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.

This is a disingenuous argument. Does science allow for the possibility that Balaam's ass spoke, that Jesus was conceived of a virgin, that the Red Sea opened up so the Israelites could pass through it? Science doesn't say anything about the supernatural because as far as science is concerned, there is no supernature. It is not empirically observable. Now, if you want to redefine the philosophical paradigm of modern science, that's a whole other issue. But as it stands, resurrection is a scientific impossibility.

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.

It should be readily apparent why I made this objection, and it strikes me as peculiar that you didn't understand it.

Your argument is this: Because God cannot be understood to have literally rested, therefore the seventh day cannot be understood literally.

The analogous argument is this: Because God cannot be understood to have literally written with His finger, therefore the stone tablets cannot be understood literally.

Pretty basic! Both arguments are ridiculous.

1. I don't see the overlap problem. Perhaps you could make more explicit what you think the problem is.

The overlap problem regards the parallel structure of the days claimed by FI. FI says basically that Days 1 & 4, 2 & 5, and 3 & 6 are the same. But since there are things which were created on Day 1/4, namely, the luminaries, which were placed in the firmament created on Day 2/5, you have an overlap problem: the luminaries were created before the firmament in which they were placed.

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.

Again, it goes to parallelism. The birds have dominion not only in the sky, but also on the earth. FI does not account for this. The same basic problem also applies to number three. I don't think these are major objections, though.

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.

The fact that the text says that God created light before the luminaries would lead very easily and naturally to the supposition that God "sustained" the light cycle by "extraordinary" means. There is absolutely nothing in the text, on the other hand, to suggest that light did not actually exist until the luminaries were created. The parallel you draw to Gen. 2:5 is simply unfounded, particularly since the vegetation there mentioned is agricultural ("of the field"), not wild. The very next verse says that the surface of the earth was watered, which certainly could sustain wild plants.

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.

I don't understand your objection. The principle of non-extraordinary means still applies 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.

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.

You missed my meaning. This is the basic argument: the realms are created before governors are set over them. So we have the seas/sky/land/vegetation/universe created before fish/birds/animals/men/God are set as governors over them. This parallel structure is upheld throughout by FI, but for the notable exception of light/luminaries, which is (at least one of) FI's main arguments! So FI is either inconsistent because it fails to uphold a major parallel, or else it is subsumed into the historic interpretation.

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.

I apologize, I misread part of your article. Nonetheless, as you point out in the article, the pattern used in Genesis is actually unique, and does not exactly follow any of the other patterns. You claim on the basis that Moses did not use the "time enumerating" patterns, and that the pattern he does use is closer to the "countables" pattern, that he must have been indicating a literary framework, which you can only conclude because you have accepted FI.

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.

Just like you're too bound by modern science to accept the plain reading of Scripture? Oh, right! bash Completely unnecessary.

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.

Evenings and mornings always apply to a light cycle of 24-hours. Otherwise there are some days at the North Pole that aren't days at all!


I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.