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.
You fail to realize that GR is not complete without SR.
What do you mean by this? This is quite a vague statement that could mean almost anything.
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.
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.
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),
Yes, this much is true.
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.
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.
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;
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.
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).
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.
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).
Yup, SUNset and SUNrise.
Together they constitute a figure called a merism, which signified the end of light and encompassed the entire period of darkness.
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.