The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Creation

Where did I say that?


There's some difference, but both are extra-Biblical sources of information.


I never said that modern Science was an absolute requirement.


It is the difference between a necessary requirement (need) and a helpful guide (can).

If I take a road trip to California, I can get on roads and just start driving westward until I hit the Pacific Ocean. From there I drive either North or South until I find California. Did I _require_ a map? No. But a map would have been useful even if not a necessary requirement.


It is an interesting discussion, and less hostile that some I've seen or been in previously. You guys are quite respectful which I appreciate.

Brian

I'm using the term 'Theology' as shorthand for 'interpretation of Scripture' and so matters of historical fact fall under my use of the term, for this discussion at least. If there's a less confusing term to use I'm all for it. I just haven't thought too much about what it might be.


Again, category mistake. Do you mean to say that we must err on the side of our Theology (used as describe above) over Science?


Considering Genesis 1, there's lots of good reason. Have you read my papers yet?

http://home.comcast.net/~babucher/framework_interpretation.html

Brian

You're again confusing categories. Scripture and Science do not belong in the same category. Theology (as shorthand for 'the interpretation of Scripture') and Science do, but Scripture belongs in the same category as General Revelation. And, since both are revelations from God, it makes no sense to say that one is over the other.


What's your evidence for this claim?


Yes, there are wrong ways of being influenced by (bad) science, just as there are wrong ways of being influenced by (bad) theology.


How in the world have you shown that the elementary foundation of the FI is unstable???


Nope. It's not based on a compulsion to fit evidence that 'suppresses' biblical truth. It's only that it's conflicting with your personal interpretation that's makes you think so. That, and equating your personal interpretation with the actual text of Scripture.


Yup. The use of literary devices does not _necessarily_ exclude chronology, as I said in the paper.


Sorry, you've given no argument at all for this other than it doesn't fit with what you already believe.


Yup. Not just sufficient, but overwhelmingly strong ground to understand them as meaning normal days.


The Hebrew term 'yom' NEVER refers to a 24-hour day in the Bible. Anywhere.


No again.


Again, 'yom' NEVER means a 24-hour period.

From my paper:

--- begin quote ---

Much to their credit, 24hr proponents have marshaled a very strong semantically based argument against the Day-Age understanding of the Genesis days. However, and this is where things get very interesting, the evidence brought forth by 24hr proponents used to show that the yom of Genesis 1 must have the same meaning as all the others can be used with as much force against their own position as against the Day-Age view.

Implications
In his article, Gentry offers the following:

"Argument from Coherent Usage. The word yom in Genesis 1 defines Days 4-6­after God creates the sun­expressly for marking off days (Gen 1:14,18). Interestingly, Moses emphasizes Day 4 by allocating the second greatest number of words to describe it. Surely these last three days of creation are normal days. Yet nothing in the text suggests a change of temporal function for yom from the first three days: they are measured by the same temporal designator (yom), along with the same qualifiers (numerical adjectives and "evening and morning"). Should not Days 1-3 demarcate normal days also?"[24]

Gentry is correct in insisting that the first three days of the narrative must be understood in the same way as the second three. He asks "Should not Days 1-3 demarcate normal days also?"

In answer, Framework Interpretation advocates reply with a resounding Yes! and follow up by pointing out that the 24hr interpretation does not do this. As a point of indisputable fact, 24hr proponents must assume that the first three 'days' of Genesis 1 are abnormal, non-ordinary 24 periods of time because they lack the sun. They lack an essential component that all other 100+ occurrences have in common. 24hr proponents have committed the exact same fallacy that they accuse the Day-Age proponents of, and have even gone beyond that and rejected the principle of coherent usage by claiming different meanings of 'day' for the two triads of days. Not only do they use a meaning for the first three days different than those outside the Genesis creation account (which are always solar), but even use a different meaning within the very narrative of the creation account.

To bring this point home, whenever a 24hr proponent says "every time yom is used like this, it always means a normal day," a FI advocate could simply reply with "yes, every time yom is used like this, it always means a normal day, which you reject for the first three days. You appeal to utterly abnormal non-solar 24 hour periods of time."[25]

At this point additional evidence can be offered in favor of the argument. Not only does the 24hr view commit the above-mentioned fallacy, but it also uses a definition for yom that Jew would not have used. They thought of days only as solar days.

Stambaugh's attempt to respond to this objection is telling. He says:

"This objection observes that the sun was not created until the fourth day, and therefore the first three days could not have been the kind of days we are familiar with today. It seems that those who make this objection are not aware that the sun is not necessary to determine a 'day'; all that is needed is some point of light. A 'day' can be defined as follows:

'The time taken for the Earth to spin once on its axis; by extension, the rotation period of any planet. The rotation of the Earth can be measured relative to the stars (sidereal day) or the sun (solar day).'"[26]

Well of course we can define a 'day' in different ways. We could even define it as a specific fraction of the half-life of decaying Carbon-14. The point is not that we in our modern age are capable of defining it in different ways. The question is, how did the Israelites define a day? Jews in the 2nd millennium B.C. defined a day by the rising/setting of the sun. No one had a wrist watch or clock back then, and there's no evidence that a Jew in the Mosaic period even knew what an hour was.[27]

--- end quote ---

So we have zero evidence that Moses or anyone in his audience, or in all of the old testament, even knew what an hour was, or that they thought of a yom as composed of 24 of them.

See my paper here for the quote:
http://home.comcast.net/~babucher/framework_interpretation.html
(the main paper)


Looks like you have nothing left to stand on.



(friendly jab, not hostile)

Brian

Hi Tom,

I'll simply redirect you to my paper, the relevant section being A DAY IS A DAY IS A DAY that takes the evidence for 'yom' _meaning_ a normal day, just as you suggest (sort of...see the paper) and shows how it rules out the 6/24 interpretation.

I pasted a section of it in a post to J_Edwards too.

Brian

How about "interpretation of Scripture"? "Theology" is much to specific a word to be used in the way you suggest.


Allow me to provide an exmaple: Scripture says that Jesus was resurrected in fact. "Science" says that resurrection is impossible. So we err on the side of Scripture.


I have. My objections follow:

1. Ex. 20:11; 30:17 cf. Gen. 2:3. The reason the Israelites are commanded to rest on the Sabbath is because that is the same day of the week which God sanctified because that is the same day of the week on which God rested. There is no indication whatever of there being a "metaphorical" day on which God rested and on which the Sabbath day is modelled. The seventh day of Genesis IS the Sabbath day. For you to conclude that because Ex. 31:17 applies an anthropopathism to God therefore the seventh day is not literal, is as ridiculous as concluding that because Ex. 31:18 applies an anthropomorphism to God therefore the stone tablets are not literal. BAD exegetical reasoning.

2. Regarding the literary structure itself, FI divides the days of creation into two tables, the first three being the realms, and the second three being the governors. Thus we have Day 1/4, the realms of light and darkness governed by the luminaries; Day 2/5, the realms of the seas and sky governed by fish and birds; Day 3/6, the realms of dry land and vegetation governed by land animals and man. There are some overlap problems to be noted here: the luminaries are set in the expanse created on Day 2/5 (your response to this objection is unsatisfactory as the luminaries require this space, as also the fish, birds, and animals require their spheres to be demarcated on the second day); the birds are not confined to the sky but are told to "multiply on the earth" (1:22); men are to govern not only dry land and vegetation, but also animals, and not only land animals, but also fish and birds.

However, I think you have a bigger problem to overcome than these. A pillar of FI is that daylight does not exist without the luminaries to govern it. But the same relationship between realm and governor does not occur with seas/fish, sky/birds, land & plants/animals & men. In fact, the realms must exist prior to the governors in these cases. Even God is not "enthroned as Creator King" until the seventh day in FI! Does the same not apply to light/luminaries? If FI is correct, then the realms of light and darkness ought to exist prior to the luminaries, otherwise the parallel structure FI presents is very precarious indeed. But then FI's own raison d'etre would be subsumed into the historical interpretation, which already holds that the existence of daylight is not dependent upon the luminaries.

3. The entire grammatical structure of Genesis 1 suggests a sequential reading. You have one day; then you have second day; then you have a third day; etc. None of the citations in your first paper have this numerical structure at all. In your second paper, you extrapolate that because the structure is atypical (cardinal, ordinal, ordinal, etc., with only two definite articles for days 6 & 7) Moses must be avoiding a chronological account. But you must assume FI to make such an extrapolation! Every other instance of an ordinal with yom in the Pentateuch is sequential. Has anyone, even those who were non-literalist, ever held that the very grammar is to be read dischronologically?

Furthermore, how do you explain the use of "evening and morning"? Each of the days, with the exception of the seventh, ends with evening and morning.




There are other issues I'd like to address, but this is quite a bit right here.

No science says anything about the resurrection, nor about miracles. Science relies on induction for its basic epistemology, if something is not reproducible ON DEMAND it is not accessible to science. At best, science is silent on the resurrection and any other miracles.

So, is the evolution of man from a different species reproducible on demand?

not the event itself, but the evidence of it having happened or not is accessible. Likewise a forensic investigator doesn't recapture the event, but reconstructs potential reasonable scenarios. Does he prove that X killed Y? Not in the same way that we can prove a**2 +b**2=c**2, that is why the legal system has different levels of evidence, 'beyond reasonable doubt' are the wiggle words to pay homage to the problem of induction and the problem of the historical sciences, like forensics.

so do we have access to the event?
no.
do we have access to evidence that the event might have left? yes.

And the evidence for the resurrection is, of course, eyewitness testimony recorded in both Matthew and John.

You fail to realize that GR is not complete without SR. There is a great deal of difference between SR and GR. SR sets forth true propositions, while GR (science, et. al.) is still attempting to define what is true by fallible methodologies. When examining SR we take what is known as true and examine it with fallible methods, (but with the Holy Spirit as our infallible guide), however, when examining science one takes what a fallible man (not an infallible God) presumes may be true and examines it with fallible methods. Without SR one can never fully understand GR.

Unlike another poster insinuated both the OE and the YE views have presuppositions. The only question that remains is what are the true presuppositions to follow? The Bible sets forth what is true about creation. Thus, the term “yom” (day) comes of particular importance. What would a Jew in Moses’ time have thought the term “day” to mean? You stated;

However this is not an undisputable fact as you have asserted. While the first three days of Genesis 1 lack the body of the sun, they do not necessarily lack sunlight itself, as God created light on DAY 1 (Gen 1:3-5). The FI does believe God created ALL light, which includes sunlight, doesn’t it? The temporal framework of creation was evening and morning (literally sunset and sunrise--J. Currid). Together they constitute a figure called a merism, which signified the end of light and encompassed the entire period of darkness. Thus DAY 1 began with the entrance of light and it ended at the departure of darkness. Day 2 began with sunrise. As Cassuto comments,

However, FI says, “how can there be a sunrise without a sun?” It was not until DAY 4 that we see the command of God, “Let there be lights.” However, there is no problem if you stay within the meaning of the text. One of the main functions of the luminaries was to divide the day from the night and as Cassuto again remarks, “To separate one thing from another means to mark the distinction between two things already in existence.” Thus the light of the sun, moon, and stars was already in existence otherwise it could not have been divided. When did it come into existence—DAY 1. Light was in existence prior to the light bodies. There is not discrepancy with the text, only in one’s limited understanding of it. So much for being indisputable and since your premise is faulty your conclusion is in error.

You may do well to read Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry's article entitled, Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation.

Brian,

Pardon me for butting in here, but as I've read through this topic the following really stuck out at me as something needing to be addressed. It seems to me (the lurking newbie) to be a recurring theme that lacks clarification.


This statement is either an attempt to deflect the argument, or it misunderstands the argument. We've been given Scripture from God. We live on an earth that God created. If we attempt to evaluate the world we live on, make assumptions, draw conclusions, and then go to the Scripture God gave us, it appears to many here that we are taking our "scientific" conclusions OVER Scripture.

Why? Because it can be stated that the more appropriate approach to understanding creation is to START with the Scripture God gave us and use that understanding to interpret what we observe in creation.

To reply to this with something like "we can evaluate both at the same time" or "they are different categories" does not really address the argument because what we come to understand in both categories shapes our understanding of God.

As an analogy, imagine that we were given an extraordinary invention and a verifiably true biography of the inventor. The reason we are given the invention is to reveal the superior ability of the inventor. The purpose of the biography is to reveal a more detailed view of the inventor.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the information we could gather by scrutinizing the invention is on an equal footing with information we would be given in the biography because it is in a different category, even if some or much of the conclusions made about the invention was based on data collected by those who refused the authenticity of the biography.

Can you acknowledge the problem here? The argument is worthy of more than deflection.

Just a FYI, I'm not ignoring you guys. Well, I guess I am, but it's because I have other priorities that require my attention for a few days. My church small-group must take preference over any online discussion as I'm sure you'll agree.

Thanks for your patience,
Brian

 
Well, I'm trying to find a single word that will work as shorthand for "interpretation of Scripture" so that I didn't have to type that out every time.  'Theology' seemed to be a good on to me, and for this discussion I don't really see what the problem is.
 
 
Absolutely not.  You have a MASSIVE misunderstanding of what Science says.  Science can tell us that people don't naturally rise from the dead as a rule, which is what we as Christians claim anyway.  It says nothing about whether supernatural resurrection is possible or not.
 
 
The Genesis 1 narrative is used as the basis for the 6 days work and 1 day Sabbath.  Yes.
 
The evidence for the metaphorical interpretation is found in all the arguments in my paper.  Each of them is evidence for the FI (metaphorical) interpretation.
 
 
Why in the world do you think your comparison of Ex 31:18 // stone tablets is at all relevant to the anthropomorphism that applies to God's resting?  If we already know that we have to take God's Sabbath metaphorically there (unless you think God actually gets tired??) then I don't see the problem, or why you think your comparison works.
 
 
Right.
 
 
1. I don't see the overlap problem.  Perhaps you could make more explicit what you think the problem is.
2. I don't see the problem with birds not being 'confined' to the sky.  That's not what they are known for though.  Birds are known for the fact that they fly, because it is distinctive about them.
3. The position of mankind in the framework does not preclude his governing over the other realms.  Like the animals, man does not live in either the sea or the sky (or the expanse for that matter), but his special relationship with the vegetation (anticipating the Trees) is what is presented in the parallel between vegetation and man.
 
 
Close.  One of the arguments is:
During the creation period, God did not rely extraordinary means to sustain his creation once it was created.
 
Carrying this through, God did not create the light until he had established the natural means of sustaining that light.  There was no 'supernatural' mechanism in place to supply the earth with a light/dark cycle during the first three days.  Nothing in the text itself would lead us to believe that God used a non-ordinary means of sustaining the light/darkness cycle.  Such a speculation is totally foreign to the text.  In addition, Genesis 2:5 rules this out as even a possible explanation.  God, in his omnipotent power, could have employed extraordinary means for sustaining his creation after the creative acts, but according to his self-revelation in the Scripture, he chose not to.  He chose to use ordinary processes to sustain his creation once it was made.

 
I wouldn't necessarily call it a pillar of the FI, but instead I'd call it one of the main arguments.
 
 
I don't understand your objection.  The principle of non-extraordinary means still applies in these cases.
 
 
Right.
 
 
I don't see why.  Only God is enthroned on the seventh day.  I don't see anywhere that I've claimed anything else is enthroned that day.
 
 
1. I'm not assuming the FI to identify the non-chronological nature of the passage.  Seeing it as non-chronological is the result of a direct examination of the text.
 
Cardinal, cardinal, cardinal - used for time enumeration
Ordinal, ordinal, ordinal - used for time enumeration
Cardinal, ordinal, ordinal - used for NOT time enumeration, but countables
 
Guess which one the Genesis 1 text has?  That's right.  The one NOT used for enumerating periods of time.  Frankly, to say that I have to "assume FI" in order to see that Moses used a pattern not used for enumerating time periods just shows that you're not willing to see the evidence as God has left it for us.  You're just too bound by your traditions.
 
 
 
It fits perfectly with the FI, because the FI takes every day as a normal day, whereas the 24/6 does not.  Evenings and mornings always apply to normal days, not to abnormal 24-hour periods.

You make a lot of assertions about how there are problems (the Exodus 31 comparisons, some sort of overlap problem, the relationship between realm and governor), but then don't go on to show what those problems are. You'll need to explain where you think the problems really are without leaving a lot of gaps in the logic train. I think there might be a lot of unstated assumptions that need to be made clear.

Regards,
Brian

 
What do you mean by this?  This is quite a vague statement that could mean almost anything.
 
 
BZZZZT.  No.  GR is not science.  GR has nothing to do with fallible methodologies other than fallible methodologies are applied to GR in the act of our interpreting it.  Again, go back to the diagram I made.  Science is the interpretation of GR.  It is not itself GR.  GR is God's creation.
 
 
Yes, this much is true.
 
 
1. No.  "Examine science" is not a parallel to "examine SR".  "Examine GR" is the appropriate parallel.  Science is the act of examining/interpreting GR.
 
2. When we examine GR we also know we are examining something that is known to be true because God's creation really is out there.
 
3. Do you think that _with_ SR we can "fully understand" GR?  I certainly don't.  I'm not infinite and will still be finite even after the resurrection.
 
 
 
Permit me to tell a story.

----------

Consider Fred, a city apartment dweller who returns home from work one day to find his window smashed and his television missing. Fred takes note of these facts and asks himself what the explanation for the facts is. He thinks that it is likely that he was robbed. But, unsure, he invites over a friend, Charity, to help him figure out what has happened. Charity is a warm, kind person who thinks that other people in the world are essentially warm and kind as well. Whenever something bad happens, she always prefers to think that the parties involved had good motives driving their behaviors.

Charity looks over the situation and says this: "It is clear to me what has happened here, Fred. Some kids were playing with a ball and accidentally threw it through your window. They must have then climbed in and removed the ball. Then your neighbor, seeing the broken window, climbed in and removed your TV in order to keep it safe until you returned."

Fred considers this and asks himself what to make of it. What is more reasonable to believe here? Is it more reasonable to believe the crook story or the neighbor story?
 
Fred decides to gather a little more data, so he goes to visit the neighbor. He knocks on the door and politely asks the neighbor if he knows anything about the broken window. The neighbor shrugs his shoulder and offers no help. "Well," Fred says to Charity, "so much for your 'friendly neighbor' theory."

"Not so fast," Charity replies. "This doesn't necessarily refute my explanation. I stick by my original theory, and I think I have an explanation for what just happened here. The explanation is this: your neighbor believes that an impostor would be coming to his door trying to get hold of the television that he is protecting. When you knocked, he believed that you were the impostor and so he denied having the television set."

Fred has provided the evidence that seemed to refute Charity's hypothesis. But Charity revised her view so that it now accommodates that new evidence. She could have simply caved in and given up on here theory altogether. But she didn't. She came up with an ad hoc explanation to try and save her theory.

(story adapted from Reason for the Hope Within by Michael Murray, pgs 11-12)

----------

I'm glad we've reached this point in our conversation.  The fact that you say that the days lacked the body of the sun, but didn't lack SUNlight shows just how absurd your position becomes when pushed to the limits.  Is that _really_ what you think Moses and his audience would have thought?
 
"Gee, it was sunlight, but without the sun."
 
You see, you too can come up with ad hoc explanations to support your theory, no matter how strained and absurd they are.  I know at this point that I cannot convince you because I see now the lengths at which you are willing to go.
 
It is intellectual dishonesty to try and manipulate language like you are doing.  It won't work with me.  My point that you must assume abnormal, non-ordinary 24 periods of time is just magnified by the fact that you have to say there was SUNlight without the sun.
 
   
Yup, SUNset and SUNrise.
 

Not just the end of light, but the end of SUNlight.
 
 
As you can see from the Bibliography in my paper, I have read it and dealt with the arguments found therein.  Gentry was one of the better proponents of the 24/6 position, but still fails because his position cannot be supported by the evidence.
 
Brian
 

You've obviously not paid close attention to much of what I've said. I don't have the time to reply to you right now but I'll get back to you in a few days.