The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Creation

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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!