noticed this morning, and that is that the word "day" was given as the name for light, and the word "night" was given as a name for darkness. In other words, in Gen. 1, the words "day" and "night," and the associated words "morning" and "evening," were not used to designate periods of time, but the instance of "light" as distinguished from "darkness." Which, in my mind, ends the current debate over the correct meaning of "yom" and eliminates the seeming conflict with science.

So, rather than the six day depicting periods of time, the creation account may refer to six instances of light and darkness--which lends itself to multiple layers of meaning and application. It could, as some have asserted, represent various dispensations of God's kingdom on earth, or six covenant eras, and it could also depict levels of consciousness or truth, knowledge, and understanding, as well as stages of spiritual development, etc.

What do you think?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Days 3 and 4 are obviously out of sequence regardless of how ever long (thousands or millions of years or hours) we believe a day might mean in scripture.  - Or this "creation" in Genesis has noting to do with the empirical universe or how it came about; that we are currently living in.

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Days 3 and 4 are obviously out of sequence regardless of how ever long (thousands or millions of years or hours) we believe a day might mean in scripture.  - Or this "creation" in Genesis has noting to do with the empirical universe or how it came about; that we are currently living in.

Agreed. However, you may be interested in listening to the meaning Norm Voss attaches to each of the creation days. He is a Covenant Creationist, and borrows somewhat from Augustine. "Six Days of Creation," by Norm Voss

To him, the first day consists of God's covenant people from Adam to Noah. The second day consists of the age from Noah to Abraham. The third from Abraham to David. etc. I am intrigued by the way he ties in words used in Gen. 1 to each of the respective dispensations/ages.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[zil]

Or maybe just read Abraham 4 more carefully:

Quote

11 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the earth to bring forth grass; the herb yielding seed; the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, whose seed in itself yieldeth its own likeness upon the earth; and it was so, even as they ordered.

12 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth grass from its own seed, and the herb to bring forth herb from its own seed, yielding seed after his kind; and the earth to bring forth the tree from its own seed, yielding fruit, whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.

13 And it came to pass that they numbered the days; from the evening until the morning they called night; and it came to pass, from the morning until the evening they called day; and it was the third time.

While in the Moses version the plants are described as growing on the third "day", in the Abraham version, it never actually says that - it just says they prepared the earth and then organized the earth to bring forth plants - it doesn't actually say that it brought forth plants, just that it was prepared to.  Perhaps it was prepared to on the 3rd day, and then the lights were put into place, and then it brought forth the plants while ocean life was being created - or even first brought forth those lifeforms which didn't need light (and yes, there are lifeforms which don't need light - so so they say), and then brought forth the rest after the light was created.

(I'll be OK with whatever the Lord tells us, including that the scriptures got those verses backward, but I'm not convinced we know enough to say for absolute certain that they actually are backwards - one could say that "based on current scientific knowledge, there is no way plants grew on earth without a sun to give them light", but that's not the same as saying "scripture has the sequence of creation wrong" - the two are not direct equivalents.)

[wenglund]

20 hours ago, zil said:

Or maybe just read Abraham 4 more carefully:

While in the Moses version the plants are described as growing on the third "day", in the Abraham version, it never actually says that - it just says they prepared the earth and then organized the earth to bring forth plants - it doesn't actually say that it brought forth plants, just that it was prepared to.  Perhaps it was prepared to on the 3rd day, and then the lights were put into place, and then it brought forth the plants while ocean life was being created - or even first brought forth those lifeforms which didn't need light (and yes, there are lifeforms which don't need light - so so they say), and then brought forth the rest after the light was created.

(I'll be OK with whatever the Lord tells us, including that the scriptures got those verses backward, but I'm not convinced we know enough to say for absolute certain that they actually are backwards - one could say that "based on current scientific knowledge, there is no way plants grew on earth without a sun to give them light", but that's not the same as saying "scripture has the sequence of creation wrong" - the two are not direct equivalents.)

Good point. Like you, I will be OK with whatever. In fact, it is quirks like this that keep me from becoming dogmatic and opens my mind instead to layers of meaning.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 12, 2017 by wenglund

[zlarry123]

10 hours ago, wenglund said:

Good point. Like you, I will be OK with whatever. In fact, it is quirks like this that keep me from becoming dogmatic and opens my mind instead to layers of meaning.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I believe the problem may be adding many layer and meaning to the simple truths. Specifically in the New Testament, when we use double meaning and shadows of things as was used in the Old Testament.

This has cause scriptural misinterpretation. One sort is what I describe as the News Paper Gospel. Christians read New Paper events  and find a scripture to match it. Especially when it comes to the second advent, and the kingdom of God. Now we have the internet, and TV to add to the confusion.

It reminds me of the words of Jesus to the Pharisees that these happening  do not come with observation. And by using surveillance I think alters the nature of the Kingdom of God.

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. KJV

Just my thoughts

Larry

[wenglund]

On 12/12/2017 at 10:14 PM, zlarry123 said:

I believe the problem may be adding many layer and meaning to the simple truths. Specifically in the New Testament, when we use double meaning and shadows of things as was used in the Old Testament.

This has cause scriptural misinterpretation. 

I view the problem as just the opposite--i.e. over simplification and limited grasp of an abundance of meaning, oft made all the more damnable by dogma, and this in addition to misinterpretation of even a single layer of simple truths. It is as if God has prepared for us a multiple course meal, and we get up from the table after a single bite from an horderves. 

I figure that if God wished to dispense his Godly mysteries in single layer simple truth, He would have called left-brained Western writers to record his words in a literal, linear, line-upon-line, systematic fashion. As such the Bible would have read like a text book or a post-graduate thesis paper. However, instead,  he called right-brained Eastern writers who conveyed God's message globally and oft symbolically through stories,. As such,  the Bible reads like a verbal painting or symphony, making it far more artistic than science. The very nature of the Bible, then, screams multiple layers of meaning.

This makes perfect sense for several reasons. First, there are infinite layers of Godliness which unfold the more and more his followers grow in spiritual development--i..e milk before meat, or as Paul put it, "When I was a child, I talked as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child. When I became a man...."(1 Cor. 13)

Second, the infinite nature of God doesn't lend itself to the kind of tiny boxes fashioned by literal, linear, and simply logical human minds. For, as the  Good Book says, "The ways of God are foolishness to men." (1 Cor 2:14)

Third, God wishes to reveal his mysteries only when his followers are ready to receive them. This could present a problem for static records like the Bible. However, God gets around this problem by hiding his mysteries in plain sight, underneath the superficial layer of the seemingly obvious, and this by way of stories and parables. Thus, those with eyes to see will see, and those without, wont. (Mt 13:13)

There are other points that could be made, but hopefully this will suffice.

Besides, as intimated in my opening post, God has repeated the creation story in several books of LDS scripture, thereby signaling its primer significance. Surely that significance can't rest solely in a brief account of the birth of the earth. There is much in the story that can be learned about God as well as about mankind and particularly about ourselves, by pealing back layer after layer of rich and wonderful meaning.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Just a couple of more things before moving on to day two,

First, when God said, "Let there be light.." could he also have referred to the light of Christ, our conscience, our sense of morality? And, might that light have been separated from the darkness through the fall--i.e. "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good from evil?" (Gen 3:22)

Is it possible that prior to that "beginning" mankind, as well as his evolutionary ancestors, were relatively amoral or sociopath?

At least some scientists believe that morality is a relatively recent evolutionary characteristic. (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

At first glance there appears to be a significant discrepancy between the various scriptural accounts of the creation/garden. In several accounts (Genesis and Moses) it speaks of "God" saying and doing this or that, whereas in the Book of Abraham, it speaks of "the Gods" doing this or that.

What makes this interesting is that the Genesis and Moses accounts also use plural pronouns (see Gen 1:26; Gen 3:22) as well as singular pronouns (Gen 1:27-31;  2:2,18; 3:11,15-17,), in  relation to the word "God."

Joseph Smith provides an interesting reconciliation. (see HERE---second paragraph after the brief poem), though some Jews disagree (see HERE)

Either way, it comes down to how one defines the word "God"--and this is a debate raging on another thread, and so I will leave it at that here.

Suffice it to say that most Christians, including LDS, believe that the Father created "the heaven and earth"  through His Son, the WORD.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

Edited December 15, 2017 by wenglund

[zil]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

First, when God said, "Let there be light.." could he also have referred to the light of Christ, our conscience, our sense of morality? And, might that light have been separated from the darkness through the fall--i.e. "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good from evil?" (Gen 3:22)

Huh.  So, one might say that the act of partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil represents our individual choice to enter into mortality -- a choice each of us made when we accepted God's plan (rather than rebelling) (or makes around the time we officially begin our mortality - whenever that might be).  Then we might add the idea some have put forth that birth is a sort of ordinance (or one might theorize that an ordinance happens in the spirit world prior to a spirit coming here and becoming mortal).  And we we then remember the ordinance of being given the gift of the Holy Ghost.  Then one could add water and stir, and come up with the idea that perhaps the light of Christ is given as an ordinance, either in the pre-mortal realm at some point or at the start of mortality.

Later...  Huh.  Mortals (and more particularly those resurrected in glory) are said to have power over spirits.  Thus, by one choosing to enter into mortality, one is taking a step further from the darkness of Satan and his lot.  Alternately, one could just say that mortality is a step away from the darkness of not progressing toward a celestial existence (those who didn't choose mortality will remain in darkness - and apparently it will increase as they shun the light).

NOTE: I am so not suggesting any this is the case / truth, just drawing some loose connections as a sort of thought exercise that might help one expand their understanding as they review accounts of the creation and fall, and their pattern for each of us as individuals.  (Don't shoot me, I'm inept at attempting this symbolism-understanding business.)

I think that's the end of my "Huhs" for the moment.

Edited December 15, 2017 by zil

[wenglund]

20 minutes ago, zil said:

I think that's the end of my "Huhs" for the moment.

I loved the "Huhs"!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

3 hours ago, wenglund said:

First, when God said, "Let there be light.." could he also have referred to the light of Christ, our conscience, our sense of morality? And, might that light have been separated from the darkness through the fall--i.e. "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good from evil?" (Gen 3:22)

Well, the light thing might work well into the "In the beginning was the Word."  However, if that happened BEFORE man was put on the earth, then how does that work?  The separation of light and darkness came before creation was completed.  And the spiritual death (the fall) happened after man and woman were created.

This is making less and less sense.

3 hours ago, wenglund said:

Is it possible that prior to that "beginning" mankind, as well as his evolutionary ancestors, were relatively amoral or sociopath?

At least some scientists believe that morality is a relatively recent evolutionary characteristic. (see HERE)

Ok, now you're getting into the philosophies of men.  I don't think we have been given enough information from either divine or mortal sources to know exactly what the deal is with evolution.  To try to fit that into the creation story doesn't really work for me.

[wenglund]

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, the light thing might work well into the "In the beginning was the Word."  However, if that happened BEFORE man was put on the earth, then how does that work?  The separation of light and darkness came before creation was completed.  And the spiritual death (the fall) happened after man and woman were created.

This is making less and less sense.

I agree that, when viewed literally, sequentially, and as a material creation, it doesn't make sense.

However, if it is viewed figuratively or symbolically and not necessarily in discrete sequences in reference to the creation of modern man or Gods covenant people, it presents some potential illuminating possibilities. This way, the conscience of men could be brought into existence AFTER humanoids were on the earth and come to fruition following the Fall--as it happens for each of us upon birth and growth in mortality. Hence, the prospect of likening the scriptures (Gen 1-3) unto ourselves.

Like Zil, I am not proposing doctrine here, but possibly offering a glass darkly glimpse into the mysteries of godliness, in hopes of advancing the mission of the gospel in seeking Christ.

For this to be possible may require appealing more to the right than the left hemispheres of our brains. For, what I have proposed will invariably make little sense to the left hemisphere.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Finally, as zlarry123 intimated, there is a growing number of Christians (from Augustine to modern evangelicals, like John Walton and Norm Voss) who believe that the Genesis account is in figurative reference to a covenant creation, the inauguration of the "cosmic temple," or first heaven and earth, and is tied into the Book of Revelation, connecting the first book of the Bible with the last. In other words, Gen 1 isn't so much a material creation as it is a functional creation (ceremonial or liturgical creation. (see HERE)

Here is a brief explanation from one of the leading proponents:

 

Granted, this proposition is not without its critic. Dor example, see HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[wenglund]

According to Walton, days 1-3 involve establishing the "function," and days 4-6 involve Installing functionaries, and day 7 involves divine rest in a temple. (see HERE)

Quote

On the first day, God created light, not as a physical phenomenon, but as day — day and night are created on the first day (note that God called the light “day”, not “light”). Since the first day/night transition after light (which is day and night) was created was from day to night, the Bible says “there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” On the second day, God created the firmament — the solid dome that holds up the waters above in the ancient cosmology — to create a space to live and (more importantly) regulate weather (precipitation). On the third day, God created dry land (separated dry from wet, and didn’t create any new material) and food (as vegetation). These three things — time (day/night), weather (rain) and food — are the basic functions of the world that allow for the existence of man and are paralleled in other ANE [Ancient Near East] texts and in Genesis 8:22.

Another adherent describes it this way:

Quote

Day 1

On Day 1, God shows us the function of the heavens and the earth. He calls the light “Day” and the darkness “Night”. He is establishing the function of time, which was very important to those living in the ancient near east, so they could survive by planning their harvests.

Day 2

On Day 2, God establishes the function of weather by separating the waters in the sky from the waters on the earth, which allows for seasons with and without rain.

Day 3

On Day 3, God establishes the function of growth and fertility and the ability for agriculture by establishing the functions of both seas and areas of dry land.

The first three days show us the functions and the next three days show us the detailed functionaries found in the first three days.

Day 4

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. God made two great lights the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”

Day 4 shows us day 1’s purpose, which is that the lights (sun & moon) decided what days were to be holidays, feasts and so on. Notice the purpose of the sun and moon were to govern night and day. This is only true for those living between the arctic and antarctic circles. There is no strict day and night in arctic zones. The north pole has 6 months of continual darkness and 6 months of continual light.

The creation narrative isn’t establishing a modern scientific narrative but a functionary narrative for those living in the ancient near east. According to this narrative, the sun isn’t created until day 4, while light is created on day 1. Is the story just wrong? No, because it’s not trying to describe material origins. It’s purpose is to define functional origins.

Day 5

Since Day 2 established areas of water and dry land, the seas are now filled with sea creatures and the land with birds and walking creatures. You can start to see the narrative is not concerned with establishing material origins (how animals were created) but rather the function of these animals and their place in the world. Some live in the ocean, some on the dry land, and some in the sky.

While God may very well have been involved in physically creating these creatures, the Genesis 1 narrative is not concerned with this. Its purpose is to show Yahweh’s cosmic order in this giant cosmic temple of heaven and earth.

Day 6

Man enters the picture on Day 6 and is given his function “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

We see a pattern of Yahweh giving order to the earth in order that it may not be ruled by chaos and emptiness. Man is placed into the Garden of Eden and “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.” So we see that order was completed and established so that God could rest/dwell on the earth on the 7th day.

Just as the temple needed to be inaugurated before God could dwell, so did the heavens and earth. The 6 days of creation are not about material creation but rather the functions and order necessary for God to dwell with his people in the garden.

When I get a moment, I will attempt to provide scriptures used to support this position.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 17, 2017 by wenglund
Reformat

[Guest]

On 12/15/2017 at 3:24 PM, wenglund said:

I agree that, when viewed literally, sequentially, and as a material creation, it doesn't make sense.

However, if it is viewed figuratively or symbolically and not necessarily in discrete sequences in reference to the creation of modern man or Gods covenant people, it presents some potential illuminating possibilities. This way, the conscience of men could be brought into existence AFTER humanoids were on the earth and come to fruition following the Fall--as it happens for each of us upon birth and growth in mortality. Hence, the prospect of likening the scriptures (Gen 1-3) unto ourselves.

Like Zil, I am not proposing doctrine here, but possibly offering a glass darkly glimpse into the mysteries of godliness, in hopes of advancing the mission of the gospel in seeking Christ.

For this to be possible may require appealing more to the right than the left hemispheres of our brains. For, what I have proposed will invariably make little sense to the left hemisphere.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Even if you don't consider it literally sequential, to have a credible claim to an accurate interpretation, there must be some attention to the sequence as outlined in the narrative we have.  If we don't do that then we also say that there is no story.  With no story, we can interpret this to mean virtually anything.

So, it is one thing to say that the days of creation may not have been exactly in this order.  It is quite another to say that there is NO order to creation that is being depicted.  For instance, the order of creation may or may not have been in the order of the six days.  But we do see a pattern of increasing complexity in the progression of the days of creation.  It is more so in the Temple version.

We certainly see that all the earth was created before the Lord rested on the 7th day.  It makes no sense to say that the 7th day where the Lord rested was actually the 3rd day and then He continued to create the rest.  It completely destroys other doctrines such as the doctrine of the sabbath.

There is an order.  I agree it may not be exact or literal.  But the level you'd have to take it to view the light and darkness separation as being at the same time as the fall completely departs from the narrative entirely.

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Even if you don't consider it literally sequential, to have a credible claim to an accurate interpretation, there must be some attention to the sequence as outlined in the narrative we have.  If we don't do that then we also say that there is no story.  With no story, we can interpret this to mean virtually anything.

So, it is one thing to say that the days of creation may not have been exactly in this order.  It is quite another to say that there is NO order to creation that is being depicted.  For instance, the order of creation may or may not have been in the order of the six days.  But we do see a pattern of increasing complexity in the progression of the days of creation.  It is more so in the Temple version.

We certainly see that all the earth was created before the Lord rested on the 7th day.  It makes no sense to say that the 7th day where the Lord rested was actually the 3rd day and then He continued to create the rest.  It completely destroys other doctrines such as the doctrine of the sabbath.

There is an order.  I agree it may not be exact or literal.  But the level you'd have to take it to view the light and darkness separation as being at the same time as the fall completely departs from the narrative entirely.

From a linear and logical point of view, your's is, for the most part, a valid criticism.

I say, "for the most part," because even from that point of view there is yet at least two  ways  for my proposition to make sense. First, If one grants that each of the "days" began in the sequential order conveyed in the story, then depending upon how one defines "days," there may be overlap, particularly if each of the "days" continue indefinitely. My proposition would only fail if one considers each "day" sequentially discrete and in no way concurrent.

Second, even if one views the "days" as sequential and discrete, my proposition would still work if one considers the "days" as a repeating pattern of development from "week" to "week", "month to month," and "year" to "year," or "line upon line, precept upon precept,"  much as we experience growth (physically, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, etc.) as individuals and groups, day to day, from birth until death.

However, if one views the story globally (bits and pieces scattered randomly throughout a narrative), rather than linearly, then the field is wide open.  

For that matter, what is to prevent us from looking critically and creatively from each of these perspectives?

When considering what value may be personally derived from such an important story that it needed to be repeated multiple time in scripture, and included as a part of the higher learning of the temple, I am made mindful of the 1st commandment, to love the Lord thy God with ALL thy heart and mind, which I take to mean utilizing both hemispheres of my brain (figuratively speaking):

At least I have found it useful.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

[Guest]

17 hours ago, wenglund said:

First, If one grants that each of the "days" began in the sequential order conveyed in the story, then depending upon how one defines "days," there may be overlap, particularly if each of the "days" continue indefinitely. My proposition would only fail if one considers each "day" sequentially discrete and in no way concurrent.

Second, even if one views the "days" as sequential and discrete, my proposition would still work if one considers the "days" as a repeating pattern of development from "week" to "week", "month to month," and "year" to "year," or "line upon line, precept upon precept,"  much as we experience growth (physically, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, etc.) as individuals and groups, day to day, from birth until death.

However, if one views the story globally (bits and pieces scattered randomly throughout a narrative), rather than linearly, then the field is wide open.  

For that matter, what is to prevent us from looking critically and creatively from each of these perspectives?

The overlap or concurrent interpretation falls apart when we consider specific language in various versions.

Quote

And the evening and the morning were the first day... (Genesis & Moses)

And this was the second time they called night and day (Abraham)

And the Gods watched those things which they ordered until they obeyed.(Abraham)

And the Gods saw that they would obey (Abraham)

If you look at it as a repeating pattern, then you also have to say that the creation cycle is a repeating pattern.  It isn't.  Sure we have generations of creatures being born again and again.  But they cycles of the earth are not so repetitive.

It seems that you're really reaching, just so you can force this interpretation to work.  If you want some special interpretation, then I'd say that the separation of the light and darkness are more likely a reference to the outcome of the war in heaven.  The light began because our Father organized our intelligences into spirits.  Thus there was light where there was not before.  He separated the light from the darkness by casting out the 1/3 of heaven into the abyss and gave us (2/3) a chance to progress on earth.

In order to have a credible claim to a valid interpretation there has to be some level of respect for the written word as it is or we are basically saying that the written word means nothing or it is flawed in some way.  To justify the at least partially concurrent interpetation, you have to explain away the statements (like I mentioned above) which clearly show a separation between days.  To justify the cyclical inpterpretation, you have to explain why some parts (such as the creation of the earth itself) doesn't seem to follow this cycle.

If you're trying to say I'm just not using both halves of my brain, I don't have any separation in my brain.  I see all those characteristics equally.  Multiple personality and brain usage tests have confirmed this.  To me, all characteristics run throughout my brain much like metals have a sea of electrons.  This leads me to believe that the theory of separate hemispheres of the brain are greatly flawed or limited.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Guest