The argument boils down to, Scripture, not science, should establish the believer’s presupposition of the revelation of God and all that is His.
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.
As is already known and has been somewhat discussed, this revelation takes on three basic forms: (1) God’s revelation in nature and history (natural revelation), (2) God’s revelation by His Word (special revelation), and (3) the illumination of the Holy Sprit. As John Frame says though these revelations must be taken together, “natural revelation must be seen through the spectacles of Scripture, illuminated by the Spirit.” If not then we get a distorted view of truth.
What's your evidence for this claim?
Though secular science may look upon natural revelation and discover many things (wisdom of the world), apart from God it suppresses truth (Rom 1:18-12) in its evaluation of natural revelation. As John Frame says, “there are wrong ways of being influenced by science.”
Yes, there are wrong ways of being influenced by (bad) science, just as there are wrong ways of being influenced by (bad) theology.
Thus, the elementary foundation of FI is unstable.
How in the world have you shown that the elementary foundation of the FI is unstable???
However, based upon the evidence of this type of scientific investigation, which suppresses biblical truth, it feels compelled to assert a presence of a literary or poetic structure in Gen 1 to the exclusion of a chronological sequence or “normal days.”
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.
However, Scripture often uses literary devices in narratives that are clearly historical (Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9). Thus, use of literary devices do not exclude chronology, for many narratives within these literary structure are chronological.
Yup. The use of literary devices does not _necessarily_ exclude chronology, as I said in the paper.
Thus, there is sufficient ground for me to say FI is not biblical.
Sorry, you've given no argument at all for this other than it doesn't fit with what you already believe.
However, there is sufficient ground for me to take the days in Gen 1 as normal.
Yup. Not just sufficient, but overwhelmingly strong ground to understand them as meaning normal days.
Though the term yom does not always refer to a 24 hour day, it most often does refer to a 24 hour day when accompanied by numerals.
The Hebrew term 'yom' NEVER refers to a 24-hour day in the Bible. Anywhere.
The phrase “evening and morning” also suggests a 24 hour period (Ex 18:13; 27:21).
Additionally in the 4th commandment (Ex 20:8-11, compare Ex 35:2), we are told to work “6” days and rest “1” in imitation of God’s creative activity. But, if the days were not normal days it would not be clear what we should imitate! Lastly, the plural days used in Ex 20:11, is NEVER used figuratively elsewhere.
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?"
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."
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).'"
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.
--- 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)