Genesis One and Beyond: An Investigation of the Temporal Questions of Creation in the

[dizzle]

Genesis One and Beyond: An Investigation of the Temporal Questions of Creation in the Biblical Texts


by B.A. Bucher (“BrianB”)
Last Rev: 2003-08-04


Genesis One and Beyond: An Investigation of the Temporal Questions of Creation in the Biblical Texts

INTRODUCTION

This is a "personal position paper" offering my own view on a subject [1].

The purpose of this paper is to examine the biblical texts concerning the questions of creation and origins (Gen 1, etc) and offer what I believe to be the interpretation that best fits the entirety of scripture. Investigation of this topic should be performed apart from any questions that arise from modern empirical study of nature. Our interpretation of different revelations should be performed independently before the results are brought together to check for consistency [2]. And, while a discussion of the methodological issues involved in harmonizing interpretations of general and special revelation is outside the scope of this paper, some resources are noted in an endnote [3].

Given the multitude of different interpretations of the creation account proper (Genesis 1:1-2:3) and other texts, an exhaustive comparison of every position is simply not feasible. For this paper I concentrated on the three major views covered in the book The Genesis Debate, edited by David Hagopian [4]. These are:

1. The 24hr Interpretation
2. The Day-Age Interpretation
3. The Framework Interpretation



As the result of my research, I consider the Framework Interpretation to be the most consistent with the biblical data.

In addition, I've found that non-exegetical factors are often a significant motivation for modern interpreters who hold the other two views. Regarding Genesis 1, modern adherents of both the Day-Age and 24hr views are hampered in their exegesis by their desire to use the text in advancement of certain apologetical positions, neither of which the text is meant to comment on. A defense of this claim is not central to analyses of the positions themselves, and so is relegated to a few endnotes [5, 6].

Additionally, it seems that proponents of the 24hr view often bind themselves to the traditions of the fathers and bring their view not as an option but as a forgone conclusion, even while denying that they do so. Although an interpretation that has the majority report in church history must be taken seriously, it is simply inappropriate to let history dictate our conclusions. As our knowledge of societies and cultures much different than our own increases we must be prepared to revise our views in light of new context. Semper reformanda (always reforming) must be our motto in both word and practice as we investigate what Scripture has to say.

* While Scripture reports accurate history, it always does so with a redemptive-historical purpose, and sometimes a topical framework was chosen for this purpose rather than strict chronological narration. That the Genesis creation account proper is one of these times is the contention of the Framework Interpretation.


DEFINITION

The FI is primarily an interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3 that regards the seven-day scheme as a figurative framework. The six days of creation are presented as normal solar days within a larger literary structure, not intended to be understood literalistically [7]. That is, the text explains that God created in history, but it uses a topically-structured narrative unconcerned with chronological order by which to declare God's creative work with the purpose of stressing a major theological teaching [8]. The focus of the narrative is on the person of God. It serves a preamble-like function for the Pentateuch, which thematically seems to follow the structure of ancient covenantal documents [9]. The purpose of such a treaty preamble is to declare that Yahweh, the covenantal Lord of Israel, is the sovereign Creator of the cosmos.

24hr View

As background information, the 24hr view considers the 'days' of Genesis to be strictly 24-hour periods of time. Proponents of the typical 24hr view will claim that God created in six sequential 24-hour periods, and that he did so approximately 10,000 years ago. The universe is usually claimed to be 6,000 years old, sometimes a bit older, but certainly not allowing a billions-year old earth and universe as the Day-Age proponents accept [10].

Day-Age View

Day-Age proponents argue that the days of Genesis 1 are to be understood sequentially, but not as 24 hour periods. They claim that the Hebrew word translated as 'day' can be understood in this context as a long period of time, an age. Each of the 'days' of Genesis 1 is an age. Those who hold the Day-Age view generally accept the findings of modern science regarding the age of the earth and universe, both being billions of years old [11].

Two primary elements distinguish the Framework Interpretation from the Day-Age and 24hr interpretations:


1. The Non-literalistic Element
2. The Non-sequential Element


1. The Non-literalistic Element

The position of the FI is that the 'days' of creation mean normal solar days, but that they do not refer to normal solar days. Some readers may not be familiar with the meaning/referent distinction so a few examples might be helpful.

"Steve Smith's dad just arrived."

In the above sentence the word 'dad' has both a meaning and a referent. Its meaning has to do with relationships between members of a family, specifically between a male parent and his children. In contrast, in this sentence it refers to a specific person. While it refers to a specific person, Jack Smith, the word 'dad' does not itself mean "Jack Smith" since it can be used of other men who have children as well.

Exodus 32:11 - "But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. And he said, “O Lord, why does your anger burn against your people, whom you have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?"

When the Bible speaks of God bringing his people out of Egypt by "a mighty hand," the word hand means hand even though it does not refer to a flesh-and-blood reality. It refers instead to God's powerful abilities.

Finally, when Jesus calls Herod a fox in Luke 13:32, he's not trying to confuse everyone by claiming that Herod is a member of a species of small four-legged mammals. That is what the word itself means, but when seen in the wider context, it's obvious that it is not the referent.

The FI differs from the 24hr view in that the 24hr view claims the 'days' both mean and refer to 24-hour periods. It also differs from the Day-Age view because that view sees the 'days' both meaning and referring to long periods of time. Hopefully the above examples help to explain what is meant by the Framework Interpretation taking the days of creation to mean, but not refer to, normal solar days, set in the larger context of a literary framework.

2. The Non-sequential element

In association with the non-literalistic character of the creation days, the FI also sees a non-sequential aspect in the narrative of God's creation. Moses arranged the record of the eight historical creative acts in a topical framework. Narrative order and historical sequence might coincide, but the order of narration does not by itself determine the historical sequence. For example, the text that discusses Day 4 is a return to the subject matter of Day 1 for further discussion, not necessarily demanding that the events on Day 4 are chronologically after the events of Day 1. The use of non-sequential narration by a biblical author shouldn't come as a surprise. Non-sequential narration, also known as dischronologization, is a literary style easily found in Scripture. Here are some examples:

A. Ezra 4:1-24

Ezra 4 records "the enemies of Judah and Benjamin" offering to help build the temple for YHWH, then being rejected, then doing what they could to oppose and discourage the Jews from their rebuilding program. The narrative flows as follows:



1) Verses 1-5 describe events in the reign of Cyrus (559-530)
2) Verse 6 describes events in the reign of Xerxes (486-465)
3) Verses 7-23 describe events in the reign of Artaxerxes I (465-424)
4) Verse 24 describes events in the reign of Darius I (522-486)



The text describes opposition to rebuilding temple in the 6th century B.C., opposition to building the walls of city in the 5th, and a return to discussion of temple again in the 6th century. The author decided to arrange his narrative with thematic unity as his concern, not strict chronology. A straightforward reading of the text would lead us to believe that the work on the temple that ceased during the reign of Darius I came after Xerxes and Artaxerxes since there are no literary indications that the narrative is non-sequential. However, we know this is not the case. This is an excellent example of unmarked dischronologization.

B. The Matthean and Lukan Temptation Accounts

When one compares the temptation accounts recorded in Matt 4 and Luke 4, it is obvious that they are narrated in different orders.

Matt 4
Jesus tempted to turn stones to bread
Jesus tempted to throw himself down
Jesus tempted to worship Satan

Luke 4
Jesus tempted to turn stones to bread
Jesus tempted to worship Satan
Jesus tempted to throw himself down

Nothing in either text would lead us to think the narrative was dischronologized, but at least one author has narrated it in a non-sequential way. Here too dischronologization was employed in the absence of identifying markers.

Biblical writers sometimes use a specific type of dischronologization in which something is described and then returned to in order to add further detail. Moses himself uses this literary technique, even in Genesis 1-2.

C. The Creation of Man

Genesis 1:27
"God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them."

Genesis 1:26-28 briefly notes that God creates mankind (both man and woman) before moving on to describe God's resting. Then, in Genesis 2 the narrative returns to the creation event of mankind and offers further details, even stating that the man and women were not created at the same time but that the woman was created after the man named the animals. It states that God created the man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into him. Then, after the man had been created, God created the woman from a part of the man.

In Genesis 1 Moses declares that God created mankind, and Genesis 2 returns to the creation event and adds more detail, describing how God created the man and the woman.

Randall Buth discusses the phenomena of "unmarked temporal overlay" in ANE literature in which an author will write about events in a non-chronological narrative format without any grammatical indicators to let us know that he's dischronologizing. Buth says:

"As we look at examples of this phenomenon, we will notice two different ways in which the temporal overlay can be signaled outside of the grammar. One method is through lexical reference and/or repetition" [12]

By this he means that the same words or phrases are repeated, indicating a return to the same material. Buth cites Leviticus 16:6-11 as an "extreme case of overlay."



a. And Aaron will offer his sin-bull
b. and he will make atonement for himself and his house
c. and he will take the two goats ...
i. and Aaron will offer his sin-bull
j. and he will make atonement for himself and his house
k. and he will slaughter his sin-bull


"In this outline of duties for the Day of Atonement the author consciously repeats details that have already been mentioned. The wayyiqtol system is used throughout for serial actions that are sequential. However, in v. 11 (lines i-j) the description returns to the identical actions of v. 6 (lines a-b). Here, the author not only refers to the same actions, he repeats every word exactly. This can be taken as an extreme case of "overlay."[13]

As a really obvious example, Buth points to the repeated statements showing that the author refers to the same actions even though the grammar would indicate pure sequence. Buth continues:

"Not every word need be repeated in order to provide a lexical signal to a grammatically unmarked temporal overlay. The war of Benjamin in Judg. 20:31-47 provides many examples where one or two words suffice to signal to the reader that the author is going over the same material a second time, adding some details."[14]

Buth goes on to describe how the biblical author uses "lexical reference" of repeating words with the purpose of indicating that the Judges text is not strictly chronological.

The conclusion of Buth's work is that the writers will sometimes use word repetition instead of grammatical indicators to signal dischronologization.

So, a biblical writer might narrate his story in a non-sequential way and instead arrange the material according to thematic concerns [15].

The claim that Scripture relates the events of Genesis 1 in a non-sequential order does not detract from its historicity. We must keep in mind that the primary purpose of the biblical record is not to simply educate us on historical matters (though it does that), but to convey important theological truths by describing God's redemptive-historical acts.

So, the non-literalistic and non-sequential aspects of the Genesis creation narrative are the focus of the Framework Interpretation. We now offer three major exegetical arguments in support.


1. Two-Triad Structure
2. Because It Had Not Rained
3. A Day Is A Day Is A Day




TWO-TRIAD STRUCTURE

We begin with the observation that the account is structured according to a two-triad framework (two sets of three days) climaxing in a final seventh day. The first triad describes the creation of the immovable creation kingdoms while the second describes the creation of the movable creature kings.

Creation Kingdoms******Creature Kings
(immovables)************(movables)
Day 1 Light***********Day 4 Luminaries
Day 2 Sky / Seas ******Day 5 Sea / winged creatures
Day 3 Land ********** Day 6 Land animals
Vegetation *************Man

The Creator King
Day 7 Sabbath

The seventh day, standing apart from the two triads, climaxes with reference to God as the Creator King. On this day, God is enthroned over all of his creation by entering into his Sabbath rest. Several features of this two-triadic framework are prominent.

Kingdoms and Kings

We can summarize the content of triads 1 and 2 as immovable "kingdoms" and movable "kings." The kings of triad-2 are to "rule over" their respective triad-1 kingdoms.

Days 1/4

God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night (Gen 1:16)
The text says explicitly that the luminaries were made to 'rule over' the day and night.

Days 2/5

God blessed them and said, "God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” (Gen 1:22)
"Be fruitful/multiply" is a dominion mandate just like man's dominion mandate to "be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis 1:28.

Days 3/6

Days three and six are special for several reasons that will be examined more fully below. Here we note that man is not only to rule over the land and vegetation, but over all the birds, fish, cattle, and things that creep on the earth. Man is the consummation of God's creation. He is Yahweh's vassal-king [16].

Day 7
Finally, God is enthroned as the Creator King, the overlord above all things he has created.

The above is a basic exposition of the Framework Interpretation. While some minor objections have been offered claiming that the parallelism isn't perfect, the broad structure is undeniable. The objections will be considered after presenting the three exegetical arguments.

Eight Works in Six Days

Beside the thematic parallels seen in the kings ruling over the kingdoms, the account contains further literary parallels. In The Genesis Debate, Irons/Kline note that liberal-critical scholars have used the occurrence of eight creation events in six days as an argument against its coherence. The liberal scholars argue that a priestly redactor took an old hypothetical creation account and forced it into a six-day scheme to fit the priestly Sabbath theology. Following this, Irons/Kline go on to say:

"Such source-critical speculations are totally unnecessary. The same data can be accounted for by simply recognizing that Moses employed a literary framework. He wanted to highlight the strong connections between Day 3 (vegetation) and Day 6 (man) to set the stage for the institution of the covenant of works in the garden, which was based upon a close relationship between man and vegetation (i.e., the two trees in Gen. 2:9). The dual thematic focus established by the parallel third and sixth day-frames sets the stage for Genesis 2:4-25, which resumes and expands upon this twofold theme of vegetation and man. Moses placed two creative acts on Day 3 and Day 6, while all the other days contain only one fiat, which strengthens the connection between vegetation and man, thus preparing for the subsequent narrative which would explain that connection in greater detail (Gen. 2:4-25)." [17]

Here is how the creative acts of God fit into the literary framework:
Triad 1 Triad 2
A A'
B B'
C D C' D'

Irons/Kline continue:

"We can now appreciate the theological significance of the literary design that brought the first triad of days to a climax in trees and the second triad to a climax in man. In this way, the design set the stage for the crucial connection of the two that would be examined in greater detail in the subsequent narrative of man's unsuccessful probation under the covenant of works (Gen. 2-3)." [18]

Chiastic Relationship of Days Two and Five [19]

The triadic framework described above in the Kings and Kingdoms section shows the broad structural outline. In addition we noted further thematic and structural aspects of the 3/6 day-pair that shows they are linked. Days 2 and 5 also have a unique link in addition to their thematic unity, and that is the chiastic arrangement of the sky/sea kingdoms and kings. The account uses a very common Hebrew chiastic form:


A (Sky kingdom)
B (Sea kingdom)
B' (Sea creatures)
A' (Sky creatures)



Moses could have simply used the same order, but chose to use an additional literary device found very often in the Old Testament.

Parallelism of Days One and Four

Days 1 and 4 show a very strong parallelism by the following:



1. Same thematic content
2. Same language of 'separation'
3. Same purpose - to 'separate' the light from the dark



Both Day 1 and Day 4 deal with the same topic, light/darkness and day/night. There can be no question that the two days are linked thematically. While the two days obviously cover the same theme, an even greater identification is shown by the use of the same language of separation.

Day 1
Gen. 1:4 says: "so God separated the light from the darkness"

Day 4
Gen 1:14 says: "to separate the day from the night"
Gen 1:18 says: "to separate the light from the darkness"

Such usage of the same language seems to qualify as what Buth calls "a lexical signal to a grammatically unmarked temporal overlay." (see discussion above) Some might object that Genesis 1 is not poetry, and therefore it's inappropriate to identify this type of literary structure. However, Buth's example from Judges 20 shows that there are no obstacles from even straightforward historical prose using unmarked temporal overlay (unmarked dischronologization) signaled by lexical reference.

The recognition that the events on both days are described by the same language of separation leads to our third point, which is that the purpose of the creative acts narrated on Days 1 and 4 is the same, to separate. This shows not only that the text is covering similar thematic content, but also that Day 4 is actually returning to the events of Day 1 and offering further commentary.

Similar to Genesis 2 revisiting the creation of man in Genesis 1 in order to add detail about how God created man, Day 4 revisits Day 1 and describes in more detail how God created daylight on the earth and separated the light from the darkness. That is, Day 1 gives us the results, and Day 4 comes back and discusses the means that God used to generate the results of Day 1.

God created man God created light
This is how God created man This is how God created light

God's purpose on Day 1 was to separate the light from the darkness. Did God fail in doing what he set out to do on Day 1 and thus require another attempt on Day 4 with the purpose of separating light from darkness? Of course not. Because of the identical purpose between Days 1 and 4, we can confidently say that the text is simply returning to a previous point in the narrative in order to offer further details, again, a how for the what described on Day 1. For the 24hr and Day-Age views this evidence of non-sequential narration is a big problem because both views interpret the 'days' as happening in sequential order.

Sabbatical Symbolism

The Sabbath concept is used in scripture to provide a literary scheme for thinking about redemptive history. Strict literalistic sequence does not always seem to be a concern to the biblical author. He intends on using the sabbatical symbolism to illustrate a theological point. Here are two examples: the seventy-years captivity and Matthew's genealogical structure.

A. The Seventy-Years Captivity

The "seventy years" of the Babylonian captivity is a rounded number from the actual 66-67 years from the first deportation in 605 B.C. to Cyrus's decree of liberation in 538 B.C. This captivity time is described as "seventy years" in order to convey the theological significance of this exile. These years in captivity were to be Sabbath make-ups for the lack of Sabbath-year observance by the Israelites. Moses prophesies this in Leviticus 26:43 and 2 Chronicles 36:21 records it as well (cf. Jeremiah 25:11):

Leviticus 26:43 - The land will be abandoned by them in order that it may make up for its Sabbaths while it is made desolate without them, and they will make up for their iniquity because they have rejected my regulations and have abhorred my statutes.

2 Chronicles 36:21 - This took place to fulfill the Lord’s message delivered through Jeremiah. The land experienced its Sabbatical years; it remained desolate for seventy years, as prophesied

Because Israel refused to obey God's symbolically-rich command to 'rest' the land every seven years, God showed them its importance by the "seventy years" make-up time.
This example shows sabbatical symbolism is used to convey an important theological truth, not concerned with a strict literalistic interpretation of "seventy years."

B. Matthew's Genealogical Structure

In the genealogy of Jesus given in Matt 2, Matthew purposely structures his genealogical account in order to convey theological meaning. It is quite interesting that in something as 'boring' as a genealogy, a biblical author can convey theological truth. Matthew arranges the genealogy so that there are 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 generations from David to the captivity, and 14 from the captivity to the Messiah. This set of 3x14, or 6x7 can be viewed as leading up to the final "seventh seven" where the Messiah brings the inauguration of the Sabbath rest for the people of God. In order to achieve this structure Matthew dropped at least four names and counted David twice, showing that he was structuring his account in order to convey theology without being concerned with strict chronological narration [20].

If later uses of the seven-day scheme in redemptive revelation are symbolic and not necessarily concerned with exact chronological succession, there's no reason to automatically reject such a use of the seven-day framework in the Genesis account. This is not arguing that because sabbatical symbolism is used in scripture it must also be used here, but instead that we shouldn't be surprised if we find the Genesis creation account Sabbatically structured according to theological concerns.

Conclusion

The recognition of the presence of a literary framework as described in the sections above is sufficient to make a topical, non-chronological interpretation plausible. However, literary frameworks do not of themselves completely rule out sequential narration. For that we had to examine the special relationship of Days 1 and 4 in which we saw that Day 4 was a return to the events of Day 1 in order to add more detail concerning how God chose to bring about what he accomplished on Day 1. Thus both the non-literalistic and non-sequential components of the Framework Interpretation have been supported in our first exegetical argument.


BECAUSE IT HAD NOT RAINED

Historically, one of the biggest problems with the 24hr interpretation has been the fact that the Sun wasn't created until Day 4. A common response is that God sustained the day/night cycle by supernatural, non-ordinary means during the first three days. The FI contention is, however, that Gen 2:5 rules out the usage of non-ordinary means because it teaches a principle of continuity between the post-creation period (specifically, during Moses' day) and the week of creation: God was using the same ordinary means of sustaining his creation.

Exegesis

Genesis 2:5 - Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

Genesis 2:5 presents a problem, no shrubs and plants.

When Moses explains why this problem occurs and how it is overcome, we see that he holds the above-mentioned continuity principal as an unargued presupposition. We see this because he offers his audience an ordinary, natural way of explaining why no plant had sprouted:

A. for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth
B. and there was no man to cultivate the ground

Then, to deal with this twofold problem, God supplies rain and a cultivator, both perfectly natural and ordinary ways of overcoming an ordinary problem. To someone in agriculture it's obvious that no rain means no plant growth. That is, unless one irrigates the land. The Israelites would have been very familiar with this problem, seeing as how they lived in an agricultural society and saw (and probably built) irrigation systems in Egypt. What this would have meant to an Israelite is that God did not create vegetation until he had established the natural means of sustaining that vegetation. Moses assumes the Israelites would see the logic of the situation. So, his giving a natural explanation presupposes continuity between the creation world and the post-creation world (the world of his audience) as a general principle:

* 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.


A DAY IS A DAY IS A DAY

The final primary exegetical argument concerns Moses' use of the word 'day' (Hebrew yom - יום) in the narration of the creation week. Perhaps the best way to work through this argument is to see how the 24hr group defends its interpretation and challenges the interpretation of the Day-Age group.

What does יום mean?

Proponents of the 24hr view will vigorously assert that the Hebrew יום of Genesis 1 are to be understood as periods of 24 hours and cannot be understood as long periods of time as the Day-Age view holds. Kenneth Gentry has written the best summary of the arguments for this position in an article entitled In the Space of Six Days. His first argument is:

"Argument from Primary Meaning. The preponderant usage of the word "day" (Heb. יום) in the OT is of a normal diurnal period. The overwhelming majority of its 2,304 appearances in the OT clearly refer either to a normal, full day-and-night cycle, or to the lighted portion of that cycle. In fact, on Day 1 God himself "called" the light "day" (Gen 1:5), establishing the temporal significance of the term in the creation week. As Berkhof declares in defending a six day creation: In its primary meaning the word יום denotes a natural day; and it is a good rule in exegesis, not to depart from the primary meaning of a word, unless this is required by the context" (Systematic Theology, 154)."[21]

The summary statement is:

The primary meaning of the word יום is a normal day.

Day-Age proponents reply by noting two things:
1. The Hebrew word יום is sometimes used in the OT to mean "a long period of time." That is, this meaning falls within the semantic field of the word יום and is therefore a possible interpretation in Genesis 1.

2. Observations of the natural world and the teaching of other biblical texts point to an old earth. For these reasons the Day-Age view is not only possible (from point #1), but superior to the 24hr view.

It is true that the semantic field of יום includes "a long period of time." 24hr proponents acknowledge this, but counter with additional evidences that show יום in this specific context has a narrow semantic field that excludes "a long period of time."

"Argument from Explicit Qualification. So that we not miss his point, Moses relentlessly qualifies each of the six creation days by "evening and morning." Outside of Genesis 1 the words "evening" and "morning" appear in statements thirty-two times in the OT, presenting the two parts defining a normal day (e.g., Ex 16:13; 18:13; 27:21). Robert L. Dabney observed in defending a six day creation: The sacred writer seems to shut us up to the literal interpretation by describing the days as comprised of its natural parts, morning and evening" (Systematic Theology, 255).

Argument from Numerical Prefix. Genesis 1 attaches a numeral to each of the creation days: first, second, third, etc. Moses affixes numerical adjectives to יום 119 times in his writings. These always signify literal days, as in circumcision on the "eighth day" (Lev 12:3; cp. Nu 33:38). The same holds true for the 357 times numerical adjectives qualify יום outside the Pentateuch. ... As Gerhard Hasel observes: This triple interlocking connection of singular usage, joined by a numeral, and the temporal definition of 'evening and morning,' keeps the creation 'day' the same throughout the creation account. It also reveals that time is conceived as linear and events occur within it successively. To depart from the numerical, consecutive linkage and the 'evening-morning' boundaries in such direct language would mean to take extreme liberty with the plain and direct meaning of the Hebrew language" ("The 'Days' of Creation," Origins 21:1 [1984] 26)."[22]


The 24hr proponents have made a very strong case. From a semantic perspective the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of understanding the יום of Genesis 1 as ordinary, normal days. Day-Age proponents commit what D.A. Carson calls the fallacy of Unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field. In his book Exegetical Fallacies, Carson writes:

"The fallacy in this instance lies in the supposition that the meaning of a word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and may bring with it the word's entire semantic range."[23]

Narrowing a Semantic Field

Perhaps some comments on what it means to "narrow a semantic field" might be helpful. Assume we have a text that uses the word 'blah' 100 times. We have previously established that there are four possible ways that this word can be understood. In 40 of the 100 occurrences, a modifier 'foo' is attached to 'blah' and in every case 'blah' has only meaning #2. We can here identify something that these 40 occurrences have in common with each other that the other 60 do not have, and that is the presence of the adjectival modifier 'foo' and they all mean #2. The presence of 'foo' narrows the semantic field of 'blah'.

Now, let's say that we read through the text again and realize that there are 41, not 40 occurrences of 'blah' with 'foo'. For the case of the 41st instance, the context allows any of the four possible meanings to be used. However, because 41 shares the common feature with the other 40 instances, we have to use the exact same meaning as the other 40 instances have (#2). Only if no interpretations that used meaning #2 were available would we be justified in using a meaning not in the narrowed semantic field. This is the case in Genesis 1.

Transcending the disputed cases, there is never a time when Moses uses a numerical adjectival qualifier and means something other than a normal day. Because alternate interpretations are available, the יום of Genesis 1 cannot be understood as long ages.

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 יום 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 יום in Genesis 1 defines Days 4-6—after God creates the sun—expressly 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 יום from the first three days: they are measured by the same temporal designator (יום), 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 יום is used like this, it always means a normal day," a FI advocate could simply reply with "yes, every time יום 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 יום 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].

Neither is there any evidence that Moses' audience would have thought of a day as the time taken for the Earth to spin once on its axis. That is entirely a modern concept.

One of the most prominent of the Young Earth Creationists agrees with me. Jonathan Sarfati (of Answers In Genesis) says:

"It is only recently that the astronomical fact has been realized that a day-night cycle needs only light plus rotation. Having ‘day’ without the sun would have been generally inconceivable to the ancients."[28]

The claim that they would have made a conceptual jump to a non-solar 'day' instead of simply recognizing the presence of literary devices, of which they were much more accustomed to than us, requires significant evidence that I have not yet seen.

Conclusion

Given the strength of the semantic argument, neither the Day-Age nor the 24hr views are acceptable, especially since a plausible alternative interpretation is readily available. Because the Framework Interpretation claims that the יום of Genesis 1 retain the exact same meaning as the other occurrences that use numerical modifiers, it alone avoids the fallacy of Unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field and retains consistent usage within the creation account itself.


OBJECTIONS

Before examining other texts, we will consider some objections that have been raised against the FI.

Objection: Exodus 20/31

Exodus 20:11 - For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it.

Exodus 31:17 - ...for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

Advocates of the 24hr position appeal to these texts, arguing that they show that the days of Genesis 1 are "clearly" to be understood as normal days.

"Perhaps the most frequently raised objection to the framework interpretation is that it cannot deal with the divine commandment to labor for six days and rest on the seventh (Exo. 20:8-11). Noel Weeks argues that "Exodus 20:8-11 is significant in that it gives us a clear answer to the debated question about whether the 'days' of Genesis are to be taken literally. The commandment loses completely its cogency if they are not taken literally."[29]

Two central objections come to mind, one methodological and one exegetical.

First, those who attempt to utilize this approach to biblical exegesis are using a faulty methodology. It is improper to appeal to a short allusion as a grid by which to interpret a previously-given extended exposition of a topic. Moses is not here dictating how the creation account (which was itself the exposition) is to be understood, but appealing to it only as a model. The proper methodology is to understand the full exposition where the topic is dealt with in detail before attempting to determine what is meant by the much shorter allusion.

Second, the Exodus texts cannot be understood literalistically. Here Irons/Kline are right when they say that not only does this fail as an argument against the FI, but that it actually argues in favor of it. It demonstrates that the language of God's working and resting must be understood metaphorically and not literalistically.

Exodus 31:17 says "on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed."

Irons/Kline point out that the verb "to refresh oneself"[30] is only used two other times in the Hebrew Bible, both indicating that the one who refreshed himself was weary from exhaustion.

Exodus 23:12 - For six days you may do your work, but on the seventh day you must cease, so your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female servant and your slave may refresh themselves.

2 Samuel 16:14 - The king and all the people who were with him arrived exhausted at their destination, where David refreshed himself.

If the passages have to be interpreted literalistically, then we would have to acknowledge that God actually gets weary. FI proponents are unwilling to do this and therefore interpret the passages metaphorically, consistent with the metaphorical interpretation of the days in Genesis 1 [31].

Gentry's other remarks [32] about the analogy being useless unless God created in a literal week, and that viewing Genesis 1 as a literary framework "inverts reality" seem to be nothing more than bald assertions, and not even good ones at that.

Supporting the FI, the Exodus 20/31 texts offer additional evidence for a metaphorical interpretation of the days, contradicting a literalistic interpretation.

Objection: Broken Parallelism

Grudem brings the following two objections against the parallelism describe in our first exegetical argument.

"1. First, the proposed correspondence between the days of creation is not nearly as exact as its advocates have supposed. The sun, moon, and stars created on the fourth day as "lights in the firmament of the heavens" (Gen.1:14) are placed not in any space created on Day 1 but in the "firmament" (Heb. Raqia- רקיע) that was created on the second day. In fact, the correspondence in language is quite explicit: this "firmament" is not mentioned at all on Day 1 but five times on day 2 (Gen.1:6-8) and three times on Day 4 (Gen.1:14-19). Of course Day 4 also has correspondences with Day 1 (in terms of day and night, light and darkness), but if we say that the second three days show the creation of things to fill the forms or spaces created on the first three days, then Day 4 overlaps at least as much with Day 2 as it does with Day 1."[33]

Apparently Grudem is either unaware of, or misunderstands the argument as put forth by Kline.[34] Genesis 1:16 and 1:18 explicitly state what the luminaries are to rule over (the argument does not concern the 'filling' but the 'ruling' of the creature kings), and that is the "day and the night" and "the light and the darkness." The placement of the luminaries in the 'firmament' is irrelevant regarding what they are explicitly stated as created to rule over.

2. Grudem's second objection is somewhat more interesting, but also offers little force. The claim is that the seas were not actually formed until the 3rd day when land was created to separate them, and so the fish and sea creatures created on Day 5 correspond to Day 3 rather than Day 2.

It is true that the fish are commanded to "fill the waters in the seas." However, while I can understand the desire for a more exact language parallel, it would not have been possible for Moses to call the waters on Day 2 "seas" because this implies waters bounded by dry land. The waters that composed the seas (the "waters of the seas") were made on Day 2 and bounded on Day 3 as a secondary byproduct of God's creation of dry land. The focus is on the environment that they are to rule over, which was created on Day 2. We might desire a greater linguistic parallel (seas on Day2 without being bounded by land?) but it's difficult to regard this as a serious objection to the two-triad structure of the creation account.

Objection: No death before the Fall

Since the Framework Interpretation does not necessarily imply death before the fall, this argument does not have any direct force against it. Regardless, I believe it can be demonstrated that not only does Scripture allow for death before the Fall, it even seems to imply that there was death amongst non-humans. Admittedly, this was the most difficult issue for me in even considering the claims of Old Earth Creationists. It was only after I studied the issue in some depth that I came to accept the fact that the Bible's teaching on death as a consequence of sin is only applicable to mankind. For more information, see Lee Irons' article "Animal Death Before the Fall: What Does the Bible Say?"[35] and, eventually, my position paper (forthcoming, really!).


OTHER TEXTS AND ARGUMENTS

In addition to the primary arguments given above, several other supporting arguments can be offered [36].

Eternal Seventh Day

The eternal nature of the seventh day is another evidence of non-literalistic interpretation required for the days of Genesis 1. Two points need to be made.

1. The seventh day means a normal solar day. It has a numerical qualifier that serves to narrow the semantic field allowing only for a normal day interpretation, just like the other six occurrences in Genesis 1.

2. The seventh day refers to a long and even unending time. This is perhaps hinted at by the lack of the "evening and morning" refrain. It is certainly suggested by the nature of the day as God's rest, meaning his enthronement over his creation that will never cease.

The exegesis of New Testament authors supports this interpretation as well.

Hebrews 4

Hebrews 4 concerns the promised Sabbath-rest for the people of God. God rested in Genesis 2:2, and because we are to imitate him, it is our eschatological focus as ones made in the divine image to enter into his rest. While God rested on the seventh day, his rest that we are called to enter into is still ongoing as shown by several texts in Hebrews 4. Verse one tells us that the promise of entering his rest still stands:

Heb 4:1 - Therefore we must be wary that, while the promise of entering his rest remains open, none of you may seem to have come short of it.

In fact, the author of Hebrews appears to equate the seventh day of creation with his rest:

Heb 4:4-5 - For he has spoken somewhere about the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,” but to repeat the text cited earlier: “They will never enter my rest!”

If God's rest is still ongoing, and the "seventh day" is his rest as the author of Hebrews says, then this means that the seventh day is still ongoing.

John 5:17

In John 5:16ff, the Jews persecuted Jesus because he "was doing these things on the Sabbath." Their argument is that Jesus shouldn't be 'working' on the Sabbath.

One of the most important principles of the father/son relationship in Judaism is the principle of imitation. Sons are to imitate their fathers and bring honor to them through their good conduct. It is on this commonly understood basis that Jesus offers a defense of his actions. He defends his working on the Sabbath by appealing to the imitation principle, that he is simply imitating what God is doing, doing good works on his Sabbath.

The Jews claim is: "You are working on the Sabbath, which is not allowed."

Jesus' response is: "In order to be a good son, I am to imitate my father, and since he is working on his Sabbath, that is sufficient to justify my working on the Sabbath."

If Jesus was not appealing to God's working on his Sabbath in order to justify his own working on his Sabbath, then what is he saying?

Both the OT and the NT support the claim that the seventh day, God's Sabbath rest, has an eternal nature. How can the seventh 'day' mean a normal solar day and refer to an eternal period of time? Only if it is used metaphorically as the Framework Interpretation contends.


CONCLUSION

The following six points summarize why I consider the Framework Interpretation to be the most consistent with the biblical evidence.



1. The obvious two-triadic literary framework in Genesis 1.

2. The evidence that Day 4 is a return to the events of Day 1 and describes in more detail how God separated the light from the darkness.

3. The principle of continuity, showing that God established the ordinary means of sustaining a creation before he created it.

4. The argument from semantics showing that the days must mean normal solar days. Neither abnormal non-solar 24-hour periods nor long ages can be considered within the semantic range of the Genesis 1 creation 'days'.

5.The metaphorical interpretation of the Exodus 20/31 passages is most consistent with the FI view on Genesis 1.

6. The eternal nature of the seventh day requires a metaphorical interpretation.



So far I've been entirely unimpressed with the critiques of the Framework Interpretation. Even though I consider my views on this topic to be tentative, I can't help but think of the weakness of the arguments I've seen against it as an indication of the strength of the view that I've come to hold [37].


SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archer, Gleason L. Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, revised (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994).

Blocher, Henri, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1984).

Buth, Randall "Methodological Collision Between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis: The Problem of 'Unmarked Temporal Overlay' and the Pluperfect/Nonsequential wayyiqtol," Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. Robert D. Bergen (Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994) pp 138-154.

Futato, Mark D. "Because It Had Rained: A Study of Gen 2:5-7 with Implications for Gen 2:4-25 and Gen 1:1-2:3," WTJ 60 (1998): 1-21. Available from http://www.thirdmill.org

Gentry, Kenneth, "In the Space of Six Days," Ordained Servant vol. 9, no. 1 (January 2000) pp. 12-16. Available at http://www.opc.org/OS/html/V9/1d.html

Gentry, Kenneth, "Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation," Available at http://www.the-highway.com/creation_Gentry.html

Green, William H., "Primeval Chronology” Bibliotheca Sacra (April, 1890) pp. 285-303. Available at http://www.girs.com/library/theology/syllabus/creation_green.html

Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995).

Hagopian, Daivd G., ed., The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001).

Hasel, Gerhard F., "The "Days" of Creation in Genesis 1: Literal "Days" or Figurative "Periods / Epochs" of Time?" Origins 21(1):5-38 (1994). Available at http://www.ldolphin.org/haseldays.html

Irons, Lee, "Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary," Ordained Servant 9:1 (January, 2000) pp. 7-11. Available from http://www.upper-register.com

Kline, Meredith G., "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 48:2-15 (1996). Available at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html

Kline, Meredith G., "Because It Had Not Rained," WTJ 20 (1958):146-157. Available at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html

Kulikovsky, Andrew S., "A Critique of the Literary Framework View of the Days of Creation," 2001. Available at
http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/Framework.pdf

Pipa, Joseph, "From Chaos to Cosmos: A Critique of the Framework Hypothesis," (Draft January 13, 1998). Available at http://capo.org/cpc/pipa.htm

Ross, Hugh, Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 1994).

Sarfati, Jonathan, " How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day?" http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp

Stambaugh, James, "The Days of Creation: A Semantic Approach" CEN Technical Journal 5(1):70-78, 1991. Available at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4204tj_v5n1.asp

"Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation - A Brief Statement" Available at http://www.wts.edu/news/creation.html

NOTES

[1]While these are my views, I cannot help but note that they are not original with me. For much of the outline and content of this paper I relied on the Irons/Kline presentation of the Framework Interpretation in The Genesis Debate. While departing in places, it should be obvious that I borrowed heavily from them. An appendix contains a short bibliography of relevant literature that was used in the course of my research. Scripture quotations are taken from the NET bible, available at http://www.netbible.org, unless otherwise noted.

[2]This would apply to the interpretations of different biblical texts as well. One must interpret material in Paul's letter to the Romans independent of the content of John's epistles. The results are to be systematized and checked for consistency only after they are interpreted as individual units.

[3]See my position paper "On the Methodological Issues Involved in Harmonizing Interpretations of Biblical and Natural Revelations," forthcoming. As I remember/see helpful resources, I'll note them here in future revisions.

[4]Hagopian, David G., ed., The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001).

[5]Hugh Ross is probably the most well known proponent of the Day-Age position. As much as I respect Dr. Ross, it seems to me his writings indicate that he approaches the question of Genesis 1 with an improper methodology. His thinking appears to be that we need a testable creation model, so that means that we have to interpret Genesis to give us a model. Such an approach is improper. Whether or not we desire to extract a testable model from Genesis 1 is irrelevant to whether or not it speaks to the issue. We must not force the text to speak on a matter on which it is silent. Let exegesis determine whether or not the text can give us a model before digging one out of it.

[6]24hr proponents often improperly link the age of the earth/universe with biological evolutionary issues. One of Hasel's comments is representative of this mindset:

"This short time in the creation account is under debate on the basis of the current naturalistic theory of evolution."

Gentry offers another in Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation:

"Though most Reformed scholars would decry evolutionism, they often capitulate to the evolutionary elite, being pressured to re-interpret Genesis in order to maintain academic credibility. This is a tragic surrender of orthodoxy to the reigning cultural mythology of our day: chance-oriented, naturalistic evolutionism."

The argument runs something like this:

"Evolution is anti-Christian. We cannot allow the text to make room for evolution by interpreting it to allow a billions-year-old earth. Once that is done, we've opened up a way to explain life without God."

Simply because an interpretation opens the door to allow the possibility of Darwinian evolution in no way justifies such an approach to the text. One might well argue that we cannot interpret the Bible to teach any type of subordination of the Son to the Father, since this opens the door to the possibility of the Son as a lesser being than the Father. Such an approach would rule out the biblical teaching of functional subordination of the Son to the Father. Clearly, such an approach is wrong.

[7]Here I draw a distinction between 'literal' and 'literalistic' that most commenting on this issue do not. When Jesus says "I am the door" we are to interpret his words literally, meaning within their literary context (symbolically) but not literalistically. That is, he's not actually claiming to be a piece of wood with hinges, which is what the 'literalistic' interpretation would be. He's speaking metaphorically.

[8]That major theological teaching is that God is enthroned above his creation by entering into his Sabbath rest and that we are to have an eschatological outlook on life, looking forward to our glorification wherein we imitate him and enter into eschatological rest, ruling with him.

[9]See especially The Structure of Biblical Authority by Meredith G. Kline. See also Ancient Orient and Old Testament (p 90ff) by Kenneth Kitchen.

[10]In addition to the relevant sections in The Genesis Debate, the following resources are representative of the Young Earth Creationist camp:

Morris, Henry M., The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1976).

Kelly, Douglas, Creation and Change (Fearn, Ross-shire, U.K.: Christian Focus, 1997).
Answers In Genesis - www.answersingenesis.org
Institute for Creation Research - www.irc.org

[11]Hugh Ross, one of the Day-Age contributors in The Genesis Debate, is probably the most well-known proponent. See his website Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org) for representative resources in addition to the relevant sections in the book.

[12]Buth, Randall, "Methodological Collision Between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis: The Problem of 'Unmarked Temporal Overlay' and the Pluperfect/Nonsequential wayyiqtol," Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. Robert D. Bergen (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994) p 142.

[13]Buth, p 143.

[14]Buth, p 143. My italics.

[15]Oswald T. Allis, in his work The Old Testament: Its Claims and Critics also discusses this issue. See especially the section in Chapter 2 called "Summary Followed by Details" (p 82) where Allis begins:
"We often find that in describing an event, the biblical writer first makes a brief and comprehensive statement and then follows it with more or less elaborate details. This may involve some repetition and is at times confusing."

See also the subsection "Sequence Not Necessarily Chronological" (p 105)

[16]A vassal-king is a servant-king in the suzerain/vassal covenant relationship. The suzerain is the overlord.

[17]Hagopian, The Genesis Debate, pp 227-228.

[18]Hagopian, The Genesis Debate, p 228.

[19]I would not consider this a strong argument. It is unlikely to convince someone who is already not persuaded of the FI, but once one accepts the FI, this is just one more small piece of the puzzle.

[20]Hagopian, The Genesis Debate, p 227.

[21]Gentry, Kenneth, "In the Space of Six Days," Ordained Servant vol. 9, no. 1 (January 2000), pp. 12-16. Available at http://www.opc.org/OS/html/V9/1d.html

[22]Ibid.

[23]Carson, D.A., Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996).

[24]Gentry, Kenneth, "In the Space of Six Days"

[25]Just one of many examples of this can be seen in Stambaugh's paper, "The Days of Creation: A Semantic Approach." He says: "This paper has focused on presenting positive evidence that demonstrates the 'days' of Genesis 1 were solar days." But his desire is actually not to show that they were solar days, because Days 1-3 are non-solar on his view. If he showed they actually mean solar days, he would defeat his own position.

[26]Stambaugh, James, "The Days of Creation: A Semantic Approach"

[27]Electronic searches through online versions of the Old Testament show no uses of 'hour' as a measurement of time. It is only when we get to the New Testament that we see the writers referring to 'hours.' The people marked their time by the rising and setting of the sun, not by abstractions that we are able to use today (hours, minutes, seconds).

[28]Sarfati, Jonathan, "How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day?" see his endnote #2.

[29]Hagopian, Genesis Debate, p 249.

[30]"To refresh oneself" is their translation of the verb. Whether this translation or any other normal translation is used makes no difference.

[31]For an alternate take by someone I highly respect, see http://www.tektonics.org/godtired.html

[32]See his "In the Space of Six Days" paper under the subsection "Argument from Divine Exemplar"

[33]Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995) p 302.

[34]Pipa certainly misunderstands, as he added the following italicized comment to his quote of Grudem in From Chaos to Cosmos: "but if we say that the second three days show the creation of things to fill the forms or spaces created on the first three days (or to rule the kingdoms as Kline says), then Day 4 overlaps at least as much with Day 2 as it does with Day 1."

[35]Available from www.upper-register.com

[36]I'm persuaded from the evidence that the biblical writers viewed God's creation as what Kline has called a two-register cosmology. See his article entitled "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony," published in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Two things strike me as supporting this view. First is the presence of two-register cosmologies in Ancient Near East thought. "A quite literal case of the two-register format is seen in graphic representations like the Assyrian reliefs that picture the king in a lower register, whether driving forward in battle or returning triumphantly, and in a higher register the god in a matching stance." (Kline, Space and Time)

The other is that biblical texts such as Colossians 1:16 show a distinction between "invisible" things in heaven and "visible" things on earth. The verse has a chiastic structure:

A things in heaven
B and on earth
B' things visible
A' and invisible

(see Hagopian, The Genesis Debate p 300)

One of the most dramatic scenes in which we can see the two-register cosmology is when Elisha's servant has the proverbial veil lifted from his eyes so that he might see into the upper register, and there he sees the armies of the Lord protecting his master. (2 Kings 6:17)

[37]I'd like to thank Pastor Gordon Hugenberger of my church (www.parkstreet.org) for my initial exposure to the Framework view. His enthusiasm for God's word is wonderfully contagious.

300


TheologyWeb thanks BrianB for submitting this very well-written piece that is sure to inform and educate and at least allow the brethren to come to a better understanding of this minority view within the various Genesis debates.

300

Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

[dizzle]

This commentary thread is not going to “open” debate but rather is restricted to theists who hold the book of Genesis to be authoritative to their faith and non-theists who can interact using the book of Genesis as authoritative. I also ask the participants that we do not make “science” the main focal point as the piece is a hermeneutical piece and not a scientific treatise. Of course the point will come up, just please do not make it the focus. Thanks – let’s discuss!

[twohumble]

"2. The seventh day refers to a long and even unending time. This is perhaps hinted at by the lack of the "evening and morning" refrain. It is certainly suggested by the nature of the day as God's rest, meaning his enthronement over his creation that will never cease."

I think we see evidence of a pyrimid of inferences not supported by the text. In the above quote from your paper, you have gone from "a long" period , to "even unending time." This is not in line with scripture, since we know that Gods "rest" from creation will cease. His "rest" relates to a cessation of his activity in relation to creation, not just "meaning his enthronement over His creation". Although His enthronement will never cease, the 7th day certainly will. We are told in Revelation that He will re-create, or create anew or again, this marks the end of the 7th day.

You have imposed extraneous meaning on His "rest" and improperly surmised that the 7th day is eternal, when the new creation is the beginning of the 8th day. Hence, I see no need to interpret the 7th day as metaphor.

[twohumble]

You have not indicated what one who holds to the FI, would believe regarding the age of the earth, and sciences "evidence". Can you elaborate?

In your definitions of the three theoretical interpretations, you note that day/age hold to sciences finding, and that young earthers generally dispute scientific findings, but I did not see mention of FI's position here.

[BrianB]

Hi twohumble,

Thank you for being the first to post a response to my paper with constructive criticism. I'll take some time to mull over your thoughts on the 7th day and get back to you after I've thought it through some more.

As far as my understanding of the implications of the FI go, I do not believe that it commits one to either an old earth or a young earth. What it does commit one to (via the Because It Had Not Rained argument) is that God did not rely on extra-ordinary means to sustain his creation once it was created. I guess you might say that this "agrees with science" in some respect, but as far as the age of the earth/universe issue the FI is agnostic.

I hope that helps, and thanks again.
Brian

[twohumble]

Today @ 08:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=279761#post279761)
BrianB:

.....God did not rely on extra-ordinary means to sustain his creation once it was created. I guess you might say that this "agrees with science" in some respect, but as far as the age of the earth/universe issue the FI is agnostic.

I hope that helps, and thanks again.
Brian

Thank you for your reply

If I understand your position as stated above, God does not intervene in a "miraculous" sense, as it relates to creation? By miracle, I mean, God, imposing His will over the laws of nature once He set them in motion.

I also wonder, since the debate or discussion of the exegesis of Gen 1 centers around the "time frame of reference" for the purpose of understanding age issues, why is FI silent on this subject? It seems that in its silence, it circumvents the purpose of the entire disussion.

In Christ
Dave

[Warcraft3]

Hey Brian whats up?

As you already know, I think your article is excellent and I find the FI view in general to be very interesting.

I think the ideas presented in the section "Because it had not rained" are very important when looking at the Genesis text.
I think you did an excellent job in that section presenting your argument.



Russ

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=279318#post279318


"2. The seventh day refers to a long and even unending time. This is perhaps hinted at by the lack of the "evening and morning" refrain. It is certainly suggested by the nature of the day as God's rest, meaning his enthronement over his creation that will never cease."

I think we see evidence of a pyrimid of inferences not supported by the text. In the above quote from your paper, you have gone from "a long" period , to "even unending time." This is not in line with scripture, since we know that Gods "rest" from creation will cease. His "rest" relates to a cessation of his activity in relation to creation, not just "meaning his enthronement over His creation". Although His enthronement will never cease, the 7th day certainly will. We are told in Revelation that He will re-create, or create anew or again, this marks the end of the 7th day.

You have imposed extraneous meaning on His "rest" and improperly surmised that the 7th day is eternal, when the new creation is the beginning of the 8th day. Hence, I see no need to interpret the 7th day as metaphor.



Hi twohumble, I've given some thought to your critique and offer these comments in reply.

You seem to offer two main propositions in your post:

1. God's "rest" will cease.
2. The end of the 7th day is when God's "rest" from creation ceases.

Since you equate God's re-creation with the end of the seventh day, you consider the '7th day' to be a very long period of time (from creation to new creation). I take it you are a Day-Age person? If so, then you must mean that the 7th 'day' both means and refers to an age of finite time, and not an ongoing state.

At this point I think my contention that they day should be taken metaphorically has been established, even I accepted your view on the _length_ of the 7th day.

Based on:
1. The Argument From Numerical Prefix (narrowed semantic field of 'day' when modified by a numerical adjective) and
2. The Argument From Coherent Usage (the 'day' of the 7th day should be understood in the same way the other 6 'days' are)
we should take the 7th 'day' to _mean_ an ordinary day. The point of the 7th day argument as I presented it was that it _refered_ to something other than an ordinary day, whether it is a finite Day-Age or an indefinite state of affairs. The difference between you and I on this point therefore appears to be whether the '7th day' refers to a finite or indefinite period of time. I'll explain further why I think that the 7th day is indefinite, but I should note that I'm tentative on this point and would have no problem changing my view if I can be convinced otherwise (is that a tautology? heh). The new creation as the '8th day' is certainly a live possibility.

Here's why I don't think that the 7th day is finite. I don't think that God's 'rest' will cease, since the 'rest' doesn't refer only to God's intial creative activities, but goes beyond that and includes his enthronement. Since his enthronement (which is part of the rest) certainly will not cease, the rest itself will not cease. I believe that the author of Hebrews agrees. When he says:

There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;
for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own
work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every
effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their
example of disobedience.

He's not talking about us entering God's ceasing from his creative work, but instead about us entering God's enthronement-rest. We too will be made kings and given authority to rule upon our redemption and glorification. We will begin to rule faithfully over God's creation, fulfilling the command that God first gave to mankind back in Genesis 1:26.

Perhaps a good perspective-question to ask is, what is the dominant teaching that Moses intended to have his readers to understand from the Genesis text?
1. God stopped creating
2. God is enthroned above all as the Creator King

I wouldn't say that I understand everything about Genesis and the creation texts. Far from it! It'd be an arrogant thing for me to think I have a complete grasp of every detail. However, the view I've presented makes the most sense to me, and that is why I hold it to be the correct interpretation.

Thanks again for your comments. :)

Brian

[BrianB]

Hi Dave,

11-11-2003 @ 09:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=279848#post279848)
twohumble:



Thank you for your reply

If I understand your position as stated above, God does not intervene in a "miraculous" sense, as it relates to creation? By miracle, I mean, God, imposing His will over the laws of nature once He set them in motion.


Hmm, I wouldn't put it like that, I don't think. God does still 'intervene' in his creation both by being present as theophanies and as performing miracles, such as raining fire from heaven on Elijah's water-soaked offering. It's not that God's normative way of operating is the only way he operates, but that he didn't create things until they could be sustained by his normative way of operating.



I also wonder, since the debate or discussion of the exegesis of Gen 1 centers around the "time frame of reference" for the purpose of understanding age issues, why is FI silent on this subject? It seems that in its silence, it circumvents the purpose of the entire disussion.

In Christ
Dave

Well, if the discussion centers around the question "does the Genesis text teach that the earth/universe is young or old" then the FI would answer that the question itself contains an unwarrented presupposition...that the text even speaks to the issue. So yes, the FI answers that that quesiton is out of place because the text doesn't speak to the age of the earth/universe.

Hope that helps,
Brian

[BrianB]

11-11-2003 @ 09:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=279883#post279883)
steadele:

Hey Brian whats up?

As you already know, I think your article is excellent and I find the FI view in general to be very interesting.

I think the ideas presented in the section "Because it had not rained" are very important when looking at the Genesis text.
I think you did an excellent job in that section presenting your argument.



Russ

Thanks Russ! It's a blessing to see notes of encouragement like yours. Feel free to jump into the discussions at any time too. :)

Brian

[jhappel]

What is the authors opinion on the flood of Noah's day? My prediction he believes in either a tranquil or local flood.

[Ted]

I must admit that BrianB’s discussion of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account is careful and scholarly. But I will suggest that it errs in certain details that are seriously harmful to his thesis.

Two-Triad Structure
Brian presents the parallel structure of the first six days of creation, arguing in essence that they are presented as a literary myth. The theological purpose of the account is therefore to ascribe authority to Yahweh. The literal fact of Yahweh as Creator is therefore necessarily called into some degree of question. But if we look at the sum of the rest of scripture, Yahweh’s authority exists for the simple reason that he is the Creator. And that rests on the veracity of the creation account. To consider this further, let us revisit his “two-triad structure.”

The creation account in Genesis 1:1-2:3 is NOT a two-triad structure. Before you reach for the tomatoes, allow me to expand. The account is a Hebrew poem. The rhyme is topical, not auditory.

Gen 1:1 begins the poem with the ascription of creation to Yahweh (literally elohim in the text). Verse 2 continues this prolog with, “the earth was unformed and unfilled.” This statement creates the structure of the account. Yes, day 1 & 4, 2 & 5, and 3 & 6 are matched. On the first of the pair, a particular element is formed, and on the second it is filled. After the completion of the poem’s body, it ends with a matching epilog, the Sabbath. The structure looks like this:

Prolog: “In the beginning...unformed and unfilled”
1 - Form light............4 - Fill light with sun, etc.
2 - Form sea/sky.......5 - Fill with birds/fish
3 - Form dry land......6 - Fill with animals/man
Epilog: Sabbath rest.

The Sabbath is an inherent part of that structure, and does match the Exodus 20:11 citation. There are many reasons for this conclusion, but they are outside the scope of this discussion. We may simply note that the Hebrews 4 contra-argument fails because sabbatismos is attested in non-canonical literature as “seventh-day Sabbath-keeping.” Further, the writer of Hebrews uses the Sabbath, a day, as a type for an antitypical eschatological rest.

The use of poetry is common in the Old Testament. One of its key purposes is to emphasize the truth of what is being said. Thus the literary structure emphasizes the literal truth of the story.

Toledoth
A related item here is the use of “toledoth” structures in Genesis. Scholars recognize this word as a key to understanding the nature of the book (used 13 times). This word is used to emphasize the nature of the account in which it occurs as being authentic family history. If we trace this word through the OT, we find it is used exclusively to emphasize authenticity. Its first occurrence is in Gen 2:4, where “This is the account (lit: the generations of) of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.” Thus, the creation account is being presented as authentic, not literary.

Next, toledoth occurs in a colophon, as it does in every Genesis account. Thus, it comes after the account in question. Further, it indicates, at least in the earlier Genesis accounts, an eyewitness family history. This would indicate that God composed the creation account, and passed it to Adam. Because of the importance of these histories, they would have been memorized and passed on.

Thus, Moses did not compose the creation account, nor did any Priestly or Yahwist author. P. J. Wiseman notes a total of 12 independent lines of evidence within the book of Genesis that show that it is far older than Moses, and was passed down in written form (see 5:1, “the book”), with tag lines and colophons constructed so as to maintain sequence. (New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis)

Eight works in six days
Brian brings in the Genesis 2:5ff account as an expansion of the creation account, adding two items, the plant of the field and the shrub of the field, to the items created in the six days. This premise is erroneous.

The “plant of the field” is ehseb hasadeh, a generic description of grain plants that have to be cultivated to produce a crop. Since Adam and Eve were to simply harvest plant foods as their diet in Eden (1:29), the “plant of the field” is not a part of God’s original creation, but is a result of the curse after the fall (3:17). The “shrub of the field” is siyach hasadeh, a generic description of thorny xerophytes. These are also a result of the curse, and also not part of the original creation (3:18).

Rain obviously came after the fall, since the ground was watered by dew before (2:5). What about “man to till the ground?” Once again, we must consider the original Hebrew. This passage does not mean that man did not exist. Rather, it is a compound construction stating that there was no man who needed to till the ground. Put simply, there was no need to till before the curse, but there was after (3:17).

Thus, 2:5-9 is not the beginning of a parallel creation account. Rather, it is an introduction to the story of the fall. That story ends in 5:1-2. Notice the construction: “1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.” It does not refer in any way to the genealogy that follows. (5:2 is a tag line matching 5:1 that ties the two histories together in proper sequence.)

A Day is a Day is a Day
Brian argues that all the lexical evidence showing that yom means an ordinary day in Genesis 1 argues against a literal understanding of the passage. I must admit I had not seen this argument until Brian’s post. He says: 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.

I submit that this assertion is false. It relies on a definition of day and night that require the rotation of the earth and a lit sun. In contravention, please note: Revelation 21:23-25 23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 And the nations shall walk by its light, and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it. 25 And in the daytime (for there shall be no night there) its gates shall never be closed;

Most of us will recognize that the new earth is a re-creation of the Eden that was lost in the de-creation at the fall. Thus, there are a number of elements in it that should reflect the original Eden. Day in the new earth is defined as the period when God provides the light, not when the sun shines or the earth rotates. While some may argue that this is symbolic, we should be careful in dismissing the argument on that ground. After all, God did provide light at night for the Israelites in the wilderness. (Again, the ramifications of this discussion proceed beyond the topic at hand.)

The natural definition of “day” in scripture is the light part of the 24 hour cycle. There has never been a day without the sun while man has been on the earth, since the sun was lit on day 4 and man created on day 6. So it should be no surprise that no ANE writer would have conceived of a day without the sun. (Once again, an argument for the divine authorship of Gen 1:1-2:4.) But it says nothing about the period before man. The source of the light for the first three days is not revealed, since it is not God’s purpose to provide a detailed scientific treatise. Rather, His intention is to provide a factual account in a way that emphasizes its truthfulness. And the source of the light is not relevant to whether the day was “normal.”

Conclusion
While Brian has been careful in his study, it appears that certain facts have eluded his attention. When those facts are considered, the Framework Interpretation, while far better than the day-age abomination, still is less faithful to scripture than the plain reading. God created our habitable world and its original inhabitants in 6 ordinary sequential physical days, and rested on the seventh.

[tschmidt]

Genesis 2:4 uses "Day" to refer to the whole process of creation. That rules out 24-hour day and day-age creation in my book.

[jhappel]

Yesterday @ 08:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284110#post284110)
tschmidt:

Genesis 2:4 uses "Day" to refer to the whole process of creation. That rules out 24-hour day and day-age creation in my book.

But there is no number associated with this usage nor is there an evening and morning. So to compare this use of day to the days of creation is comparing apples and oranges.

[twohumble]

Yesterday @ 03:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=283584#post283584)
BrianB:

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=279318#post279318

Based on:
1. The Argument From Numerical Prefix (narrowed semantic field of 'day' when modified by a numerical adjective) and
2. The Argument From Coherent Usage (the 'day' of the 7th day should be understood in the same way the other 6 'days' are)
we should take the 7th 'day' to _mean_ an ordinary day. The point of the 7th day argument as I presented it was that it _refered_ to something other than an ordinary day, whether it is a finite Day-Age or an indefinite state of affairs. The difference between you and I on this point therefore appears to be whether the '7th day' refers to a finite or indefinite period of time. I'll explain further why I think that the 7th day is indefinite, but I should note that I'm tentative on this point and would have no problem changing my view if I can be convinced otherwise (is that a tautology? heh). The new creation as the '8th day' is certainly a live possibility.

Here's why I don't think that the 7th day is finite. I don't think that God's 'rest' will cease, since the 'rest' doesn't refer only to God's intial creative activities, but goes beyond that and includes his enthronement. Since his enthronement (which is part of the rest) certainly will not cease, the rest itself will not cease. I believe that the author of Hebrews agrees. When he says:

There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;
for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own
work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every
effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their
example of disobedience.


................................."


Brian

Again, thank you for your response.

However, I am dubious on the position that the numerical prefix is a valid exegetical tool. Certainly some very credentialed exegetes, do not hold to that rule as it relates to Gen 1 (Walter Kaiser from Gordon Conwell being one, Gleason Archer another).

In addition, this was not used as an position by early church fathers, and no one that I am aware, in the pre-16th century era believed Genesis 1 to be a 24 or 12 hr time frame.

In regard to the 7th day relating to Christs reign or enthronement, I am not sure where you place "His rest" with "His enthronement". He was enthroned, before His rest, and before the foundation of the world.

The promise of a new creation, and not merely a remaking of the old, is a clear cessation from a rest from "creating". He will once again done the hat of "Creator" as he remakes the universe.

The Sabbath rest that Hebrews 4 refers to is certainly a rest from our work and toil, which brings our strife and anxiety. Since we will not ever need to "re-enter" our "work" we will remain in the sabbath rest forever. This does not support, in my view, your position.

As always, in Christ
Dave

[twohumble]

Today @ 01:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284679#post284679)
jhappel:



But there is no number associated with this usage nor is there an evening and morning. So to compare this use of day to the days of creation is comparing apples and oranges.

Again, this numeric prefix is the basis for the agrument, but that is not a sound exegetical tool, from what I have read.

Also, the Genesis 2 "yom" usage clearly indicates an "indefinite" period of time, which would most definately support the idea that "yom" can be used in that context, and it does support the day/age theory.

In Christ
Dave

[tschmidt]

But there is no number associated with this usage nor is there an evening and morning. So to compare this use of day to the days of creation is comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, but as other poseters have shown, the "seventh day" refers to indefinite period of time. Check out Hebrews Chapter 4:3-11

3Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
"So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall never enter my rest.'
4And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."
5And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest."
6It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience.
7Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts."
8For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.
9There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.
11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.


Also, if we take the numbers in Genesis literally, then Noah was still kicking around when Abraham was in his 50's, despite their being a 10 generation gap between them. Shem, Noah's son, would have actually out-lived Abraham. I find it interesting that Arbraham is considered the head of the Family while clearly Shem was still alive and far older than Abraham.

I think that Christians need to start taking at least an agnostic point of view about the beginning of Genesis, and perhaps lean towards a figurative inerpretation of it.

[jhappel]

I guess my ignorance of the FH showed in one of my previous posts. Do supporters of the FH take all of Genesis as a rhetorical framework or just the creation account? Did a literal Noah, literal Abraham, literal Joseph exist in their view?

[Babaloo]

Hello Brian,

4 questions or comments:

1) The Framework Hypothesis appears in no way superior to other attempts to discover verses in the Bible that speak of a cosmos that is billions of years old. For instance, other ancient Near Eastern creation accounts do not speak of a cosmos that is billions of years old, but one created by the gods (at their hands and by their words) fairly quickly and which quickly move on to the creation of man and human history rather than ageless billions of years of pre-human history.

2) The Framework Hypothesis appears to rely on the fact that many Biblical texts are not in precise chronological order. But does that fact stengthen the inerrancy proposition or does it appear that God himself could not keep descriptions in order? It seems to make the Bible less believable, not more so, and doesn't that reflect negatively upon ALL hypotheses based on the Bible.

3) Speaking of keeping things in order, when you compare the "days" of genesis, which are consecutively numbered, and each with its own evening and morning, such a story certainly appears to have been presented in strict chronological order. I mean how else would you speak if you had WANTED to tell a story in chronological order?

4) The connection you try to make between the creation of light on Day One and the creation of the two great lamps on Day Four is indeed a parallel, but the existence of such a parallel is not reason enough to toss out the more than apparent chronological sequencing of the days of Genesis. For instance, there is a verse in Job that also depicts the distinction between light and darkness, and appears to suggest that to the ancient mind, the light of day did not necessarily rely on the sun and its light, I cite that verse below. But first a little discussion about ancient creationist ideas...

It was a common feature of early Greek cosmological beliefs, which they shared with those of the Near East and elsewhere, that in the beginning all was fused together in an undifferentiated mass. The initial act in the making of the world, whether accomplished by the fiat of a creator or by other means, was a separation or division. As the Hebrew myth has it, “God divided the light from the darkness...and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.” -- W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. I, (Cambridge Univ. Press: 1962)

Genesis tells us that the creator “divided the light from the darkness” and instituted “evenings and mornings.” But He did that “three days” before the “sun” was made! So the sun was kind of an afterthought, and alternating periods of light and darkness were God’s primary creations. The book of Job like the book of Genesis, agrees that “light and darkness” do not rely upon the sun, but have their own separate and distinct dwelling-places:

Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof?
- Job 38:19

Therefore the belief arose, especially among Christians, that the light of “day” had no relationship to the light of the sun. Indeed, in the fourth century, Saint Ambrose wrote in his work on creation:

We must remember that the light of day is one thing and the light of the sun, moon, and stars another -- the sun by his rays appearing to add luster to the daylight. For before the sun rises the day dawns, but is not in full refulgence, for the sun adds still further to its splendor. (Hexameron, Lib. 4, Cap. III).

Ambrose’s teaching remained one of the “treasures of sacred knowledge committed to the Church” right up till the Middle Ages at which time Jews could still be tortured or condemned to death for disputing it! Like all dogmas it inspired subversive humor from those forced to assent to it:

“Which is more important, the sun or the moon?” a citizen of Chelm asked the rabbi (“Chelm” being a village of Jews who lived in the shadow of the Inquisition).

“What a silly question!” snapped the rabbi. “The moon, of course! It shines at night when we really need it. But who needs the sun to shine when it is already broad daylight?”

Best,

Edward T. Babinski (author of Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists, Prometheus Books, now in paperback at amazon.com)

http://www.skeptical-christian.net/

The opening announcement stated this:

This commentary thread is not going to “open” debate but rather is restricted to theists who hold the book of Genesis to be authoritative to their faith and non-theists who can interact using the book of Genesis as authoritative. I also ask the participants that we do not make “science” the main focal point as the piece is a hermeneutical piece and not a scientific treatise. Of course the point will come up, just please do not make it the focus. Thanks – let’s discuss!

If Brian would like the text of Babaloo's statements forwarded to him to respond privately, I will do so, or Babaloo is welcome to start a separate thread in an appropriate area of the forum.

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=283986#post283986

Hi Ted, thanks for taking the time to read through the paper and offer your thoughts. Here are my own comments on your response.


Brian presents the parallel structure of the first six days of creation, arguing in essence that they are presented as a literary myth


I guess it depends on which definition of 'myth' you are using here. My understanding is that 'myth' can be used in different ways, among which are the following two:

1. A 'myth' is a story told to explain the origins of mankind/earth/universe _without_ any implications for truth or falsity.
2. A 'myth' is a factually untrue (false) story

It appears to me that you're using the second definition. If that is the case, then you have _seriously_ misunderstood the paper. The Framework Interpretation doesn't argue that the account is untrue at all. It holds the account to be utterly true. You say:


The literal fact of Yahweh as Creator is therefore necessarily called into some degree of question.


How in the world you got this is way beyond me. One of my points is that the purpose of the Genesis Prologue is to identify Yahweh, the covenantal suzerain of Israel, as the Creator King of all creation. It's exactly the opposite of what you've read into the paper. Has anyone else come to this conclusion by reading the paper? If so, please speak up, because if it's a result of bad writing I'll need to rewrite the paper specifically to clear up this misunderstanding.


As far as your response to the Two-Triadic structure, I agree with what you wrote about the Sabbath being an integral part of the structure as a capstone, so I don't see what your objection is.


Under 'toledoth' I completely agree that the account is authentic, so I'm not sure what your point is here either. As a side point, you're incorrect on the use of the toledoth. It's not a colophon. It's a prescript and goes with the following section, not what comes before it. If you'd like, you can take this up with GrayPilgrim or someone else who might like to pursue this tangent and has the requisite background. Perhaps in the future we could discuss it, but for now it'll have to go by the wayside. I'd recommend the book by Duane Garrett called Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Bible. Fascinating use of form-criticism to show the unity of the Genesis text. I'd recommend it for everyone interested in Genesis studies.


Under "Eight works in six days" you made quite a few assertions that need support before I engage them. I suggest you add support to this section before going any further. (example: the plants mentioned were only post-Fall)



Ted, please show me where the semantic field of 'yom' combined with a numerical adjective can be extended to what you want it to include. You appeal to an apocalyptic text written in the Greek language hundreds of years later. I must say I find this not only unconvincing, but indicative of the strength of my argument.

Thanks for your comments, but you've got quite a bit of work to do in supporting your assertions if we are to proceed.

Regards,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=284770#post284770

Hi again Dave,

Today @ 03:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284770#post284770)
twohumble:

Again, thank you for your response.

However, I am dubious on the position that the numerical prefix is a valid exegetical tool. Certainly some very credentialed exegetes, do not hold to that rule as it relates to Gen 1 (Walter Kaiser from Gordon Conwell being one, Gleason Archer another).


Yes, I do know that Archer holds the Day-Age view, and I was unaware of what view Kaiser holds, but I'd simply say that they are wrong on this issue. Don't get me wrong, I think they're awesome and have benefited from their works, but I just think they're wrong here.. I understand their desire to systematize the results of the research, and they believe that not only science, but other biblical texts (at least, speaking for what I've read of Archer) indicate that the Genesis 1 days could not be 24 hours long. Because they (positively) want to eliminate contradictions in the text, they had to go with what they considered to be the best interpretive option at the time that would eliminate the contradictions. However, I think the FI is a perfect fit. It allows the standard rules of exegesis to apply to the days of Genesis 1, and also allows the other texts to say that the actual days referred to could not be 24hrs long.

This is part of a wider problem of the methodological issues involved in systematizing various texts. As an example from a different field of biblical studies:

What do you do when the text says that this generation will certainly not pass away until the Son of Man comes on the clouds of heaven?
If you have only two options in front of you:
1. The son of man didn't visibly come on the clouds of heaven, so what Jesus meant by "this generation" must refer to the Jewish people, and not a generation time.
2. The son of man didn't visibly come on the clouds of heaven, and Jesus had to have meant the time of one generation when he said "this generation" therefore Jesus was wrong

I'd guess you'd pick option #1 and say that "this generation" didn't refer to the timespan of a generation. Fortunately, you learn of a third option called Preterism that allows both "this generation" to mean the time length of a generation _and_ for Jesus to be correct. (The Son of Man _did_ come on the clouds of heaven)

Perhaps it would have been best to live with the apparent contradiction and chalk it up to our lack of understanding rather than force the harmonization. Hmm, I went a little off tangent there. Ahh well.



In addition, this was not used as an position by early church fathers, and no one that I am aware, in the pre-16th century era believed Genesis 1 to be a 24 or 12 hr time frame.


I'm not really up on the ECF in regards to this issue other than my understanding is that the majority view was toward a literalistic 24/7 scheme.


In regard to the 7th day relating to Christs reign or enthronement, I am not sure where you place "His rest" with "His enthronement". He was enthroned, before His rest, and before the foundation of the world.


Hmm, well I wouldn't say that Christ was the one specifically who Moses had in mind when he wrote the creation text, but regardless...it's true that God has always been sovereign over the universe, but that doesn't preclude the theology of Genesis 1 to point to God symbolically taking his thrown above creation after he had created it.


The promise of a new creation, and not merely a remaking of the old, is a clear cessation from a rest from "creating". He will once again done the hat of "Creator" as he remakes the universe.

The Sabbath rest that Hebrews 4 refers to is certainly a rest from our work and toil, which brings our strife and anxiety. Since we will not ever need to "re-enter" our "work" we will remain in the sabbath rest forever. This does not support, in my view, your position.

As always, in Christ
Dave

I'm having a little trouble with this part. If we say that the author of Hebrews' argument is this:

"When we enter God's rest, all our work will stop because all God's work stopped when he entered his rest"

Then this would come into conflict with what Jesus says in John 5:17 where he says that his Father is always working. God stopping all his work (not just creative work) would be the parallel for us stopping our work, and I just don't see that. I don't think that's what your arguing, but if you're going to get a parallel here I don't think you can say "God stopped just his creative work, therefore we'll be stopping all our work". Hmm, I hope my points are coming across even if I'm having trouble saying them.

One question that comes to mind is, do you think we'll "work" after our glorification? My own view is that work itself is a positive thing, and we will be able to fully enjoy it once we've been glorified.

Thanks again, Dave!

Brian

[BrianB]

Today @ 05:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=285149#post285149)
jhappel:

I guess my ignorance of the FH showed in one of my previous posts. Do supporters of the FH take all of Genesis as a rhetorical framework or just the creation account? Did a literal Noah, literal Abraham, literal Joseph exist in their view?

Hi again jhappel,

It's just the 'days' of Genesis 1 that are dischronologized and organized into a topical framework. The Framework Interpretation is specific to the temporal questions of these days and doesn't extend beyond those. It has no bearing on the other questions that you asked.

Oh, and my understanding is that the Genesis text describing the flood could mean either a global or a local (yet universal) flood, though I haven't studied it, so take it only as hearsay based on things I've read in the past. :)

Regards,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=285212#post285212

Hi Ed, thanks for joining the discussion. :)


Hello Brian,

4 questions or comments:

1) The Framework Hypothesis appears in no way superior to other attempts to discover verses in the Bible that speak of a cosmos that is billions of years old.


That is correct. The Framework Interpretation makes no attempt to 'discover' that the Bible teaches a billions-year-old cosmos. Basically it says that the Genesis 1 framework is agnostic in regards to the YEC/OEC debate.


2) The Framework Hypothesis appears to rely on the fact that many Biblical texts are not in precise chronological order. But does that fact stengthen the inerrancy proposition or does it appear that God himself could not keep descriptions in order? It seems to make the Bible less believable, not more so, and doesn't that reflect negatively upon ALL hypotheses based on the Bible.


It's not a matter of whether or not God could keep descriptions in order. It's simply a matter of an ancient person using a literary technique that was recognized as a valid literary technique. It has no impact on the doctrine of inerrancy as far as I can see.


3) Speaking of keeping things in order, when you compare the "days" of genesis, which are consecutively numbered, and each with its own evening and morning, such a story certainly appears to have been presented in strict chronological order. I mean how else would you speak if you had WANTED to tell a story in chronological order?


Coming from a western mindset, I'd agree that it appears initially to teach a chronological sequence. However, reading that Jesus said "I will make you fishers of men" (very) initially leads to the conclusion that Jesus was going to teach disciples how to 'literally' catch people. We, of course, recognize that's not what he was talking about, but the point is that we need to understand the wider context.

How would the account have been rewritten to convey strict chronology? I'm not sure. Since I think the whole strict-chronology sequence doesn't make sense, I don't know how.


4) The connection you try to make between the creation of light on Day One and the creation of the two great lamps on Day Four is indeed a parallel, but the existence of such a parallel is not reason enough to toss out the more than apparent chronological sequencing of the days of Genesis. For instance, there is a verse in Job that also depicts the distinction between light and darkness, and appears to suggest that to the ancient mind, the light of day did not necessarily rely on the sun and its light, I cite that verse below. But first a little discussion about ancient creationist ideas...


It's not _just_ that it's a parallel, but the other things that go along with it. And to claim that it's not enough to see it as a literary framework is something you'd need to argue in depth for.


It was a common feature of early Greek cosmological beliefs, which they shared with those of the Near East and elsewhere, that in the beginning all was fused together in an undifferentiated mass. The initial act in the making of the world, whether accomplished by the fiat of a creator or by other means, was a separation or division. As the Hebrew myth has it, “God divided the light from the darkness...and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.” -- W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. I, (Cambridge Univ. Press: 1962)


As far as I know, Hebrew thought was always that God created everything _in the beginning_ and that the mass of stuff pre-existing was not there. Greek thought, sure, but not Hebrew thought.


Genesis tells us that the creator “divided the light from the darkness” and instituted “evenings and mornings.” But He did that “three days” before the “sun” was made! So the sun was kind of an afterthought, and alternating periods of light and darkness were God’s primary creations. The book of Job like the book of Genesis, agrees that “light and darkness” do not rely upon the sun, but have their own separate and distinct dwelling-places:


You've read your presuppositions here into the text, and I'm not sure how Job 38:19 helps you either. Perhaps you could explain further.

Thanks for your comments,
Brian

edited as it was responding to a post editted in full

[dizzle]

Hey Brian, I am actually considering synthesizing "some" of these ideas into my YEC view which is based upon much more than Gen 1. This fits in with my views on a lot of other Scripture and the typological majestic patterns. This of course is a very tentative comment on my part, but just wanted to let you know I am intrigued. Again, this has nothing to do with a rejection of YEC of which I am firmly, but of a way to understand the pattern of the passage in establishing the recurrent dominion theme etc that is part of the rest of my systematic theology.

[twohumble]

Yesterday @ 08:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=285589#post285589)
BrianB:

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=284770#post284770

Hi again Dave,



Yes, I do know that Archer holds the Day-Age view, and I was unaware of what view Kaiser holds, but I'd simply say that they are wrong on this issue. Don't get me wrong, I think they're awesome and have benefited from their works, but I just think they're wrong here.. I understand their desire to systematize the results of the research, and they believe that not only science, but other biblical texts (at least, speaking for what I've read of Archer) indicate that the Genesis 1 days could not be 24 hours long. Because they (positively) want to eliminate contradictions in the text, they had to go with what they considered to be the best interpretive option at the time that would eliminate the contradictions. However, I think the FI is a perfect fit. It allows the standard rules of exegesis to apply to the days of Genesis 1, and also allows the other texts to say that the actual days referred to could not be 24hrs long.

This is part of a wider problem of the methodological issues involved in systematizing various texts. As an example from a different field of biblical studies:

What do you do when the text says that this generation will certainly not pass away until the Son of Man comes on the clouds of heaven?
If you have only two options in front of you:
1. The son of man didn't visibly come on the clouds of heaven, so what Jesus meant by "this generation" must refer to the Jewish people, and not a generation time.
2. The son of man didn't visibly come on the clouds of heaven, and Jesus had to have meant the time of one generation when he said "this generation" therefore Jesus was wrong

I'd guess you'd pick option #1 and say that "this generation" didn't refer to the timespan of a generation. Fortunately, you learn of a third option called Preterism that allows both "this generation" to mean the time length of a generation _and_ for Jesus to be correct. (The Son of Man _did_ come on the clouds of heaven)

Perhaps it would have been best to live with the apparent contradiction and chalk it up to our lack of understanding rather than force the harmonization. Hmm, I went a little off tangent there. Ahh well.




I'm not really up on the ECF in regards to this issue other than my understanding is that the majority view was toward a literalistic 24/7 scheme.



Hmm, well I wouldn't say that Christ was the one specifically who Moses had in mind when he wrote the creation text, but regardless...it's true that God has always been sovereign over the universe, but that doesn't preclude the theology of Genesis 1 to point to God symbolically taking his thrown above creation after he had created it.



I'm having a little trouble with this part. If we say that the author of Hebrews' argument is this:

"When we enter God's rest, all our work will stop because all God's work stopped when he entered his rest"

Then this would come into conflict with what Jesus says in John 5:17 where he says that his Father is always working. God stopping all his work (not just creative work) would be the parallel for us stopping our work, and I just don't see that. I don't think that's what your arguing, but if you're going to get a parallel here I don't think you can say "God stopped just his creative work, therefore we'll be stopping all our work". Hmm, I hope my points are coming across even if I'm having trouble saying them.

One question that comes to mind is, do you think we'll "work" after our glorification? My own view is that work itself is a positive thing, and we will be able to fully enjoy it once we've been glorified.

Thanks again, Dave!

Brian

Brian, on this board, how to you separate parts of a post to 'quote'? I seem to only be able to post the entire prior post as a quote.

Ok, now, you say Archer and Kaiser are awesome, and I agree. Their command of biblical languages far exceeds most we could quote, yet you simply say "they are wrong" and use their method to eliminate 'contradiction. I find this unconvincing. Your, and YEC assertion in the 'numerical prefix' rule is not considered valid by these learned scholars. That is the hinge on which they deny your assertion. The day/age interpretation lets the context of all passages speak for themselves quite well, it seems to me.


Your question on the 'generation is one I have not read on, and I must rely on commentaries, since I do not read OT Hebrew. Sorry to not be able to address that at this time.

In regard to the ECF's , I have yet to see anyone that is a YEC or FI proponent. This seems odd to me. YEC's, like to think OEC's are the new fad, that succumbs to modern secular influence. On the contrary, the YEC model seems to have come about as a direct offshoot trying to combat naturalism, and is not sound exegesis at all.

Your ideas seem to skirt the idea ( I may be wrong here ) that the narration is trying to put an orderly historical perspective on the creation event. In fact, God knowing man would one day be able to verify the cronological sequence, would certainly give us more "evidence of the unseen" as the author of Hebrews tells us.

[dizzle]

hey twohumble, use the quote tags ....

INSERT TEXT

Enclose each part you want to quote in that fashion.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 02:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=285060#post285060)
tschmidt:

Yes, but as other poseters have shown, the "seventh day" refers to indefinite period of time. Check out Hebrews Chapter 4:3-11

Still other posters have shown that it is the most appalling eisegesis to lengthen the seventh day. AiG points out in Is the seventh day an eternal day? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/seventhday.asp):

Hebrews 4:1–11 teaches that the seventh day of Creation Week was a parallel to the spiritual rest found through Christ alone. Only those who have believed in Christ enter this rest. If the Bible was speaking of an actual continuation of the seventh day of rest, then all would already be in this rest. The rest referred to is obviously a spiritual rest.

Verse 3 teaches that God has been resting since the creation of the world.3 But the parallel would make no sense unless the seventh day was an ordinary day. Hebrews never says that the seventh day of Creation Week is continuing to the present (in fact it says the opposite; see point 3 below), it merely says that God’s rest is continuing.

Could God not have rested on a real 24-hour day in the past and then continued to rest up until the present? If someone says on Monday that he rested on Saturday and is still resting, it in no way implies that Saturday lasted until Monday.

Systematic theologian Doug Kelly replied to a pathetic argument by Ross involving the different closing sequence of the seventh day (Creation and Change: Genesis 1:1–2:4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms, Mentor (Christian Focus Publications), Ross-shire, UK, p. 111, 1997):

To say the least, this places a great deal of theological weight on a very narrow and thin exegetical bridge! Is it not more concordant with the patent sense of the context of Genesis 2 (and Exodus 20) to infer that because the Sabbath differed in quality (though not — from anything we can learn out of the text itself — in quantity), a slightly different concluding formula was appended to indicate a qualitative difference (six days involved work; one day involved rest)? The formula employed to show the termination of that first sabbath : “And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made” (Genesis 2:2) seems just as definite as that of “and the evening and the morning were the first day”.

Hebrew and OT scholar Andrew Steinmann analyses the pattern of cardinals and ordinals and articles in Genesis 1 and concludes(Echad as an ordinal number and the meaning of Genesis 1:5, JETS 45(4):577–584, December 2002):

…by omission of the article it must be read as “one day”, thereby defining a day as something akin to a twenty-four hour solar period with light and darkness and transitions between day and night, even though there is no sun until the fourth day [so much for Brian's bleating about the term “solar day” before the sun was created, one of his major points—Soc]. … On the sixth day, the article finally appears. But even here, the grammar is strange, since there is no article on יום as would be expected. This would indicate that the sixth day was a regular solar day, but that it was also the culminating day of creation. Likewise, the seventh day is referred to יום השביעי (Gen 2:3), with lack of an article on יום. This, also, the author is implying, was a regular solar day. Yet it was a special day, because God had finished his work of creation.

Also, if we take the numbers in Genesis literally, then Noah was still kicking around when Abraham was in his 50's, despite their being a 10 generation gap between them.

So? I have yet to see a refutation of my post Why the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies must be tight chronologies (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=257597#post257597). Exegesis must trump your fallible opinions about whether Noah should overlap Abraham.

Shem, Noah's son, would have actually out-lived Abraham. I find it interesting that Arbraham is considered the head of the Family while clearly Shem was still alive and far older than Abraham.

So? Some ancient Jewish commentators thought that Shem was Melchizedek.

I think that Christians need to start taking at least an agnostic point of view about the beginning of Genesis, and perhaps lean towards a figurative inerpretation of it.

I think that Christians need to start returning to what Scripture actually says, including the traditional view of the beginning of Genesis as held by the vast majority of Church Fathers and Reformers, and lean away from a figurative inerpretation of it motivated by compromises with uniformitarian “science”.

[Socrates]

11-14-2003 @ 01:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=284770#post284770)
twohumble:

However, I am dubious on the position that the numerical prefix is a valid exegetical tool.

It is, and means 24-hour days. And contrary to the Framework eisegesis (motivated, as Kline is forthright in admitting, by trying to agree with uniformitarian "science"), on these days, God spoke, it happened, and God assessed it "very good". The Hebrew grammar of Genesis 1--with the first verb a qatal and the verbs continuing the sequence wayyiqtols--is typical of biblical historical narrative, not poetry or any other type of literary device.

Certainly some very credentialed exegetes, do not hold to that rule as it relates to Gen 1 (Walter Kaiser from Gordon Conwell being one, Gleason Archer another).

Actually, Archer is on record saying that the straightforward reading of Genesis is 24-hour days. But because of "science" he has decided that this can't be right, so he calls the straightforward reading "superficial" and rationalizes it away with eisegesis never dreamt of before the rise of uniformitarian "science".

In addition, this was not used as an position by early church fathers, and no one that I am aware, in the pre-16th century era believed Genesis 1 to be a 24 or 12 hr time frame.

You have evidently been misled by Hugh Ross, like so many others who don't check the primary source. :doh: My post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=53088#post53088 documents how people Ross claimed as ancient day-agers were all actually YECs and most believed in 24-hour creation days. The Reformers were practically unanimous -- Luther, Calvin, the WCF ...

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 11:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=286165#post286165)
Dee Dee Warren:

Hey Brian, I am actually considering synthesizing "some" of these ideas into my YEC view which is based upon much more than Gen 1. This fits in with my views on a lot of other Scripture and the typological majestic patterns. This of course is a very tentative comment on my part, but just wanted to let you know I am intrigued. Again, this has nothing to do with a rejection of YEC of which I am firmly, but of a way to understand the pattern of the passage in establishing the recurrent dominion theme etc that is part of the rest of my systematic theology.

Blake Reas is a Framework advocate who favors YEC because of the strength of the biblical sin-death causality www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=217858#post217858 This is the strongest argument for YEC from most informed 24-hour day supporters too, although to read our detractors you wouldn't think so.

But while leading frameworkers rightly chide day-agers for letting "science" govern their exegesis, they are guilty of the same thing. In the very paper cited by Brian, Kline sez:

‘To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation week propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article. At the same time, the exegetical evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic day-age view. The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins. ...

‘In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man.’

And as GP said, one should be suspicious of novelties in theology, and the Framework view was never dreamed of till early last century, when uniformitarianism had become the dominant paradigm.

[Ted]

Brian,

This may be my last post for a week or more (going out of town).

I guess it depends on which definition of 'myth' you are using here. My understanding is that 'myth' can be used in different ways, among which are the following two:

1. A 'myth' is a story told to explain the origins of mankind/earth/universe _without_ any implications for truth or falsity.
2. A 'myth' is a factually untrue (false) story

It appears to me that you're using the second definition. If that is the case, then you have _seriously_ misunderstood the paper. The Framework Interpretation doesn't argue that the account is untrue at all. It holds the account to be utterly true.

My intention in using the term is to express the idea that the original story was constructed in such a fashion as to support the authority of Yahweh, without regard for whether the result is true. The result can be true, but prima facie appears at least slightly less than true (otherwise, why the need to revise/rearrange/adjust the story?). If any element of the story is less than true, then the overall truth of the story comes into question. That is why it necessarily calls Yahweh’s creatorship into question. If the Framework Hypothesis does not mythologize at all, then this would not be the case. But if it does not, what is the point? It would then be the same as a simple literal historical account. But you say: It's just the 'days' of Genesis 1 that are dischronologized and organized into a topical framework. In an account that presents itself as a direct historical record, dischronologization is a form of mythologization, and is necessarily slightly removed from the truth.

As a side point, you're incorrect on the use of the toledoth. It's not a colophon. It's a prescript and goes with the following section, not what comes before it.
Since you flag this as a side issue, I will merely state that we will have to agree to disagree here.

Two creation accounts?
There were three terms I asserted to refer to post-fall items
1. siyach hasadeh - shrub of the field
2. ehseb hasadeh - plant of the field
3. man to till the ground.

There are only two other uses of the siyach referring to plants in scripture (Gen 21:15 & Job 30:4, 7). The ISBE Bible Dictionary says: “(Heb: siach "plant," Gen 2:5; "shrub," Gen 21:15; "bush," Job 30:4,7). In the first reference any kind of plant may be meant, but in the other passages the reference is to the low bushes or scrub, such as are found in the desert.” Notice the first statement. “any kind of plant may be meant.” I must answer this by the words of my friend, Dr. Randall Younker (Ph.D. Biology, professor of Archeology, Andrews University), who wrote the biology entries in Eerdman’s new Bible dictionary.
When they assign such a meaning to the word in Genesis 2:5, they are guessing.
The statement that in 2:5 siyach can mean “any plant” is simply a guess, and it’s not very good exegesis. When we have a word with two consistent uses in scripture, and one unknown use, does it make sense to give it a different meaning? No! We are bound by basic principles of interpretation to take the consistent usage and apply it to the unknown, unless there is an overwhelming scriptural reason to do otherwise. Our presuppositions don’t qualify. Thus, siyach hasadeh should be understood as a low brush, typically of useless variety. Dr. Younker goes on to discuss the etymology of the word in cognate languages, developing the definition of “thorny xerophyte.” No one else, to my knowledge, has done this work until Dr. Younker did it. (I can’t give a paper reference, since this is from a taped lecture I attended.)

Incidentally, the three other uses of this form of siyach that I have found all refer to "complaining" or similar. That is certainly not something from before the curse! As an aside, I have a family limited partnership named Siyach Properties to deal with the issues of estate planning. I certainly COMPLAIN about the THORNY tax code!


In the immediate context, we find ehseb hasadeh in Gen 3:18, where Adam is cursed to eat “plants of the field” that he has to toil and sweat to grow and harvest. The next occurrence in is Exod 9:22, 25, where the hail destroys the crops of Egypt. Next it appears in Isa 37:27, where the identity of the item is not so certain, but it again fits the definition I have proposed. And that is the entire list I have found.

On “man to till the ground,” we should note that tilling the ground is a result of the curse. Dr. Younker is again my source, but he points out cross-checking with Hebrew scholars that the construct is compound. The statement is not “there was no man,” but is “there was no man to till the ground”. Tilling is an inseparable part of the description. Thus, it is not applicable until after the curse.

Ted, please show me where the semantic field of 'yom' combined with a numerical adjective can be extended to what you want it to include. You appeal to an apocalyptic text written in the Greek language hundreds of years later. I must say I find this not only unconvincing, but indicative of the strength of my argument.

I must admit that I do not follow your reasoning here. The semantic field arguments have been made fully by others in this thread. My point had to do with the definition of “day.” And appealing to the Apocalypse is not a distant connection.

In the book of Revelation, there are over 800 quotations and allusions to the Old Testament, about 2 per verse. The very structure of the book is drawn from the festival calendar, in the legislation of Moses, whom you state wrote the entire five books of the Pentateuch. Thus, John is reaching directly into your area of discussion for his sources. Further, the motif of Revelation is deliverance from Egypt. Note that the Trumpets and Bowls are explicitly drawn from the plagues of Egypt, and delivered saints sing the “Song of Moses and the Lamb” (Rev 15:3), while standing on a “Red Sea” (lit. “sea of glass mixed with fire” 15:2). Finally, Gregory Beale has shown that John, over 30 times, uses Hebrew wording in Greek (Dionysius called them solecisms) which are bad Greek grammar, but perfect quotations of the original. Finally, the imagery of the New Jerusalem being lit at night is from the pillar of fire by night during the Exodus.

Thus, your identified author of Genesis is used intensively by John the Revelator. I would say that satisfies ad fontes.


Socrates,
Thank you for your well-considered discussion of Hebrew verb forms. That should settle the question of the intent of the author. And I like your cell membrane avatar!

Ted

[BrianB]

Yesterday @ 01:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=286165#post286165)
Dee Dee Warren:

Hey Brian, I am actually considering synthesizing "some" of these ideas into my YEC view which is based upon much more than Gen 1. This fits in with my views on a lot of other Scripture and the typological majestic patterns. This of course is a very tentative comment on my part, but just wanted to let you know I am intrigued. Again, this has nothing to do with a rejection of YEC of which I am firmly, but of a way to understand the pattern of the passage in establishing the recurrent dominion theme etc that is part of the rest of my systematic theology.

Hi Dee Dee,

It's good to hear that some of the concepts in the paper might be useful to you in another area, though to be honest most of what you said went over my head. :) Are you looking toward the concepts of God's 'rest' being his enthronement, or something else having to do with dominion? BTW, using them to support Theonomy is off-limits. *grin* After all, most of it did come through Kline. heh

Regards,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=286968#post286968

Hi Dave,

Dee Dee already showed how to separate the posts, though now I'm curious as to how she made the text say bracket quote bracket instead of getting the actual quote function.


I'll probably have to get back to you on Archer and Kaiser with a more in-depth explanation of hermeneutics, if necessary. My computer access is limited to the library for now, and I can't carry all my books with me, so please give me a little time. However, before I spend time doing that, could you tell me what sources you're using for your comments about Archer and Kaiser? I'd be especially interested in where you've seen Kaiser's comments. The important thing is not necessarily that they disagree, but _what rational do they give_ for their disagreement? Simply appealing to them as authorities isn't sufficient to refute my actual arguments. What is important is the reasoning they give to have disagreement.


On the 'toledoth' issue, GrayPilgrim said that it "is used in Genesis as literary marker to designate a new narrative section of the book" and that considering it as an ending to a narrative section is a minority view.[1] This is my understanding from what I've read as well. Even if you end up not caring much about the use of toledoth, still read the book Rethinking Genesis that I recommended in another post. It's well worth it.

Well you could say that the FI 'skirts' the idea of the Genesis 1 text giving us a detailed, chronological and empirically verifiable account of origins. It certainly retains historicity, just not in the way that some of us in the modern western world want it to. And I would agree that God _could_ have had Moses somehow write it in a way that anticipated the rise of modern empirical science and use it as evidence of divine authorship. However, to take that as an actual argument for a specific interpretation is putting the cart before the horse, if you will. First we find out if the text leads us to an empirically verifiable model. If it does, we go from there, but otherwise we're just imposing an interpretation on the text because we _want_ it to be empirically verifiable.

Again, we should be careful not to make the text speak to issues on which it was meant to be silent. That's the main point.

Regards,
Brian

[1] http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=165376#post165376

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=287601#post287601

Hi again Ted,

--- on dischronologization and mythologization ---

I see no reason to think that constructing a text like Genesis 1 using a literary framework would have any implications as far considering it 'less true'.

Using your definition of mythologization, it's an amazing statement to say that dischronologization is a form of mythologization. In fact, I'd be suprised of any OT scholar anywhere would say that dischronologization is a form of mythologization in any sense, regardless of which definition of mythologization one is using.

Does that mean that since either/both Matthew and Luke dischronologized Jesus' temptation in the wilderness it's now necessarily slightly removed from truth? I frankly don't see this to be the case at all. I think it's totally true. To be honest, I'm not really interested in starting a debate over whether or not dischronologizing something makes it 'less true'. If you really want to have a go at it, I suggest starting a thread with J.P. Holding. He's already on record that ANE peoples used dischronologization in order to be topical rather than chronological.

"There are examples in the OT, NT, and in Egyptian and Assyrian literature of "dischronologized" narratives where items are arranged topically rather than chronologically, and this would justify our own use of the pluperfect for the sake of context; indeed, even commentators that prefer to keep the simple past tense suppose not that these is a contradiction, but that G2 is reporting the order out of sequence purposely in order to stress man's dominion over the created animals."
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_03_03.html


--- on the plants/shrubs of the field ---

Yes, I agree that those terms refer to specific plants, and this has already been documented in a paper published by Mark Futato in WTJ. It's the "Because It Had Rained" article cited in the Bibliography of my paper. Whether his research came before Younker I don't know, but Futato has been a professor of OT for a while, and is presently having a Hebrew grammar published ("Beginning Biblical Hebrew), so I'd recommend his work.

That those terms should be translated as "wild shrubs of the steppe" and "cultivated grains" is not an issue. What is an issue is your proof that they couldn't exist in the pre-Fall state.

As far as the "there was no man to cultivate the ground" phrase, are you seriously trying to say that the message was:
"Well, yes mankind was around, but no mankind that was able/willing to cultivate the ground." ??? It's almost hard for me to believe that that's what you're saying.

Verse 5 is clearly saying that there was no man around, not that man was around but was unable/unwilling to cultivate.


Genesis 2:5
Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.


The NETBIBLE translator notes say this in regard to this verse:

The two causal clauses explain the first two disjunctive clauses: there was no uncultivated, general growth because there was no rain, and there were no grains because there was no man to cultivate the soil."


So far, I see no reason to think that any of what you talk about needs to be post-fall. Are you aware of _any_ commentaries or published works that agree with your assertions?

--- Semantic field / definition of 'day' ---

Sorry, but your argument is fully bankrupt. I try to be as generous as possible on these types of things, but appealing to an apocalyptic text written in the Greek language hundreds of years later is just unwarranted as far as determining the semantic field (definition) of 'yom' when combined with a number. You can simply repeat your claim that it makes a difference, but I won't take it seriously and will simply consider my argument proven. You'll, of course, do the same, and that's fine. I'm not so deluded that I think I'll change many people's minds, so leaving it at this point is perfectly ok with me.

I hope your trip is fruitful,
Brian

[Sanity]

BrianB missed something. The discussion of the problem with the 24 hour day did indicate that the concept of a day refers to a full rotation of the earth - a concept the ancient Hebrews would have been ignorant of. The solar day refers to a full rotation around the earth relative to our sun. The sidereal day refers to rotation of the earth in relation to the stars. The two aren't the same length.

The Hebrew word day doesn't mean any of these things. It means the period from one sunset to the next sunset on the planet earth. As a result the word couldn't be used to mean a literal day until the sun and moon were created.

As the article mentioned, the Hebrews sometimes used the word to mean something other than an actual day - just as we do. "Man, it took me all day to finish that job!" Who hasn't said or heard someone say this? Seldom does this mean 24 hours. It just means "a long time."

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=299034#post299034


Hi Sanity,

Thanks for your response. I'm a little confused, though, as to what you are talking about. You say:


BrianB missed something. The discussion of the problem with the 24 hour day did indicate that the concept of a day refers to a full rotation of the earth - a concept the ancient Hebrews would have been ignorant of. The solar day refers to a full rotation around the earth relative to our sun. The sidereal day refers to rotation of the earth in relation to the stars. The two aren't the same length.

The Hebrew word day doesn't mean any of these things. It means the period from one sunset to the next sunset on the planet earth. As a result the word couldn't be used to mean a literal day until the sun and moon were created.



I reread through what I thought was the relevant section of the paper, and I think there's some misunderstanding, either of my paper or of my understanding your comments. I specifically stated in the paper that Moses' audience wouldn't have thought of a 'day' in terms of the earth spinning on its axis, but instead by the rising/setting of the sun:


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].

Neither is there any evidence that Moses' audience would have thought of a day as the time taken for the Earth to spin once on its axis. That is entirely a modern concept.


Could you please clarify a little more on what you're trying to say? It's possible that there's another section of my paper that was written differently, which I'll have to correct if the case. If so, then let me know and I'll take a look at it.

Thanks, and welcome to the discussion. :)

Brian

[One Bad Pig]

11-14-2003 @ 02:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=285472#post285472)
BrianB:

I guess it depends on which definition of 'myth' you are using here. My understanding is that 'myth' can be used in different ways, among which are the following two:

1. A 'myth' is a story told to explain the origins of mankind/earth/universe _without_ any implications for truth or falsity.
2. A 'myth' is a factually untrue (false) story

It appears to me that you're using the second definition. If that is the case, then you have _seriously_ misunderstood the paper.

Brian,

I'm not sure you quite have the correct understanding of the word myth. From Merriam-Webster:


Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
Date: 1830
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths


Let's also check out ostensibly, and see what nuance that adds to the first definition, which is effectively what you're advocating:


Main Entry: os·ten·si·bly
Pronunciation: -blE
Function: adverb
Date: 1765
1 : in an ostensible manner
2 : to all outward appearances

Main Entry: os·ten·si·ble
Pronunciation: ä-'sten(t)-s&-b&l, &-
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Latin ostensus, past participle of ostendere to show, from obs-, ob- in the way + tendere to stretch -- more at OB-, THIN
Date: circa 1771
1 : intended for display : open to view
2 : being such in appearance : plausible rather than demonstrably true or real <the ostensible purpose for the trip>


While the first definition of myth is not explicit about truth or falsity, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of factuality. :teeth:

Ted said,

The literal fact of Yahweh as Creator is therefore necessarily called into some degree of question. But if we look at the sum of the rest of scripture, Yahweh’s authority exists for the simple reason that he is the Creator. And that rests on the veracity of the creation account.

A mere myth is wholly inadequate to support such authority.

The Framework Interpretation doesn't argue that the account is untrue at all. It holds the account to be utterly true.

One cannot hold any story to be a myth and hold it to be utterly true without some level of cognitive dissonance.


Has anyone else come to this conclusion by reading the paper? If so, please speak up, because if it's a result of bad writing I'll need to rewrite the paper specifically to clear up this misunderstanding.

I, for one, agree with Ted. I wouldn't say it's a result of bad writing on your part. You've clearly put some time and effort into this. I don't think that your parallels to Ezra 4 and Matthew/Luke work too well. Ezra 4 is clearly thematically grouped. Jesus' ministry is arranged differently in each gospel, so no more than one of them can be strictly chronological. On the other hand, Genesis 1 is transparently chronological. I mean, how can a sequence be more clearly established than "Day 1-x; Day 2-xx; etc."?:huh:


As far as your response to the Two-Triadic structure, I agree with what you wrote about the Sabbath being an integral part of the structure as a capstone, so I don't see what your objection is.


I'm impressed with the sheer level of obtuseness you're showing here.:argh: You can't be that dense. Ted disagreed (emphatically) with the Two-Triadic structure. That's his objection.


[P]lease show me where the semantic field of 'yom' combined with a numerical adjective can be extended to what you want it to include.

As Socrates has pointed out,


Hebrew and OT scholar Andrew Steinmann analyses the pattern of cardinals and ordinals and articles in Genesis 1 and concludes(Echad as an ordinal number and the meaning of Genesis 1:5, JETS 45(4):577–584, December 2002):

…by omission of the article it must be read as “one day”, thereby defining a day as something akin to a twenty-four hour solar period with light and darkness and transitions between day and night, even though there is no sun until the fourth day. … On the sixth day, the article finally appears. But even here, the grammar is strange, since there is no article on יום as would be expected. This would indicate that the sixth day was a regular solar day, but that it was also the culminating day of creation. Likewise, the seventh day is referred to יום השביעי (Gen 2:3), with lack of an article on יום. This, also, the author is implying, was a regular solar day. Yet it was a special day, because God had finished his work of creation.

[Brian]

You appeal to an apocalyptic text written in the Greek language hundreds of years later. I must say I find this not only unconvincing, but indicative of the strength of my argument.


In a rather general way, the entire Bible can be summed up as the simple chiasm

A God creates
B man falls
B' man is redeemed
A' God destroys/re-creates

Revelation is not as far removed from Genesis as you seem to think.

One more comment; You seem to think that Genesis 2:5 is a problem:


Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

Ted's findings are instructive, though it would be really nice if he could provide a reference:
The statement that in 2:5 siyach can mean “any plant” is simply a guess, and it’s not very good exegesis. When we have a word with two consistent uses in scripture, and one unknown use, does it make sense to give it a different meaning? No! We are bound by basic principles of interpretation to take the consistent usage and apply it to the unknown, unless there is an overwhelming scriptural reason to do otherwise. Our presuppositions don’t qualify. Thus, siyach hasadeh should be understood as a low brush, typically of useless variety. Dr. Younker goes on to discuss the etymology of the word in cognate languages, developing the definition of “thorny xerophyte.” No one else, to my knowledge, has done this work until Dr. Younker did it. (I can’t give a paper reference, since this is from a taped lecture I attended.)

Incidentally, the three other uses of this form of siyach that I have found all refer to "complaining" or similar. That is certainly not something from before the curse!

It seems to me that Genesis 2:5 says, in effect, "Before man tilled the ground, there were no useless or cultivated plants, and it did not rain."

Alternatively, here's an idea that a Hebrew scholar could validate or disprove. :eek: I noticed that the KJV parses differently from most other translations when 2:4 and 2:5 are taken as a literary unit, as the punctuation would indicate:

[4]These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, [5]and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

I would paraphrase it thusly: "In the time period that God made the earth and the heavens and plants, it had not yet rained, and man was not yet created." This could be taken as a summary of the first five days of Creation. Again, I could be way off base here. I'm not a KJV-onlyist by any means. Matthew Henry's commentary gave me the idea.

--OBP

[One Bad Pig]

Yesterday @ 07:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=299034#post299034)
Sanity:

BrianB missed something. The discussion of the problem with the 24 hour day did indicate that the concept of a day refers to a full rotation of the earth - a concept the ancient Hebrews would have been ignorant of. The solar day refers to a full rotation around the earth relative to our sun. The sidereal day refers to rotation of the earth in relation to the stars. The two aren't the same length.

The Hebrew word day doesn't mean any of these things. It means the period from one sunset to the next sunset on the planet earth. As a result the word couldn't be used to mean a literal day until the sun and moon were created.


As Brian said, the Hebrew language and culture lacked the specificity to differentiate between solar and sidereal time. The Hebrews did measure time from sunset to sunset. The sun and moon were not created until the fourth day, but light (and the light/dark cycle) were created on day 1, establishing the pattern. God himself may have provided light at first, just as he will at the end of time.


As the article mentioned, the Hebrews sometimes used the word to mean something other than an actual day - just as we do. &quot;Man, it took me all day to finish that job!&quot; Who hasn't said or heard someone say this? Seldom does this mean 24 hours. It just means &quot;a long time.&quot;

There are many places in the Old Testament where the word 'day' was not referring to one light-dark cycle. However, there are places where it does. Genesis 1 seems to me to be the most ironclad of those. The lack of indefinite articles before 'day', the numbering of days, and the morning/evening formulation all point to literal 24-hour days. It takes an agenda to see otherwise.

[OracleofTroy]

Interesting article and well thought out. I really have only one question though.

In the article, you say that the days are not sequential. In fact, you seem to imply that there are really only three days of creation. i.e. Day one - light is created and further info is given about the sun created to rule the day. Even though the events are attributed to different days, the author is merely giving further info about day one.

If this is correct, then shouldn't the Sabbath rest be every four days? The Sabbath rest is based on the idea of six distinct creation days, not three days with further info given later on.

How would you answer this objection? You say that they are not sequential, and that the days may overlap. Yet of the transition of days it says "And there was evening, and there was morning,.." which seems to imply an order to these events. Further, it says "the second day... the third day..." giving the days of creation an explicit ordinal immediately following the transition from evening to morning.

Again, great article!

[Sanity]

I reread through what I thought was the relevant section of the paper, and I think there's some misunderstanding, either of my paper or of my understanding your comments. I specifically stated in the paper that Moses' audience wouldn't have thought of a 'day' in terms of the earth spinning on its axis, but instead by the rising/setting of the sun:

Could you please clarify a little more on what you're trying to say? It's possible that there's another section of my paper that was written differently, which I'll have to correct if the case. If so, then let me know and I'll take a look at it.

Thanks, and welcome to the discussion.

Thanks, Brian.

I did note that you said that Moses's audience would have understood the day that way. However, in your rebuttal to the 24-hour day argument, you discussed the meaning of the Hebrew word day as sometimes meaning an unspecified long period of time. It is in this context that I think it would be useful to point out that the Hebrew word day, when referring to an actual day, specifically means the period between sunset and sunset.

In addition, this specific meaning of the word might be useful in your rebuttal to the argument that any specific point of light is all that is needed to accomplish a 24 hour day. Here there are a number of problems - perhaps so many that it would be overkill in the context of your paper. One is that the point of light would have to be where our sun is (or the opposite direction). If it were above the north pole, there would be no sunset in the Near East - and thus no sunset to sunset Hebrew day.

Your paper was excellent. I am always pleased to see accurate interpretations, based on the best possible knowledge of the meanings of words and concepts at the time the passage was written, and the greater cultural context.

I am pleased when I see Christian's with the courage and faith to propose an accurate interpretation even when that interpretation is contrary to "official" apologetic doctrinal interpretations.

As for myself, I am a world class nit-picker. It is seldom that I read published works without thinking of several "suggestions" for more effective presentation. I found only the one in your article. I could be completely off base on that - it surely wouldn't be the first time :(

Sanity

[Sanity]

There are many places in the Old Testament where the word 'day' was not referring to one light-dark cycle. However, there are places where it does. Genesis 1 seems to me to be the most ironclad of those. The lack of indefinite articles before 'day', the numbering of days, and the morning/evening formulation all point to literal 24-hour days. It takes an agenda to see otherwise.

Actually it is the other way around. I read the Bible, cover to cover, for the first time when I was eight years old. I had not yet been taught the current doctrinal apologetic interpretation. I read my Bible frequently, and was to read the whole thing several more times before the first time I heard of the 24-day argument when I was about 15 or 16. The first time I heard the argument, I laughed out loud.

One must be educated in the literalist agenda before one can see this meaning in the plainly written words of scripture.

It wasn't until the relatively recent development of literal interpretation that these things were felt to be a problem - even in my Southern Baptist Church.

[Socrates]

Today @ 05:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=309747#post309747)
Sanity:

Actually it is the other way around. I read the Bible, cover to cover, for the first time when I was eight years old. I had not yet been taught the current doctrinal apologetic interpretation. I read my Bible frequently, and was to read the whole thing several more times before the first time I heard of the 24-day argument when I was about 15 or 16. The first time I heard the argument, I laughed out loud.

It is really amusing to see a scientifically and linguistically illiterate self-confessed apostate give us her "expert" opinion on Genesis, based on her view as a teenager. Never mind that the 24-hour view was almost universally held for 1800 years of church history by scholars whose shoes she isn't fit to tie.

She was sensible to stay away for four months after the pasting at Simplified discriptions are totally different from errant ones (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=136549#post136549). Back then, I pointed out that her apostasy was par for the course for people who refused to believe that God could say what He meant and mean what He said. It's crazy that she still sees nothing incongruous with trying to instruct Christians how to read a book she despises.

One must be educated in the literalist agenda before one can see this meaning in the plainly written words of scripture.

Au contraire, it was only the indoctrination into uniformitarian "science" that caused people to DENY the plain meaning of the words. I don't even know who these "literalists" are -- don't sound like anyone I know.

It wasn't until the relatively recent development of literal interpretation that these things were felt to be a problem - even in my Southern Baptist Church.

As if a rabid and irrational atheist like (in)sanity cares.

[One Bad Pig]

Today @ 02:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=309747#post309747)

There are many places in the Old Testament where the word 'day' was not referring to one light-dark cycle. However, there are places where it does. Genesis 1 seems to me to be the most ironclad of those. The lack of indefinite articles before 'day', the numbering of days, and the morning/evening formulation all point to literal 24-hour days. It takes an agenda to see otherwise.
Sanity:
Actually it is the other way around. I read the Bible, cover to cover, for the first time when I was eight years old. I had not yet been taught the current doctrinal apologetic interpretation. I read my Bible frequently, and was to read the whole thing several more times before the first time I heard of the 24-day argument when I was about 15 or 16. The first time I heard the argument, I laughed out loud.

Maybe you should've slowed down and actually pondered what you were reading.


One must be educated in the literalist agenda before one can see this meaning in the plainly written words of scripture.

As has been pointed out here on Tweb before, even skeptical Hebrew scholars point out that 24-hour days is the plain reading of the text.


It wasn't until the relatively recent development of literal interpretation that these things were felt to be a problem - even in my Southern Baptist Church.

It wasn't until the less recent development of uniformitarian philosophy that the literal interpretation was called into question. I've been going to a Southern Baptist church for about a year now. Southern Baptists aren't necessarily right just because they're Baptists. All churches are not created equal, even within denominations.

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=303174#post303174


Hi OBP, and welcome to the discussion,

On the definition of 'myth' I'm using it in sense #1 as it's used in the scholarly literature that I've read, not as it's defined by a dictionary. Again, words can be used in different ways, so we have to specify about which ways we are using it, and I'm using this particular one as I've seen it used by scholars where it can mean "an account of origins without reference to truth or falsity."



I, for one, agree with Ted. I wouldn't say it's a result of bad writing on your part. You've clearly put some time and effort into this. I don't think that your parallels to Ezra 4 and Matthew/Luke work too well. Ezra 4 is clearly thematically grouped. Jesus' ministry is arranged differently in each gospel, so no more than one of them can be strictly chronological. On the other hand, Genesis 1 is transparently chronological. I mean, how can a sequence be more clearly established than "Day 1-x; Day 2-xx; etc."?


Ahh, I see now. It's not that you think the proponents of the FI intend to convey the idea that it undermines God's position as creator, you're just assuming that if the text was actually promoting the FI, it would by its nature be undermining the claim that he is creator. All you've done is begged the question for your position, and engaged in special pleading by agreeing that Ezra and the gospel accounts are fine when dischronologized, but Genesis 1 is not. Sorry, but you need to actually argue for your position not just say "Genesis 1 is transparently chronological" and assume that your position is supported. If dischronologization has no implications for the truth/falsity of other texts, then it's just special pleading on your part to claim that it does for Genesis 1. It's a valid literary technique, whether you want it to be or not. :)



I'm impressed with the sheer level of obtuseness you're showing here. You can't be that dense. Ted disagreed (emphatically) with the Two-Triadic structure. That's his objection.


Ok, then perhaps you can explain what his objection is. If we agree on the structure, and I call it two-triad, how are we in disagreement? It's all well and good to say "I disagree" but if you were to tell me you disagreed with a 50 mile-per-hour speed limit and in the next breath told me a law should be passed requiring everyone to drive 50 mph or less, I'd say you're just confused, not that you disagree with a 50 mph speed limit. Here, I'll even quote the relevant section for you:


Two-Triad Structure
Brian presents the parallel structure of the first six days of creation, arguing in essence that they are presented as a literary myth. The theological purpose of the account is therefore to ascribe authority to Yahweh. The literal fact of Yahweh as Creator is therefore necessarily called into some degree of question. But if we look at the sum of the rest of scripture, Yahwehs authority exists for the simple reason that he is the Creator. And that rests on the veracity of the creation account. To consider this further, let us revisit his two-triad structure.

The creation account in Genesis 1:1-2:3 is NOT a two-triad structure. Before you reach for the tomatoes, allow me to expand. The account is a Hebrew poem. The rhyme is topical, not auditory.

Gen 1:1 begins the poem with the ascription of creation to Yahweh (literally elohim in the text). Verse 2 continues this prolog with, the earth was unformed and unfilled. This statement creates the structure of the account. Yes, day 1 & 4, 2 & 5, and 3 & 6 are matched. On the first of the pair, a particular element is formed, and on the second it is filled. After the completion of the poems body, it ends with a matching epilog, the Sabbath. The structure looks like this:

Prolog: In the beginning...unformed and unfilled
1 - Form light............4 - Fill light with sun, etc.
2 - Form sea/sky.......5 - Fill with birds/fish
3 - Form dry land......6 - Fill with animals/man
Epilog: Sabbath rest.

The Sabbath is an inherent part of that structure, and does match the Exodus 20:11 citation. There are many reasons for this conclusion, but they are outside the scope of this discussion. We may simply note that the Hebrews 4 contra-argument fails because sabbatismos is attested in non-canonical literature as seventh-day Sabbath-keeping. Further, the writer of Hebrews uses the Sabbath, a day, as a type for an antitypical eschatological rest.

The use of poetry is common in the Old Testament. One of its key purposes is to emphasize the truth of what is being said. Thus the literary structure emphasizes the literal truth of the story.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=283986#post283986

Please explain _how_ his description of the structure is in disagreement with the Two-Triadic framework? It looks identical to me.
Day 1 Day 4
Day 2 Day 5
Day 3 Day 6
......Day 7......

Perhaps I really am that dense and need the utter obvious pointed out to me. It is impossible to see past one's own blind spots after all.

The quote of Steinmann doesn't help your case either. It's only if you beg the question in regards to the chronological sequence that you could claim it defines a 'yom' without reference to the sun. I don't see that helping your attempt to get rid of a normal solar day as the appropriate definition for 'yom' combined with a number. Perhaps you'll expand on this and try to show how the argumentation supports defining yom as an abnormal, non-solar 24-hour period for the first three days. I would request, though, that if you intend to push this argument that you would read his paper and be prepared to defend his argument.


I do want to point out one last thing. You'll not be happy about this, but it's so classic that it's worth pointing out. In your next post you say:


There are many places in the Old Testament where the word 'day' was not referring to one light-dark cycle. However, there are places where it does. Genesis 1 seems to me to be the most ironclad of those. The lack of indefinite articles before 'day', the numbering of days, and the morning/evening formulation all point to literal 24-hour days. It takes an agenda to see otherwise.


I'd rewrite that to more accurately say:


There are many places in the Old Testament where the word 'day' was not referring to one light-dark cycle. However, there are places where it does. Genesis 1 seems to me to be the most ironclad of those. The lack of indefinite articles before 'day', the numbering of days, and the morning/evening formulation all point to literal, normal solar days. It takes an agenda to see otherwise.


It certainly does.

*grin*

Regards,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=309663#post309663


Sanity,

I'm going to try and get access to a printer so I can print out my paper and your comments, and I'll get back to you when I've spent some time looking at both. It'll probably be at least a few days with Thanksgiving coming up, but I promise I'll get a response up in a 'preterist soon'. (chuckle)

Oh, and please just ignore the posters who are unable to offer anything substantive and can only scream-and-hollar and insult people when their pet arguments are going down the drain. It's sad that it's what some YEC have been reduced to. Fortunately, not all YE people are like that even if a highly vocal minority are.

Regards,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=309259#post309259


Hi OracleofTroy,

Thanks for your gracious comments. :)


Interesting article and well thought out. I really have only one question though.

In the article, you say that the days are not sequential. In fact, you seem to imply that there are really only three days of creation. i.e. Day one - light is created and further info is given about the sun created to rule the day. Even though the events are attributed to different days, the author is merely giving further info about day one.


Hmm, let me attempt to help clear things up.

The days are sequential as narrated, but they do not refer to days in reality. That is, I'm not saying that God took 6 24hr periods and created things in a different order than they are narrated in. The 'days' are literary devices and don't refer to specific amounts of time. There are 6 days of creation narrated, but those don't refer to any specific number of days/months/years of how/when God performed his actual creation. "Day 4" in the narrative refers to the same events as "Day 1" of the narrative, but neither of those necessarily refers to any specific length of time.

Day 2 corresponds thematically to Day 5, but there's no indication that they are referring to events in the same time period. Likewise for Days 3 and 6.


If this is correct, then shouldn't the Sabbath rest be every four days? The Sabbath rest is based on the idea of six distinct creation days, not three days with further info given later on.


I see what you're thinking here (I believe) and it goes back to the confusion between the narrative days and what they refer to. Moses constructed the Genesis account according to 7 narrated days in order to provide a sabbatical theology, and the sabbatical theology is based on the thematic/literary structure, not what "actually happened in reality" if you will.


How would you answer this objection? You say that they are not sequential, and that the days may overlap. Yet of the transition of days it says "And there was evening, and there was morning,.." which seems to imply an order to these events. Further, it says "the second day... the third day..." giving the days of creation an explicit ordinal immediately following the transition from evening to morning.

Again, great article!


I agree that the narrative has order, and the "evening/morning" refrain might have something to do with order, besides just indicating that all 6 days are ordinary solar days, though with the presence of the numbering of the days I don't see that the E/M refrain would add anything to the fact that the narrative is clearly sequential. I have a feeling I might not have answered your question fully because of a present case of brain-freeze, so please continue to press me on this if I haven't explained what I'm trying to say well enough (or if you just disagree).

Thanks again for your question and gracious comments! Glad to have you here.

Regards,
Brian

[One Bad Pig]

Today @ 04:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=310919#post310919)
BrianB:

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&amp;postid=303174#post303174


Hi OBP, and welcome to the discussion,

Thanks!:smile:


On the definition of 'myth' I'm using it in sense #1 as it's used in the scholarly literature that I've read, not as it's defined by a dictionary. Again, words can be used in different ways, so we have to specify about which ways we are using it, and I'm using this particular one as I've seen it used by scholars where it can mean &quot;an account of origins without reference to truth or falsity.&quot;

:hrm: Okay. Realize that the negative connotations of the word aren't easily laid aside, though.


Ahh, I see now. It's not that you think the proponents of the FI intend to convey the idea that it undermines God's position as creator, you're just assuming that if the text was actually promoting the FI, it would by its nature be undermining the claim that he is creator.

Bingo!


All you've done is begged the question for your position, and engaged in special pleading by agreeing that Ezra and the gospel accounts are fine when dischronologized, but Genesis 1 is not. Sorry, but you need to actually argue for your position not just say &quot;Genesis 1 is transparently chronological&quot; and assume that your position is supported. If dischronologization has no implications for the truth/falsity of other texts, then it's just special pleading on your part to claim that it does for Genesis 1. It's a valid literary technique, whether you want it to be or not. :)

I beg to differ. Dischronologization is fine, IF there are no qualifying time markers. Is it special pleading to say that David reigned before Solomon, or that Jericho fell before Ai, or that Paul visited Rome before being shipwrecked?:poke: Your position, when carried to its logical conclusion, becomes illogical. :hrm:


Ok, then perhaps you can explain what his objection is. If we agree on the structure, and I call it two-triad, how are we in disagreement?... Please explain _how_ his description of the structure is in disagreement with the Two-Triadic framework? It looks identical to me.
Day 1 Day 4
Day 2 Day 5
Day 3 Day 6
......Day 7......

Perhaps I really am that dense and need the utter obvious pointed out to me. It is impossible to see past one's own blind spots after all.

No, you aren't that dense after all. You didn't mention the Two-Triadic framework at all in your reply to him, so I had to assume you didn't see it. As I see it, he disagreed with your labels and your radically separate treatment of Day 7. You said that the 'Creature Kings' of days 4,5,6 rule their respective domains, wheras Ted said that the objects/creatures on days 4,5,6 filled their respective domains. I see a difference there. The text says filled. I do not see a connection between the two, and presumably neither does Ted. Man rules the air/sea/land creatures. I also think that it's really stretching it to consider the sun/moon/stars creatures.


The quote of Steinmann doesn't help your case either. It's only if you beg the question in regards to the chronological sequence that you could claim it defines a 'yom' without reference to the sun. I don't see that helping your attempt to get rid of a normal solar day as the appropriate definition for 'yom' combined with a number. Perhaps you'll expand on this and try to show how the argumentation supports defining yom as an abnormal, non-solar 24-hour period for the first three days. I would request, though, that if you intend to push this argument that you would read his paper and be prepared to defend his argument.

I'd be quite interested to take a look at his article, but I didn't find it on an Internet search, and I don't have easy access to a seminary library. Any suggestions?

I think I see what your hangup is now. You just can't conceive of a 24-hour period defined by anything other than the sun. God provided light for the Israelites in the desert. God will be the light in heaven. God is omnipotent. Is it any stretch of the imagination to postulate that God Himself was the light source for the first three days? I read your arguments against this. Yes, the Jews used the rising and setting of the sun. After Day 4, this makes perfect sense. Before Day 4, God as a source of light may not have looked materially different -- and there were no Jews around then to record differently. [Your quotation of Jonathan Safarti, "It is only recently that the astronomical fact has been realized that a day-night cycle needs only light plus rotation. Having ‘day’ without the sun would have been generally inconceivable to the ancients." is misleading. He uses it to show that the creation account could not have been fiction.] Once this is accepted, there remains no need for dischronologization, and your other arguments begin to look forced. I realize that this would be a paradigm shift for you.

I accept the first 7 days of the Universe to be literal, 24-hour time periods. How? The plain reading of the text shows the first 6 days to be literal time periods, which you agree with.The 24hr proponents have made a very strong case. From a semantic perspective the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of understanding the éåí of Genesis 1 as ordinary, normal days. The seventh day is somewhat less definitive, as the morning/evening formula is not used. However, using Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, we see that all 7 days are treated equally, confirming that the seventh day also lasted 24 hours. Please note that I am not using Exodus to argue that the first six days are literal. You (and Irons/Kline) are being artificially wooden in your interpretation of Ex. 31:17. Aside from God's divine attributes (deity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence), references to Him are necessarily metaphorical, unless you want to take the Mormon stance that God has a literal body.:teeth:


I do want to point out one last thing. You'll not be happy about this, but it's so classic that it's worth pointing out. In your next post you say:

There are many places in the Old Testament where the word 'day' was not referring to one light-dark cycle. However, there are places where it does. Genesis 1 seems to me to be the most ironclad of those. The lack of indefinite articles before 'day', the numbering of days, and the morning/evening formulation all point to literal 24-hour days. It takes an agenda to see otherwise.
I'd rewrite that to more accurately say:

There are many places in the Old Testament where the word 'day' was not referring to one light-dark cycle. However, there are places where it does. Genesis 1 seems to me to be the most ironclad of those. The lack of indefinite articles before 'day', the numbering of days, and the morning/evening formulation all point to literal, normal solar days. It takes an agenda to see otherwise.


I wouldn't.:teeth::whip: I don't have your hang-up.

From your initial post:

The following six points summarize why I consider the Framework Interpretation to be the most consistent with the biblical evidence.

1. The obvious two-triadic literary framework in Genesis 1.


I see no problem with the thematic arrangement, just your interpretation of it. Why couldn't God have chosen to perform similar actions on Days 1/4 and 2/5 and 3/6? The thematic arrangement wouldn't provide any problems for the 24-hour interpretation (or the Day-Age, for that matter).

2. The evidence that Day 4 is a return to the events of Day 1 and describes in more detail how God separated the light from the darkness.

The evidence shows a thematic similarity between Days 1 and 4. Your interpretation advocates the FI position. There is a difference.

3. The principle of continuity, showing that God established the ordinary means of sustaining a creation before he created it.

"I think that God should have worked this way, so I'll ignore the plain meaning of the text in favor of my own interpretation." Sarcasm Great exegesis. /Sarcasm

4. The argument from semantics showing that the days must mean normal solar days. Neither abnormal non-solar 24-hour periods nor long ages can be considered within the semantic range of the Genesis 1 creation 'days'.

See above.

5.The metaphorical interpretation of the Exodus 20/31 passages is most consistent with the FI view on Genesis 1.

I'll agree with you here. The metaphorical interpretation of the Exodus 20/31 passages is consistent with the FI view. That's why you use it. This gets my vote for JPH's "Golden Duh" Award. :teeth:

6. The eternal nature of the seventh day requires a metaphorical interpretation.

This makes two in a row! :teeth::teeth:

You're supporting the FI viewpoint rather dogmatically for your tentative agreement with it. Sounds like you've already convinced yourself.

Oh, and please just ignore the posters who are unable to offer anything substantive and can only scream-and-hollar and insult people when their pet arguments are going down the drain. It's sad that it's what some YEC have been reduced to. Fortunately, not all YE people are like that even if a highly vocal minority are.

Oh, so THAT's why you haven't responded to Soc's posts. How droll. :ahem: I don't always agree with Soc's methods, but he does provide substantive arguments in many cases. He does get into shouting matches sometimes.:whip: (In case it isn't obvious, I'm :whip:ping Soc here.:smile:)

[OracleofTroy]

Yesterday @ 02:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=310951#post310951)
BrianB:

Re:http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&amp;postid=309259#post309259


Hi OracleofTroy,

Thanks for your gracious comments. :)
You're welcome!


Hmm, let me attempt to help clear things up.

The days are sequential as narrated, but they do not refer to days in reality. That is, I'm not saying that God took 6 24hr periods and created things in a different order than they are narrated in. The 'days' are literary devices and don't refer to specific amounts of time. There are 6 days of creation narrated, but those don't refer to any specific number of days/months/years of how/when God performed his actual creation. &quot;Day 4&quot; in the narrative refers to the same events as &quot;Day 1&quot; of the narrative, but neither of those necessarily refers to any specific length of time.

Day 2 corresponds thematically to Day 5, but there's no indication that they are referring to events in the same time period. Likewise for Days 3 and 6.



For sake of argument, I'll concede that the days refer literarily to 24h days, but can be interpreted into 6 undefined periods of time. I am more concerned with the sequence of events as listed in Genesis.

I should have quoted the relevant paragraphs, least my question be left so vague. I shall correct that now.


The recognition that the events on both days are described by the same language of separation leads to our third point, which is that the purpose of the creative acts narrated on Days 1 and 4 is the same, to separate. This shows not only that the text is covering similar thematic content, but also that Day 4 is actually returning to the events of Day 1 and offering further commentary.

Similar to Genesis 2 revisiting the creation of man in Genesis 1 in order to add detail about how God created man, Day 4 revisits Day 1 and describes in more detail how God created daylight on the earth and separated the light from the darkness. That is, Day 1 gives us the results, and Day 4 comes back and discusses the means that God used to generate the results of Day 1.

God created man God created light
This is how God created man This is how God created light

God's purpose on Day 1 was to separate the light from the darkness. Did God fail in doing what he set out to do on Day 1 and thus require another attempt on Day 4 with the purpose of separating light from darkness? Of course not. Because of the identical purpose between Days 1 and 4, we can confidently say that the text is simply returning to a previous point in the narrative in order to offer further details, again, a how for the what described on Day 1. For the 24hr and Day-Age views this evidence of non-sequential narration is a big problem because both views interpret the 'days' as happening in sequential order.


It seems to me that this section is saying that there are (when literally interpreted using "temporal overlay") only three days of creation. That is, while we might come to the text today and assume 6 days, the ancient Jewish reader would have seen a temporal overlay indicating only three literal days.

Thus we would have:

Time Period A

Creation 'day' 1 and 4

Time Period B

Creation 'day' 2 and 5

Time Period C

Creation 'day' 3 and 6


If this is the case, how could Moses use the genesis account to establish a 7th day of rest rather than a 4th day of rest? Further, your argument hinges on the position that Genesis 1 can be interpreted using temporal overlay to establish a non-sequential order. For example, in the section I quoted above, you said,

Because of the identical purpose between Days 1 and 4, we can confidently say that the text is simply returning to a previous point in the narrative in order to offer further details, again, a how for the what described on Day 1. For the 24hr and Day-Age views this evidence of non-sequential narration is a big problem because both views interpret the 'days' as happening in sequential order.

I am not so confident that you can say, "The text is simply returning to a previous point in the narrative." While Leviticus 16:6-11 and Judges 20:31-47 may follow this pattern, neither seem to have any explicit marker to indicate chronological sequence.

Genesis does. In fact, it has two such indicators. One marker explicitly shows a night day transition to distinguish between one set of events and another. Perhaps this alone would not be convincing; however, each creation 'day' is also explicitly given an ordinal number, which seems to my naive 21st century mind to be conclusive proof that we cannot apply temporal overlay to Genesis 1. It might have been lain out in a non-consecutive order; however, I fail to see how we can support that claim when the text explicitly says that x event happened on 'day' number 1 and y event happened on a different day number 4.


I see what you're thinking here (I believe) and it goes back to the confusion between the narrative days and what they refer to.

Yes, I suppose that is the heart of the matter. To clarify, I am not specifically defending 24h or day-age creation in my post, though I happen to side with the 24h camp. I'm just curious how you defend the non-sequential aspect and your seven narrative 'days', three literal 'days', undefined number of ages theory.

Is there something I'm missing?

Thanks for your response.

[Sanity]

Oh, and please just ignore the posters who are unable to offer anything substantive and can only scream-and-hollar and insult people when their pet arguments are going down the drain.
Welcome to the wild world of web forums. I have found that on both sides of the divide between believer and non-believer, it isn't pet arguments that people protect like they were their first born child.

Perhaps it is in our nature. It seems to be the norm rather than an exception for people to adopt ideologies, and then religiously cling to and protect every piece of dogma and every "team slogan" they hear from their peers within the ideology or from the mouths of their high priests.

It is as if they believe that if any piece of dogma isn't completely true then the entire ideology must be false. How ridiculous. No doctrine, whether religious, political, scientific, or cultural has ever survived long without change.

It is a challenge to actual scholars, such as yourself, to get people to understand that the Bible was never intended to be a science manual. Its ironic. How effective would the texts of Moses have been if they included accurate descriptions of a universe consisting of electrons, protons, atoms, and suns, planets and entire solar systems other than our own?

We can be comforted my the fact that once upon a time people rejected these concepts because they conflicted with current interpretations of the Bible. Now days the same people who are telling you that you are wrong (if not evil), vehemently deny that Christians and Christian doctrine ever denied these things. Someday they will be saying the same thing about what you are saying.

It's sad that it's what some YEC have been reduced to. Fortunately, not all YE people are like that even if a highly vocal minority are.
This isn't restricted to YEC. You find it all over the web, in regard to all sorts of things.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 08:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=310940#post310940)
BrianB:

Sanity,

Oh, and please just ignore the posters who are unable to offer anything substantive and can only scream-and-hollar and insult people when their pet arguments are going down the drain. It's sad that it's what some YEC have been reduced to. Fortunately, not all YE people are like that even if a highly vocal minority are.

Ah yes, please instead befriend "useful idiots" (as Lenin termed his dupes in the West who were too stupid to realise that they were undermining their own position) who tacitly make "science" the authority over the Bible like Kline does, and then try to rationalise it with loopy eisegesis majoring on nonsense about solar days and normal providence. That's bound to confirm you in your apostasy.

[One Bad Pig]

Today @ 06:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=312761#post312761)
Sanity:

Perhaps it is in our nature. It seems to be the norm rather than an exception for people to adopt ideologies, and then religiously cling to and protect every piece of dogma and every &quot;team slogan&quot; they hear from their peers within the ideology or from the mouths of their high priests.

I do not take positions lightly; hence, I do not give them up lightly, either. I also do not blindly follow those I look up to as leaders. I sift what they say critically, and cling fast to what is good.


It is as if they believe that if any piece of dogma isn't completely true then the entire ideology must be false. How ridiculous. No doctrine, whether religious, political, scientific, or cultural has ever survived long without change.

I dogmatically cling to the belief that without the Resurrection, Christianity is useless. Anything else, I'm willing to entertain other views on. However, it's going to take an iron-clad argument to make me change my mind. FI is not what I would consider an iron-clad argument.:teeth:


It is a challenge to actual scholars, such as yourself, to get people to understand that the Bible was never intended to be a science manual. Its ironic. How effective would the texts of Moses have been if they included accurate descriptions of a universe consisting of electrons, protons, atoms, and suns, planets and entire solar systems other than our own?

You are absolutely correct. The Bible is not a science manual. This fact does not a priori prove that any science in the Bible is wrong, however.


We can be comforted my the fact that once upon a time people rejected these concepts because they conflicted with current interpretations of the Bible. Now days the same people who are telling you that you are wrong (if not evil), vehemently deny that Christians and Christian doctrine ever denied these things. Someday they will be saying the same thing about what you are saying.

:huh::noid: Maybe it's my lack of sleep, but I just can't parse this paragraph. The second sentence appears inherently contradictory: "The people who say you are wrong deny that they ever denied these things"?:huh:

[Socrates]

Sanity:

BrianB missed something. The discussion of the problem with the 24 hour day did indicate that the concept of a day refers to a full rotation of the earth - a concept the ancient Hebrews would have been ignorant of. The solar day refers to a full rotation around the earth relative to our sun. The sidereal day refers to rotation of the earth in relation to the stars. The two aren't the same length.

Big whoop. They didn't NEED to know about earth rotation to understand what a day-night cycle meant. They did have a huge number of words for a long age of time, if the writer had wanted to communicate that. But he didn't use them! :doh:

The Hebrew word day doesn't mean any of these things. It means the period from one sunset to the next sunset on the planet earth. As a result the word couldn't be used to mean a literal day until the sun and moon were created.

Nonsense. The whole point is that the day meant a light-dark cycle, as defined in Genesis 1:5. And it's amazing that Brian could so blatantly misrepresent an AiG article about this. He said:

One of the most prominent of the Young Earth Creationists agrees with me. Jonathan Sarfati (of Answers In Genesis) says:

It is only recently that the astronomical fact has been realized that a day-night cycle needs only light plus rotation. Having ‘day’ without the sun would have been generally inconceivable to the ancients.

But in context, what was said in the article www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp was:

This unusual, counter-intuitive order of creation (light before sun) actually adds a hallmark of authenticity. If the Bible had been the product of later ‘editors’, as many critics allege (see Did Moses really write Genesis? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3745.asp)), they would surely have modified this to fit with their own understanding. It is only recently that the astronomical fact has been realized that a day-night cycle needs only light plus rotation. Having ‘day’ without the sun would have been generally inconceivable to the ancients.

I.e. the point was made (in the part with italics added) that mythmakers would not have thought of having day/night cycles without the sun, but Genesis DID have these, showing that it was NOT myth but real history.

In fact, early church writers made this very point that the real history of Creation Week contradicted pagan ideas. E.g. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch in the 2nd century, wrote [To Autolycus 2:15]:

‘On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.’

In the 4th century, Basil the Great made the same point [Hexaëmeron 6:2]:

‘Heaven and earth were the first; after them was created light; the day had been distinguished from the night, then had appeared the firmament and the dry element. The water had been gathered into the reservoir assigned to it, the earth displayed its productions, it had caused many kinds of herbs to germinate and it was adorned with all kinds of plants. However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and the father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.”’

Yet Brian would have us believe that everyone before the invention of the FI in about 1924 was too stupid to realise the problem of no days before the sun. :dufus:

The article Brian quoted (out of context) had previously said:

On the fourth day the present system was instituted as the Earth’s temporary light-bearers were made, so the diffused light from the first day was no longer needed. [Interestingly, after writing this article, I found that Calvin had made the same point (see Calvin says: Genesis means what it says (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n4_calvin.asp)). This shows that once again, skeptics just repeat arguments long ago refuted by Bible believing scholars.]

inSanity: As the article mentioned, the Hebrews sometimes used the word to mean something other than an actual day - just as we do. "Man, it took me all day to finish that job!" Who hasn't said or heard someone say this? Seldom does this mean 24 hours.

Crap -- this is the most common meaning by far! Indeed, HALOT gives this meaning for y&ocirc;m; in Genesis 1:5!! Even Brian got that part right.

It just means "a long time."

The point was, it doesn't mean a long time when it is associated with evening/morning or a number. And when it DOES mean a long time period, it is when it is associated with another time indicator, and it is that OTHER word that makes it a long-time, not y&ocirc;m per se.

Sanity:

It is as if they believe that if any piece of dogma isn't completely true then the entire ideology must be false. How ridiculous. No doctrine, whether religious, political, scientific, or cultural has ever survived long without change.
:shoot: Coming from someone who ditched the faith she professed, that's rich.:whack:

It is a challenge to actual scholars, such as yourself, to get people to understand that the Bible was never intended to be a science manual.

Who says it does? There are a number of people here who persist in misrepresenting me as teaching that, when I've repeatedly said that Genesis is history, not science. (Evolution is also a claim about history and has nothing to do with the real operational science that put men on the moon and developed technology, for example). I'm glad it's not a science manual, because they always have mistakes and go out of date every few years :rofl:

Its ironic. How effective would the texts of Moses have been if they included accurate descriptions of a universe consisting of electrons, protons, atoms, and suns, planets and entire solar systems other than our own?
Not that a self-confessed apostate regards the text as effective anyway :bonk:

And I've already explained to her that there is a difference between a simplified description and a false one. I gave the example of a woman telling her child where he came from. "You grew in my tummy" is simplified but accurate, since "tummy" is an acceptable term for the abdominal region. "A stork brought you" is just false. Saying that God created in six days and in a particular order, and with separate ancestry for different kinds, is just WRONG--in time scale, order of events, and in ancestry--not simplified if goo-to-you evolution were true.

We can be comforted my the fact that once upon a time people rejected these concepts because they conflicted with current interpretations of the Bible. Now days the same people who are telling you that you are wrong (if not evil), vehemently deny that Christians and Christian doctrine ever denied these things. Someday they will be saying the same thing about what you are saying.

Like what? Not the boring old Galileo canard? Or does she also believe that everyone apart from Columbus believed in a flat earth, or that Inherit the Wind is an accurate dramatization of the Scopes Trial? :duh:

This isn't restricted to YEC. You find it all over the web, in regard to all sorts of things.

Yeah, just look at the dogmatism of evolutionists who explicitly say that even if the evidence pointed ot a Designer, they would not believe it because a designer is not scientific. :squish:

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=309663#post309663

Hi Sanity,

Ok, I've spent some more time thinking through the post I said I'd get back to you on, and here is what I've come up with.

You said:

I did note that you said that Moses's audience would have understood the day that way. However, in your rebuttal to the 24-hour day argument, you discussed the meaning of the Hebrew word day as sometimes meaning an unspecified long period of time. It is in this context that I think it would be useful to point out that the Hebrew word day, when referring to an actual day, specifically means the period between sunset and sunset.


Ok, it looks like, when you say "in your rebuttal to the 24-hour day argument", you're referring to the Implications section that begins with a quote of Gentry.

What I think you're saying is:

It would be helpful if I indicated not only that the days are always solar days, but that I should also indicate that they were defined specifically by the rising/setting of the sun. It's not until a little later in the paper, after the quote of Stambaugh, that I indicate they would have defined it in terms of the sun rising/setting. It'd just be better if I discusses this issue earlier.

This is what I'm understanding you to say, but I wonder if I'm still not getting it, because it's only about 1/2 page later that I go into that. Of course, a lot can happen in half a page. heh



In addition, this specific meaning of the word might be useful in your rebuttal to the argument that any specific point of light is all that is needed to accomplish a 24 hour day. Here there are a number of problems - perhaps so many that it would be overkill in the context of your paper. One is that the point of light would have to be where our sun is (or the opposite direction). If it were above the north pole, there would be no sunset in the Near East - and thus no sunset to sunset Hebrew day.


I think what you point out might be useful, but that it would be overkill in the paper. Something like that I'd probably leave to the side and discuss it on a case-by-case basis with people. I mean, the paper is already so long that most of my friends and acquaintances that I sent it too didn't read it (yet) because of the length.

Thanks again for your gracious comments. I really do appreciate them.

Regards,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=311297#post311297


Hi again OBP,

For brevity, I'm deleting much of the previously quoted material. I hope that's considered acceptable by everyone here.

(on 'myth')


Okay. Realize that the negative connotations of the word aren't easily laid aside, though.


Oh yes, I do know that...which is why I spent the time I did in discussing the different definitions. I prefer not to use the word myself, since it generally has that connotation.




Ahh, I see now. It's not that you think the proponents of the FI intend to convey the idea that it undermines God's position as creator, you're just assuming that if the text was actually promoting the FI, it would by its nature be undermining the claim that he is creator.


Bingo!


All you've done is begged the question for your position, and engaged in special pleading by agreeing that Ezra and the gospel accounts are fine when dischronologized, but Genesis 1 is not. Sorry, but you need to actually argue for your position not just say "Genesis 1 is transparently chronological" and assume that your position is supported. If dischronologization has no implications for the truth/falsity of other texts, then it's just special pleading on your part to claim that it does for Genesis 1. It's a valid literary technique, whether you want it to be or not. :)


I beg to differ. Dischronologization is fine, IF there are no qualifying time markers. Is it special pleading to say that David reigned before Solomon, or that Jericho fell before Ai, or that Paul visited Rome before being shipwrecked? Your position, when carried to its logical conclusion, becomes illogical.


I think there's still some confusion here. I understand why you would say something like:
A. If there are no qualifying time markers, then dischronologization is possible, but if there are markers such as found in Genesis 1, then dischronologization is not possible.

However, you _seem_ to be saying:
B. If there are no qualifying time markers, then dischronologization is possible and the use of it has no effect on truth/falsity, but if there are markers as found in Genesis 1, then while it is still possible, it means it is not truthful.

Is that what you are saying? Option "A" would be something I could see you easily saying. Option "B" as stated doesn't even really seem coherent to me, but it seems like that is what you are saying. Does that help make the questions more precise? If so, then help me understand which of those you're putting forward.



No, you aren't that dense after all. You didn't mention the Two-Triadic framework at all in your reply to him, so I had to assume you didn't see it. As I see it, he disagreed with your labels and your radically separate treatment of Day 7. You said that the 'Creature Kings' of days 4,5,6 rule their respective domains, wheras Ted said that the objects/creatures on days 4,5,6 filled their respective domains. I see a difference there. The text says filled. I do not see a connection between the two, and presumably neither does Ted. Man rules the air/sea/land creatures. I also think that it's really stretching it to consider the sun/moon/stars creatures.


Ok, then we misunderstood each other. BTW, I certainly wouldn't separate Day 7 conceptually from the preceding 6 days since it's not only an epilogue, but the capstone of the entire literary structure. And I agree that there is a difference between 'ruling' and 'filling' but I wouldn't peg that as a disagreement with the Framework Interpretation, merely a disagreement of a detail _within_ the details of the FI.


(on Steinmann's article)

I'd be quite interested to take a look at his article, but I didn't find it on an Internet search, and I don't have easy access to a seminary library. Any suggestions?'


If you know any friends at a seminary who can make photocopies (or who can type really, really fast? *laugh*) they could fax/mail it to you. Maybe one of the YEC organizations would have it on file and be able to send it.


I think I see what your hangup is now. You just can't conceive of a 24-hour period defined by anything other than the sun.


That's not true at all. I even said in the paper that we (in the modern age) could define a day as "a specific fraction of the half-life of decaying Carbon-14."

I personally have no problem conceiving of a 24-hour period defined by things other than the sun.
Again, quoting the paper:

"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."

For the rest of your points, of course God provided light in the desert. It's not that Israelites were unaware that light could come from other sources. They were familiar with fire, after all. It's the entire question of where did the light come from that defined night and day in their everyday experience. It was always the sun.

And my quote of Sarfati is dead-to-rights perfectly in support of my argument. It doesn't matter for what purpose he made the statement. The fact is that he recognized that having a day without the sun would have been generally inconceivable for the ancients. It's not misleading at all. It might irritate him to no end that his quote could be used against him, but tough cookies. I nowhere said that he changed his mind and became a FI advocate or anything like that.


I accept the first 7 days of the Universe to be literal, 24-hour time periods. How? The plain reading of the text shows the first 6 days to be literal time periods, which you agree with.


Of course you accept them as 24-hour periods of time. That's not the issue. What you don't accept is that they mean normal solar days. For your interpretation the first three are utterly abnormal, non-solar 24-hour periods of time. The whole argument comes down to the fact that I accept the usage of the word 'yom' in all six days as meaning normal days while you do not.



The 24hr proponents have made a very strong case. From a semantic perspective the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of understanding the 'yom' of Genesis 1 as ordinary, normal days.


The seventh day is somewhat less definitive, as the morning/evening formula is not used. However, using Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, we see that all 7 days are treated equally, confirming that the seventh day also lasted 24 hours. Please note that I am not using Exodus to argue that the first six days are literal. You (and Irons/Kline) are being artificially wooden in your interpretation of Ex. 31:17. Aside from God's divine attributes (deity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence), references to Him are necessarily metaphorical, unless you want to take the Mormon stance that God has a literal body.


Actually, that's not the case in that verse. If "God rested" is defined as "God ceased his world-creative activities" then there's no need to take it metaphorically. Since "God rested" includes more than that based on comparisons with other passages, I take it as metaphorical because I know that God does not actually get tired.


Since this post is already long, and your comments on the other sections could open up whole new areas, I'll end this post here and post a followup that discusses the rest of your post later.

Regards,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=311768#post311768

Hi again OOT,

Ok, I think I see now what you're saying, and I'll add a note to the paper in my next revision to clarify this issue, which I see now can easily be confusing.


It seems to me that this section is saying that there are (when literally interpreted using "temporal overlay") only three days of creation. That is, while we might come to the text today and assume 6 days, the ancient Jewish reader would have seen a temporal overlay indicating only three literal days.

Thus we would have:

Time Period A


Creation 'day' 1 and 4


Time Period B


Creation 'day' 2 and 5


Time Period C


Creation 'day' 3 and 6



Ok, so the FI isn't saying that there is any chronological order here other than the fact that Days 1 and 4 describe the same events. It doesn't even necessarily have to have Day 3 follow Day 2. The confusing point I see would be this kind of thinking.

"Hmm, we start at Day 1, then have Days 2 and 3...then, whoa, we're going back to Day 1 again (temporal recapitulation). If we're going back to Day 1 from Day 4, and Days 5 and 6 follow Day 4 (which is also Day 1) then Days 5 and 6 should correspond to Days 2 and 3."

It's like one slides down a playground slide, then climbs back up the ladder (temporal recapitulation) and slides down again.

But this isn't what the FI says. The historical order _might_ correspond with the narrative order, but doesn't necessarily since the text is _thematically_ organized. It's not saying that there are 3 time periods (A, B, and C as you listed them). Basically, Days 1 and 4 match up and the other 4 are left floating free.


If this is the case, how could Moses use the genesis account to establish a 7th day of rest rather than a 4th day of rest? Further, your argument hinges on the position that Genesis 1 can be interpreted using temporal overlay to establish a non-sequential order. For example, in the section I quoted above, you said,


The basis for Moses using the genesis account to establish a 7th day of rest is that the Sabbatical frameworks are built on the Genesis creation narrative. Since the narrative has the 6+1, it's usable for the 6+1 week.



Because of the identical purpose between Days 1 and 4, we can confidently say that the text is simply returning to a previous point in the narrative in order to offer further details, again, a how for the what described on Day 1. For the 24hr and Day-Age views this evidence of non-sequential narration is a big problem because both views interpret the 'days' as happening in sequential order.


I am not so confident that you can say, "The text is simply returning to a previous point in the narrative." While Leviticus 16:6-11 and Judges 20:31-47 may follow this pattern, neither seem to have any explicit marker to indicate chronological sequence.

Genesis does. In fact, it has two such indicators. One marker explicitly shows a night day transition to distinguish between one set of events and another. Perhaps this alone would not be convincing; however, each creation 'day' is also explicitly given an ordinal number, which seems to my naive 21st century mind to be conclusive proof that we cannot apply temporal overlay to Genesis 1. It might have been lain out in a non-consecutive order; however, I fail to see how we can support that claim when the text explicitly says that x event happened on 'day' number 1 and y event happened on a different day number 4.


I guess this would come down to weighing the evidence for whether or not one could even have dischronologization here. Basically there are two options as I see it:

1. Dischronologization is impossible here because of the use of the sequential narrative structure.
2. Dischronologization is possible here, and is indicated by:
2.1 clear literary framework (same thematic content for day pairs)
2.2 lexical repetition for days 1/4 (see Buth's work I cited)
2.3 identical purpose for days 1/4

Now, you may perhaps think #1, which would rule out in advance _any_ argument that I could offer contending otherwise, and there's no way I could convince you. I don't think that a third option of "dischronologization is possible, but not indicated here" is a rational alternative, since it couldn't get much better than the 3 sub-arguments listed above.


I think you've raised a good point or two that I'll have to cover in future revisions to the paper. Please let me know if I still haven't explained it well enough and I'll try again. :)

Thanks for the good input!

Regards,
Brian

[OracleofTroy]

Yesterday @ 10:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=317386#post317386)
BrianB:

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&amp;postid=311768#post311768

Hi again OOT,

Ok, I think I see now what you're saying, and I'll add a note to the paper in my next revision to clarify this issue, which I see now can easily be confusing.

Ok, so the FI isn't saying that there is any chronological order here other than the fact that Days 1 and 4 describe the same events. It doesn't even necessarily have to have Day 3 follow Day 2. The confusing point I see would be this kind of thinking.

&quot;Hmm, we start at Day 1, then have Days 2 and 3...then, whoa, we're going back to Day 1 again (temporal recapitulation). If we're going back to Day 1 from Day 4, and Days 5 and 6 follow Day 4 (which is also Day 1) then Days 5 and 6 should correspond to Days 2 and 3.&quot;

It's like one slides down a playground slide, then climbs back up the ladder (temporal recapitulation) and slides down again.


For some reason, I thought you explicitly said that day 5 goes back to day 2 and that day 6 goes back to day 3. Looking back, I see this is not the case. I agree that a note would be very helpful to clear this point up.


But this isn't what the FI says. The historical order _might_ correspond with the narrative order, but doesn't necessarily since the text is _thematically_ organized. It's not saying that there are 3 time periods (A, B, and C as you listed them). Basically, Days 1 and 4 match up and the other 4 are left floating free.


I see, so theoretically we could have the order reversed, day 6, 5, 3, 2, then 1/4 or any other order of these five events. What is the correct order really isn’t under discussion, you just accept that Genesis isn’t necessarily chronological.


The basis for Moses using the genesis account to establish a 7th day of rest is that the Sabbatical frameworks are built on the Genesis creation narrative. Since the narrative has the 6+1, it's usable for the 6+1 week.


In my view, this seems very shaky. First, we now have a five-day creation event. Why is Moses sticking in an extra narrative day? Did he make up the creation account to fit his idea of a seven-day week? Did Moses not like God's five-day account, so he fudged an extra day? Did God forget he was going to decree the Sabbath to be every seven days? I cannot fathom any motivation Moses or God could have had for making five actual 'days' into six narrative days. However I do see the motivation modern day Christians have for wanting to rearrange the Genesis account.

Honestly, I’m not trying to be impertinent, though I feel my (somewhat rhetorical) questions above stem from a major epistemological divide that separates our approaches to understanding Genesis. While I feel that it is a vital issue, offhand it seems inappropriate for this thread, though we can get into it if you want. I'll leave it at this: the only reason I can see for wanting to unite day 1 and 4 and allow for dischronologization is to synthesize Genesis with modern science to avoid the ridicule placed on the Bible by fallen men who would not believe God even if the first two chapters were a summery of Darwin’s Origin of Species. I presume harmonizing Genesis with Evolution is the primary motive for all non-literal interpretations of Genesis.


I guess this would come down to weighing the evidence for whether or not one could even have dischronologization here. Basically there are two options as I see it:

1. Dischronologization is impossible here because of the use of the sequential narrative structure.
2. Dischronologization is possible here, and is indicated by:
2.1 clear literary framework (same thematic content for day pairs)
2.2 lexical repetition for days 1/4 (see Buth's work I cited)
2.3 identical purpose for days 1/4

Now, you may perhaps think #1, which would rule out in advance _any_ argument that I could offer contending otherwise, and there's no way I could convince you. I don't think that a third option of &quot;dischronologization is possible, but not indicated here&quot; is a rational alternative, since it couldn't get much better than the 3 sub-arguments listed above.


I personally agree with #1, as you’ve guessed. Though I’m not sure what you mean by your third option, since it seems to say mostly the same thing as #1. I’m willing to concede that it is possible that the FI is correct, but to me it seems overwhelmingly improbable. I say this because I am a 21th century American without detailed knowledge of Hebrew language and culture, and thus must admit with humility that my interpretation will be flawed at times.


I think you've raised a good point or two that I'll have to cover in future revisions to the paper. Please let me know if I still haven't explained it well enough and I'll try again. :)


I think I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. I happen to disagree, but this discussion has been very enlightening for me. I have heard only short summaries of your position before, and never one so detailed and well thought out.

[sylas]

Today @ 09:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=317547#post317547)
OracleofTroy:

... I presume harmonizing Genesis with Evolution is the primary motive for all non-literal interpretations of Genesis.
...


I don't think that follows. If I have understood this discussion, the FI is not about harmonizing Genesis with evolution at all. It would suggest that even making a comparison, either as criticism of the bible or as an indication that science has got it wrong, is equally mising the point.

I think it probable that the events as described in Genesis would be taken as real history by ancient readers, while at the same time the primary meaning and application of the story has always been at levels other than the surface history. As I try to understand Genesis, I simply don't think in terms of a comparison (either as conflict or as support) with events in history; but as a comparison with the cultures and cosmologies of the time. I see Genesis 1 as expounding a supreme monotheism in terms that rework cosmological ideas prevalent in the Middle East at the time of writing.

With the rise of modern science, new methods and information has been brought to bear on the history of our planet; and that history as developed by science conflicts with the surface history of Genesis. But I see that as irrelevant for understanding or applying ideas in Genesis. There was no basis for making an independent investigation of the history of the Earth three or four thousand years ago; and so any questioning of historicity of Genesis would have been just impious invention. That has now changed, in the sense that there is an alternative methodology to revelation for looking at the bare historical details of events in the past, and this brings up a conflict which is discussed at length in other formums of this virtual campus.

But I honestly think it misses the point; and I do not interpret Genesis with a view to reconciling it with any scientific model.

I've been reading this thread, but refraining from comment since I am not myself a believer, and so my views will carry little weight with believers. But I thought it might be worth making a brief comment here, as someone who accepts the broad outlines of Earth's history as developed over the last two centuries in conventional geology and other mainstream sciences, and who also is a fan of Genesis, without actually being a believer. I feel free to be critical of Genesis, since of course it is not a divine literature from my unbelieving perspective. But any criticism I would make has nothing to do with scientific conflicts; it would be exclusively with the theological world view developed. Mostly I remain a fan.

Cheers -- Silas

[Socrates]

Today @ 10:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=317608#post317608)
silas:

I don't think that follows. If I have understood this discussion, the FI is not about harmonizing Genesis with evolution at all. It would suggest that even making a comparison, either as criticism of the bible or as an indication that science has got it wrong, is equally mising the point.

But Kline, whom Brian cites, explicitly stated in the very paper that he was trying to bring Genesis into line with evolutionary uniformitarianism:

‘To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation week propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article. At the same time, the exegetical evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic day-age view. The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins.’

In note 47, Kline says:

‘In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man.’

I think it probable that the events as described in Genesis would be taken as real history by ancient readers, while at the same time the primary meaning and application of the story has always been at levels other than the surface history.

The Bible is like that--its faith and morality is intimately bound up with the real history it presents, as I've shown at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=257782#post257782 It's a modern idea to separate the two, based on the fallacious fact-value distinction--see Stephen Jay Gould and NOMA (http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924ep1.asp#NOMA).

As I try to understand Genesis, I simply don't think in terms of a comparison (either as conflict or as support) with events in history; but as a comparison with the cultures and cosmologies of the time. I see Genesis 1 as expounding a supreme monotheism in terms that rework cosmological ideas prevalent in the Middle East at the time of writing.

Just by being itself, it would rebut pagan cosmologies. I've already shown that Theophilus and Basil pointed to the creation of the sun on Day 4 as an argument against pagan sun-worship. But it's more likely that Genesis was the original and the pagan cosmologies the distortion.

With the rise of modern science, new methods and information has been brought to bear on the history of our planet; and that history as developed by science conflicts with the surface history of Genesis.

Not developed by true science at all, but by a philosophical decision to outlaw any process not operating today as a valid explanation for earth history.

[rmwilliamsjr]

I'd like to quote from the PCA committee on Creation concerning the FI. found at:
http://www.pcanet.org/history/creation/report.html#d3


1. It teaches that Gen 1 is inspired verbal revelation. It teaches creation from nothing, the special creation of Adam and Eve, Adam as the covenant head of the race, and death and curse as the result of sin.

2. It affirms the historicity of Adam, his uniqueness as the image of God, and his covenant headship of the human race.[104]
...
4. With respect to the relation of scientific theory and theology it is open to the study of general revelation regarding the age of the earth and the cosmos, within biblical constraints.[107] Some of those are: creation ex nihilo, that Adam and Eve were the genetically unique, specially created parents of the human race, and that the fall of Adam introduced the curse into God’s good creation. It denies all evolutionary origins, and evolutionary philosophy as contradictory to the teaching of scripture.[108]
...
1. The position has been severely criticized for rendering Gen 1 non-historical. For example:

Evangelical framework theologians tell us that the Genesis account is not a factual and historical account. Rather, it is an artistic expression, a divine metaphor, affirming that God is the Creator; it does not inform us either of the mechanism or time frame of the creative process.[109]

The criticism is a serious one, because Christianity rests on the historicity of Gen 1-3. However, Framework proponent Meredith Kline explicitly affirms the opposite. He writes,

. . .Gen 1-11 is not mythological but a genuine record of history. . .The material in these chapters is unquestionably interpreted by inspired writers elsewhere in Scripture as historical in the same sense that they understand Gen 12-50 or Kings or the Gospels to be historical.[110]

This avowal of historicity may be highlighted by contrasting it with the comment of Roman Catholic scholar J. A. Fitzmyer on Rom 5:12: “. . .Paul has historicized the symbolic Adam of Genesis.”[111] So the position should not be confused with the claim that Gen 1:1-2:3 is myth or parable or allegory. The Framework position asserts unequivocally that the passage teaches acts of supernatural origination by God’s commands and the special creation of Adam and Eve. It is an exegesis, not an attempt to balance prior philosophical or scientific commitments with Scripture. (Those who hold the Framework interpretation agree that God could create the world in one hundred forty-four hours, for instance.) Because we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, no one should be considered orthodox who holds to the Framework view if he is motivated by naturalistic, higher-critical, or evolutionisitic assumptions. Those assumptions would be an abuse rather than a proper use of the Framework position.[112]


For these well argued reasons i disagree that Kline had any desire to harmonize Scripture with evolutionary science, but a much narrower desire to show internally how Scripture could support an old earth/old universe position.

I believe key to the whole argument is the motivation(of the theory holder) as the quote points out. I, myself, am persuaded that human beings are a product of evolutionary development, but my motivations are to understand what God has written in the 'Book of Works'. I am motivated not by materialistic presumptions as so many are quick to reply, but from fully orthodox desire to read what is a continguent book of nature, God did not have to create in any particular way. He was constrainted only by His nature, to understand the method you must look at what was done.

[rhutchin]

[QUOTE]
Genesis One and Beyond: An Investigation of the Temporal Questions of Creation in the Biblical Texts
[QUOTE]

BrianB states--

Objection: No death before the Fall

Since the Framework Interpretation does not necessarily imply death before the fall,...I came to accept the fact that the Bible's teaching on death as a consequence of sin is only applicable to mankind...

Comments--

A. The author needs to describe what a Framework Interpretation is (for dummies like me) and explain the methodology that it follows. The analysis presented seems structured to address competing interpretations of Genesis 1 rather than first presenting a neutral analysis that could then be compared to other views. It suggests an inherent bias on the part of the investigator to prove other positions wrong rather than establish a position that could then be proved right (anyway, it confused me).


B. If we apply death only to mankind, then we establish the following:

1. God created Adam, the first human, and his wife, Eve. Without sin, there could be no human before Adam (unless you buy into Hugh Ross' soulless beings philosophy).

2. Given the genealogies that follow and allowing for the account to leave out a few generations, we can establish the appearance of Adam as no earlier than about 15,000 BC. (If not, then how many more generations do you estimate were left out?)

Consequently, the Framework Interpretation must agree with the literal 24-hour day so far as the creation of Adam is concerned.

Having established this position, the natural question is why do we need millions of years before Adam? Why depart from the 24-hr view? Inherently, a Framework Interpretation would seem to be indifferent as to the final outcome as to the length of a “day.”

It seems that we have two reasons for long days: (1) to accommodate evolution and (2) to accommodate stars being millions of light years away.

Since God could create animals and plants as easily as He created Adam, there is no need for evolution (a philosophy that not everyone buys into). The light problem can be resolved by allowing the speed of light to be much faster when God "stretched out the heavens" than is observed today.

However, the Framework Interpretation should be a clean analysis free of bias in these respects. Therefore, a Framework Interpretation should not seek to resolve the issue of how long a “day” was based on issues extraneous to the text.


C. The Framework Interpretation seems to tell us that (1) a day does not have to refer to a 24-hr period (but it could), and (2) the events described do not have to be in chronological order (but they could).

Finally, a Framework Interpretation seems to dwell on patterns in the text, Chiastic structures, and the like. These are nice but I did not see where they had anything to do with the length of a “day” in Genesis 1.


D. In the end, I did not understand what had gone on. A lot of interesting things had been brought up, but it seemed like one man’s opinion against another. The solution to Genesis 1 would seem to rest on its agreement with all other Scripture and not just its literary structure. Since no one seems to have a clear grasp of ancient Hebrew, neither this analysis nor any other will ever really prove persuasive.

[Sanity]

What I think you're saying is:

It would be helpful if I indicated not only that the days are always solar days, but that I should also indicate that they were defined specifically by the rising/setting of the sun. It's not until a little later in the paper, after the quote of Stambaugh, that I indicate they would have defined it in terms of the sun rising/setting. It'd just be better if I discusses this issue earlier.

This is what I'm understanding you to say, but I wonder if I'm still not getting it, because it's only about 1/2 page later that I go into that. Of course, a lot can happen in half a page. heh
You are correct. This is what I meant. My experience on forums where the posts has taught me that "defining" points must be presented before the concept. If the concept is later expaned to include such points, even if it is only one sentence later, it is often too late. Once the reader has read, digested, and judged the concept, EVERYTHING after seems to be treated as if it involves a different and unrelated topic.

In other words, not all readers will go back and revise their original assessment of the concept when they encounter this new definition 1/2 page later.

I think what you point out might be useful, but that it would be overkill in the paper.
I agree (I think I mentioned that?). Too much information can be just as bad as too little. (My failing tends to flip-flop between assuming the reader knows what I know and giving way too much information in an attempt to make sure they understand to the inth degree exactly what I mean. No doubt you have noticed that.)

Thanks for the response,
Sanity

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=317547#post317547


Hi again OOT,


For some reason, I thought you explicitly said that day 5 goes back to day 2 and that day 6 goes back to day 3. Looking back, I see this is not the case. I agree that a note would be very helpful to clear this point up.


Cool. Then we agree on something. *grin*




But this isn't what the FI says. The historical order _might_ correspond with the narrative order, but doesn't necessarily since the text is _thematically_ organized. It's not saying that there are 3 time periods (A, B, and C as you listed them). Basically, Days 1 and 4 match up and the other 4 are left floating free.


I see, so theoretically we could have the order reversed, day 6, 5, 3, 2, then 1/4 or any other order of these five events. What is the correct order really isn’t under discussion, you just accept that Genesis isn’t necessarily chronological.


Theoretically, yes, the FI per se doesn't specify the order/nature of the other days. However, common-sense (to both us and them) would lead us to believe that the creation of the plants and animals would come after the creation of the land and not vice-versa. Again it's not the literary framework itself that leads us to that conclusion, but just a recognition that God would create the land before creating animals to live on it.



The basis for Moses using the genesis account to establish a 7th day of rest is that the Sabbatical frameworks are built on the Genesis creation narrative. Since the narrative has the 6+1, it's usable for the 6+1 week.

In my view, this seems very shaky. First, we now have a five-day creation event.


Why do you think there's a five-day creation event?



Honestly, I’m not trying to be impertinent, though I feel my (somewhat rhetorical) questions above stem from a major epistemological divide that separates our approaches to understanding Genesis. While I feel that it is a vital issue, offhand it seems inappropriate for this thread, though we can get into it if you want. I'll leave it at this: the only reason I can see for wanting to unite day 1 and 4 and allow for dischronologization is to synthesize Genesis with modern science to avoid the ridicule placed on the Bible by fallen men who would not believe God even if the first two chapters were a summery of Darwin’s Origin of Species. I presume harmonizing Genesis with Evolution is the primary motive for all non-literal interpretations of Genesis.


Oh, I don't think you're being impertinent at all.

I do understand why you would consider that my motivation, and I know that telling you "really, that's not it" won't matter, but that goes to the issue of motivation versus argument. _Even if_ my motivation were that way, it wouldn't challenge the situation that I've sufficiently (at least for me and a few others) established dischronologization based on good arguments and referencing solid scholarship. (Unless you don't consider Buth a scholar, or his work credible) It is, of course, your prerogative to assume that as the primary motive, but you'll have to also realize that carries absolutely zero argumentative value.




I guess this would come down to weighing the evidence for whether or not one could even have dischronologization here. Basically there are two options as I see it:

1. Dischronologization is impossible here because of the use of the sequential narrative structure.
2. Dischronologization is possible here, and is indicated by:
2.1 clear literary framework (same thematic content for day pairs)
2.2 lexical repetition for days 1/4 (see Buth's work I cited)
2.3 identical purpose for days 1/4

Now, you may perhaps think #1, which would rule out in advance _any_ argument that I could offer contending otherwise, and there's no way I could convince you. I don't think that a third option of "dischronologization is possible, but not indicated here" is a rational alternative, since it couldn't get much better than the 3 sub-arguments listed above.



I personally agree with #1, as you’ve guessed. Though I’m not sure what you mean by your third option, since it seems to say mostly the same thing as #1. I’m willing to concede that it is possible that the FI is correct, but to me it seems overwhelmingly improbable. I say this because I am a 21th century American without detailed knowledge of Hebrew language and culture, and thus must admit with humility that my interpretation will be flawed at times.


Right, I would have guessed #1, and at this point it becomes a matter of presupposing that the FI can't be true because the narrative is written as a sequence, and therefore I wouldn't be able to convince you even in principle.

On the difference, #1 would be "the fact that the narrative structure includes a succession of days rules out any possibility of dischronologization"
#2 would be "the fact that the narrative structure includes a succession of days doesn't rule out dischronologization, but nothing in the text indicates that dischronologization is present.

#1 I consider a respectable (though completely wrongheaded, of course) position
#2 is just silly, because the three evidences should convince anyone who hasn't already presupposed that dischronologization is impossible

That's the difference between the first and third options.


I think I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. I happen to disagree, but this discussion has been very enlightening for me. I have heard only short summaries of your position before, and never one so detailed and well thought out.


I'm glad you've found it enlightening, and hopefully someday you'll convert. *big grin*

Thanks again for your comments and kind words. You've been a very courteous discussion partner.

Regards,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re: the bottom half of
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=311297#post311297

Continuing on from the last post to One Bad Pig...



1. The obvious two-triadic literary framework in Genesis 1.


I see no problem with the thematic arrangement, just your interpretation of it. Why couldn't God have chosen to perform similar actions on Days 1/4 and 2/5 and 3/6? The thematic arrangement wouldn't provide any problems for the 24-hour interpretation (or the Day-Age, for that matter).


1. God could have had Moses describe the same events under the different days of 2/5 and 3/6. However, the only one we have data for that suggests he did is on the Days 1/4 combo. The FI doesn't rule out the same for the other two, but neither does it teach it.

2. It's true that one can accept that the FI is the best interpretation of the Genesis text, and still hold YEC or OEC views. However, no longer can the Genesis creation text be appealed to support those arguments. The support would have to come from another source.

In Psalm 50:10, God says he owns the cattle on a thousand hills. Now, it's entirely possible that at the time the Psalmist spoke there were exactly 1000 hills on the earth on which cattle were standing, and therefore God owned the cattle on exactly 1000 hills, but the evidence for such a belief would have to come from somewhere outside the text of Psalm 50:10 because it's already been identified as a literary device in that text. The burden of proof is squarely on the one who wants both a metaphorical usage _and_ to have it mean something 'straightforward'.



2. The evidence that Day 4 is a return to the events of Day 1 and describes in more detail how God separated the light from the darkness.


The evidence shows a thematic similarity between Days 1 and 4. Your interpretation advocates the FI position. There is a difference.


Not the argument of the paper.



3. The principle of continuity, showing that God established the ordinary means of sustaining a creation before he created it.

"I think that God should have worked this way, so I'll ignore the plain meaning of the text in favor of my own interpretation." Sarcasm Great exegesis. /Sarcasm


Not the argument of the paper.

[snip]


You're supporting the FI viewpoint rather dogmatically for your tentative agreement with it. Sounds like you've already convinced yourself.


I'm holding on to my arguments because I think they make sense and can defend them, and I've seen nothing to change my mind so far. I wouldn't consider that dogmatism. When you dismiss my entire argument about Moses and his audience's shared assumption about how God operated, based on Genesis 2:5 with:


"I think that God should have worked this way, so I'll ignore the plain meaning of the text in favor of my own interpretation." Sarcasm Great exegesis. /Sarcasm


Well how do you expect me to react when I see stuff like this? "Wow! Amazing! I've just converted to the 24hr view!"? Responses like this only increase my confidence in the strength of my arguments.



Oh, and please just ignore the posters who are unable to offer anything substantive and can only scream-and-hollar and insult people when their pet arguments are going down the drain. It's sad that it's what some YEC have been reduced to. Fortunately, not all YE people are like that even if a highly vocal minority are.


Oh, so THAT's why you haven't responded to Soc's posts. How droll. I don't always agree with Soc's methods, but he does provide substantive arguments in many cases. He does get into shouting matches sometimes. (In case it isn't obvious, I'm ping Soc here.)


I've already publicly distanced myself from that member in a post/thread that was posted and deleted a while ago. He's frankly no better than the likes of Dennis McKinsey when it comes to embodying all that is terribly wrong with the modern fundamentalist mindset. I couldn't tolerate his deceptive tactics and smear-attempt against one of the most respected men in the Evangelical world and felt I needed to put as much distance between myself and him as possible. I have zero respect for his kind. If you consider that 'droll' then so be it.

I want to be clear here that, though we are disagreeing a lot, I find you to be a respectable conversation partner, so please don't think that I associate you (or other YECs here) with his kind. I hope you think the same of me, even if you disagree with my choice to ignore him.

Regards,
Brian the Useful Idiot

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=317942#post317942

For rhutchin


Comments--

A. The author needs to describe what a Framework Interpretation is (for dummies like me) and explain the methodology that it follows. The analysis presented seems structured to address competing interpretations of Genesis 1 rather than first presenting a neutral analysis that could then be compared to other views. It suggests an inherent bias on the part of the investigator to prove other positions wrong rather than establish a position that could then be proved right (anyway, it confused me).


The Framework Interpretation is described under the DEFINITION and TWO-TRIAD STRUCTURE sections of the paper. If you have further questions, feel free to ask them, but I do request that you spend time studying (not just reading) the material in order to understand it, if necessary.

And yes, the point was to compare the FI to the other two most popular interpretations of Genesis.

If I've come to the conclusion that the other two positions are wrong because of my research, that's not bias...it's simply acknowledging that the positions are mutually exclusive in regards to interpretation.

Finally, a 'neutral analysis' is a figment of the imagination. No one is completely neutral.



B. If we apply death only to mankind, then we establish the following:

1. God created Adam, the first human, and his wife, Eve. Without sin, there could be no human before Adam (unless you buy into Hugh Ross' soulless beings philosophy).

2. Given the genealogies that follow and allowing for the account to leave out a few generations, we can establish the appearance of Adam as no earlier than about 15,000 BC. (If not, then how many more generations do you estimate were left out?)

Consequently, the Framework Interpretation must agree with the literal 24-hour day so far as the creation of Adam is concerned.


This is highly debatable, to say the least.



Having established this position, the natural question is why do we need millions of years before Adam? Why depart from the 24-hr view? Inherently, a Framework Interpretation would seem to be indifferent as to the final outcome as to the length of a “day.”


Why depart from the 24-hour view? Because it's wrong, that's why.


The rest of your post doesn't seem worth interacting with, I suggest you rethink your position about the value of analyses.

If you'd like to follow the other posters here and post real arguments, I'd be happy to discuss.

Regards,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=318592#post318592


Heya Sanity,


You are correct. This is what I meant. My experience on forums where the posts has taught me that "defining" points must be presented before the concept. If the concept is later expaned to include such points, even if it is only one sentence later, it is often too late. Once the reader has read, digested, and judged the concept, EVERYTHING after seems to be treated as if it involves a different and unrelated topic.

In other words, not all readers will go back and revise their original assessment of the concept when they encounter this new definition 1/2 page later.


Wow, that's pretty bad. I'll consider making a change for the next revision then!


I agree (I think I mentioned that?). Too much information can be just as bad as too little. (My failing tends to flip-flop between assuming the reader knows what I know and giving way too much information in an attempt to make sure they understand to the inth degree exactly what I mean. No doubt you have noticed that.)


You did mention it, and I was simply agreeing. Heh, I have the same problem that you do. Ahh well.

Thanks for the discussion, :)

Brian

[One Bad Pig]

11-26-2003 @ 12:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=317351#post317351)
BrianB:

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&amp;postid=311297#post311297


Hi again OBP,

Dischronologization is fine, IF there are no qualifying time markers. Is it special pleading to say that David reigned before Solomon, or that Jericho fell before Ai, or that Paul visited Rome before being shipwrecked? Your position, when carried to its logical conclusion, becomes illogical.


I think there's still some confusion here. I understand why you would say something like:
A. If there are no qualifying time markers, then dischronologization is possible, but if there are markers such as found in Genesis 1, then dischronologization is not possible.

However, you _seem_ to be saying:
B. If there are no qualifying time markers, then dischronologization is possible and the use of it has no effect on truth/falsity, but if there are markers as found in Genesis 1, then while it is still possible, it means it is not truthful.

Is that what you are saying? Option &quot;A&quot; would be something I could see you easily saying. Option &quot;B&quot; as stated doesn't even really seem coherent to me, but it seems like that is what you are saying. Does that help make the questions more precise? If so, then help me understand which of those you're putting forward.

Statement A, with a slight modification: If there are no qualifying time markers, then dischronologization is possible, but if there are progressive markers such as found in Genesis 1, then dischronologization is not possible. [The caveat is for the gospel accounts, e.g. Jesus doing something on 'the Sabbath'] I also hold that any attempt to dischronologize a chronologically delineated account is eisegesis. It is possible to interpret a passage any way you please; it doesn't mean that that interpretation is truthful, though. This might explain your confusion.


Ok, then we misunderstood each other. BTW, I certainly wouldn't separate Day 7 conceptually from the preceding 6 days since it's not only an epilogue, but the capstone of the entire literary structure. And I agree that there is a difference between 'ruling' and 'filling' but I wouldn't peg that as a disagreement with the Framework Interpretation, merely a disagreement of a detail _within_ the details of the FI.

Okay. I'll see what I can do to get ahold of Steinmann's article. It'll take me a little while, as I'm going to Colorado for a week.

I think I see what your hangup is now. You just can't conceive of a 24-hour period defined by anything other than the sun.

That's not true at all. I even said in the paper that we (in the modern age) could define a day as &quot;a specific fraction of the half-life of decaying Carbon-14.&quot;

Okay. Your hangup is that you can't conceive of a 24-hour period defined by anything other than the sun in the ANE. Fair enough? I agree that no-one in the ANE could have possibly come up with the creation account in the Bible on their own. As Safarti pointed out in his article, that's one reason the account is believable.


For your interpretation the first three are utterly abnormal, non-solar 24-hour periods of time. The whole argument comes down to the fact that I accept the usage of the word 'yom' in all six days as meaning normal days while you do not.

This, I think, is the crux of our differences. I disagree that the first three days are necessarily abnormal at all from an 'in the trenches' POV. At dawn, a light source appeared. At nightfall, it disappeared; hence, morning and evening, about 12 hours apart (assuming a near-equatorial POV).


The seventh day is somewhat less definitive, as the morning/evening formula is not used. However, using Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, we see that all 7 days are treated equally, confirming that the seventh day also lasted 24 hours. Please note that I am not using Exodus to argue that the first six days are literal. You (and Irons/Kline) are being artificially wooden in your interpretation of Ex. 31:17. Aside from God's divine attributes (deity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence), references to Him are necessarily metaphorical, unless you want to take the Mormon stance that God has a literal body.


Actually, that's not the case in that verse. If &quot;God rested&quot; is defined as &quot;God ceased his world-creative activities&quot; then there's no need to take it metaphorically. Since &quot;God rested&quot; includes more than that based on comparisons with other passages, I take it as metaphorical because I know that God does not actually get tired.

Okay. From the NET bible study notes for Ex. 31:17:
The word "rest" essentially means "to cease, stop." So in describing God as "resting" on the seventh day does not indicate that he was tired-he simply finished creation and then ceased or stopped.
[Ponders for a long moment...What am I trying to prove here? Oh; I don't agree that the seventh day is on-going.] I was going to say that 'ceasing' limits the seventh day to a literal one, but now I see that it has no bearing. On Hebrews 4, you said:
Hebrews 4 concerns the promised Sabbath-rest for the people of God. God rested in Genesis 2:2, and because we are to imitate him, it is our eschatological focus as ones made in the divine image to enter into his rest. While God rested on the seventh day, his rest that we are called to enter into is still ongoing as shown by several texts in Hebrews 4. Verse one tells us that the promise of entering his rest still stands:

Heb 4:1 - Therefore we must be wary that, while the promise of entering his rest remains open, none of you may seem to have come short of it.

In fact, the author of Hebrews appears to equate the seventh day of creation with his rest:

Heb 4:4-5 - For he has spoken somewhere about the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,” but to repeat the text cited earlier: “They will never enter my rest!”

If God's rest is still ongoing, and the "seventh day" is his rest as the author of Hebrews says, then this means that the seventh day is still ongoing.

God's resting and God's rest are two different things here, however. God rested on the seventh day (restricted to that day), but they will never enter His rest (lit. [His] resting place, NETBible tn on Ps. 98:11, where this quote comes from).

This'll have to be all for now. I need to catch a plane. I'll get back to you as soon as I can on the second part of your reply.

v/r,

OBP

[Socrates]

:squish: :float:

[OracleofTroy]

11-26-2003 @ 09:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318603#post318603)
BrianB:

Re: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&amp;postid=317547#post317547


In my view, this seems very shaky. First, we now have a five-day creation event.

Why do you think there's a five-day creation event?


Perhaps I should explicitly say, six narrative days, five literal days. Your paper indicates that the Hebrew reader would have seen a temporal overlay at day four indicating that he should read the events of that day as a continuation of the events of narrative day one.


I do understand why you would consider that my motivation, and I know that telling you &quot;really, that's not it&quot; won't matter, but that goes to the issue of motivation versus argument. _Even if_ my motivation were that way, it wouldn't challenge the situation that I've sufficiently (at least for me and a few others) established dischronologization based on good arguments and referencing solid scholarship. (Unless you don't consider Buth a scholar, or his work credible) It is, of course, your prerogative to assume that as the primary motive, but you'll have to also realize that carries absolutely zero argumentative value.


I have no doubt that people have put a lot of research and scholarship into FI; however, I do not believe that their conclusion is correct. I do realize that this carries absolutely zero argumentative value, in fact, I am very careful to make sure it does. I have nowhere near the knowledge of ancient Hebrew language or culture to make any sort of authoritative argument, I have only my 21st century translation interpreted though a 21st century culture. :smile:

However, if that were one's underlying motive for FI, I think you can see how one would tend to favor good arguments and solid scholarship that supported FI rather than good arguments and solid scholarship that didn't. It was this motivation that lead me to take a more passive stance about Genesis 1 until recently.


Right, I would have guessed #1, and at this point it becomes a matter of presupposing that the FI can't be true because the narrative is written as a sequence, and therefore I wouldn't be able to convince you even in principle.
...
#1 I consider a respectable (though completely wrongheaded, of course) position


I can buy that dischronologization is possible, in fact, I felt your Judges example to be very enlightening. However, I do not think it is possible in Genesis 1.

I will say that I think the FI is far more plausible than day-age, I just don't feel it is the best explanation.


I'm glad you've found it enlightening, and hopefully someday you'll convert. *big grin*


Perhaps. Don't hold your breath, it won't be anytime soon. Though it's only been within the last few months that I was willing to take a definitive 24h day stance. I will look into FI more, (eventually...when I have time... :violin:).

[Ted]

Finally, after almost three weeks, I am able to return to the fray. In my absence, several able voices spoke up, of whom I particularly note R M Williams, Jr. and One Bad Pig. In reading some of the posts, I thought that these gentlemen were reading my mind.

There are a couple of items that, while perhaps old, bear revisitation. First is the issue of dischronologization. There is no doubt that there are areas of scripture where the stories are not told in chronological order. Some have been listed already. I do not dispute this. For example, if we look at the Synoptic gospels, it is commonly held that the stories in them are arranged in generally topical order. This does not affect their truth. But of particular note, there is no attempt in these gospels to present them as sequential. Thus, dischronologization has no bearing on them.

On the other hand, the creation account of Gen 1:1-2:3 is explicitly sequential in its presentation. If one wishes to argue that it is dischronologized, then a necessary consequence of that position is the implication that the presentation is false in its sequence. There is no way out of this. And that is why I said that making the story into “myth” (i.e. less than fully factual) casts doubt on the truth of scripture and by necessary extension, on the value of the cross. After all, the Bible represents itself as the word of God (2 Tim 3:16) who cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and does not change (Mal 3:6). If it is false in the creation account, as the FI requires, then we cannot rely on any part of it, because we have God lying to us in one part.

But let me put the question differently. To semi-quote one other writer in this thread, “If the writer of the creation account wanted to say that it was a true story, what means could he have used to make it clear that aren’t already in the story?” Until a cogent answer to this is made, the FI must be rejected, since historical-grammatical interpretation requires that we read the genre of history as true history. And the creation account is presented as true history.

The second item is my objection to the “Two-Triadic” structure of the story. It’s not that there aren’t two matching triads. There are. The problem is that that is an artificial truncation of the story. It cuts off the prolog and epilog, which are the elements that provide the structure to the poem and complete it. This poetic structure is another element that shows that the story is intended to be true. Also, since the Sabbath is the completion of creation (cf. Mark 2:27-28), it is the memorial of creation (Gen 2:3, Exod 20:11) established at creation. By truncating the story to simply two triads, the Sabbath gets ignored or has its rationale destroyed.

[One Bad Pig]

11-27-2003 @ 12:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318607#post318607)
BrianB:

Re: the bottom half of
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&amp;postid=311297#post311297

Continuing on from the last post to One Bad Pig...



I see no problem with the thematic arrangement, just your interpretation of it. Why couldn't God have chosen to perform similar actions on Days 1/4 and 2/5 and 3/6? The thematic arrangement wouldn't provide any problems for the 24-hour interpretation (or the Day-Age, for that matter).


1. God could have had Moses describe the same events under the different days of 2/5 and 3/6. However, the only one we have data for that suggests he did is on the Days 1/4 combo. The FI doesn't rule out the same for the other two, but neither does it teach it.

I don't see a valid reason for combining any of them, is all. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, once we figure out what it is we disagree about.:smile:


2. It's true that one can accept that the FI is the best interpretation of the Genesis text, and still hold YEC or OEC views. However, no longer can the Genesis creation text be appealed to support those arguments. The support would have to come from another source.


Isn't that being a little unfair? :huh: Genesis 1 is the main support for YEC, AFAIK.


In Psalm 50:10, God says he owns the cattle on a thousand hills. Now, it's entirely possible that at the time the Psalmist spoke there were exactly 1000 hills on the earth on which cattle were standing, and therefore God owned the cattle on exactly 1000 hills, but the evidence for such a belief would have to come from somewhere outside the text of Psalm 50:10 because it's already been identified as a literary device in that text. The burden of proof is squarely on the one who wants both a metaphorical usage _and_ to have it mean something 'straightforward'.


In context, Psalm 50:10 is shown to be metaphorical. It is embedded in a passage that repeats the concept that God owns everything. Genesis 1, however, has multiple indicators that it should by taken in a straightforward manner. I consider the YEC position to by a straightforward interpretation of the passage. Many passages are contextually open to interpretation. These two, however, are contextually well-grounded. I believe that the burden of proof is sqarely on you, because you're trying to insert a metaphorical interpretation of Days 1 and 4 into an otherwise straightforward passage.

2. The evidence that Day 4 is a return to the events of Day 1 and describes in more detail how God separated the light from the darkness.

The evidence shows a thematic similarity between Days 1 and 4. Your interpretation advocates the FI position. There is a difference.

Not the argument of the paper.


The paper, IMHO, improperly equated interpretation with evidence in this instance. I was pointing this out in response to your list of conclusions.

3. The principle of continuity, showing that God established the ordinary means of sustaining a creation before he created it.

&quot;I think that God should have worked this way, so I'll ignore the plain meaning of the text in favor of my own interpretation.&quot; Sarcasm Great exegesis. /Sarcasm


Not the argument of the paper.


I apologize for being this harsh. I couldn't equate this statement with any specific argument in the paper. You'll want to clear this up. Creation itself is an inherently discontinuous process -- the abrupt existence of something that wasn't there before.


I'm holding on to my arguments because I think they make sense and can defend them, and I've seen nothing to change my mind so far. I wouldn't consider that dogmatism.

Fair enough, I suppose. I guess I expected you to be a little more tentative in you reasoning -- "I think this argument might be right; somebody play devil's advocate and try to poke holes" vs. "This is TRVTH".


Oh, so THAT's why you haven't responded to Soc's posts. How droll. I don't always agree with Soc's methods, but he does provide substantive arguments in many cases. He does get into shouting matches sometimes. (In case it isn't obvious, I'm ping Soc here.)


I've already publicly distanced myself from that member in a post/thread that was posted and deleted a while ago. * edited by a moderator * If you consider that 'droll' then so be it.

The "droll" was sarcasm. Socrates made some arguments that I considered to be cogent, and you ignored them (with the exception of a snide remark to Sanity). I thought that was rather petty and unfair.


I want to be clear here that, though we are disagreeing a lot, I find you to be a respectable conversation partner, so please don't think that I associate you (or other YECs here) with his kind. I hope you think the same of me, even if you disagree with my choice to ignore him.

Regards,
Brian the Useful Idiot

You're being unduly harsh on yourself. You're certainly not an idiot. Useful? :ponder: About as useful as I am. :huh: Thanks for putting up with my occasional crassness. My moniker fits sometimes, doesn't it?:teeth:

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=325883#post325883

Hi again OOT. I think there may be some further misunderstanding here that we need to work through.


Perhaps I should explicitly say, six narrative days, five literal days. Your paper indicates that the Hebrew reader would have seen a temporal overlay at day four indicating that he should read the events of that day as a continuation of the events of narrative day one.


But why do you think there are five literal days? Perhaps I haven't made it clear enough that what the narrative days refer to are not just normal-solar-days-in-some-other-order, but unspecified durations. Really, I don't even think Moses' audience would have been thinking anything about time durations when they heard this text. They would have understood that it was saying that God had created all things things for these purposes without much (if any) regard to 'when' it happened.

Oh, and the temporal overlay shows that Days 1 and 4 are describing the same thing, not that Day 4 is a continuation of Day 1.

It could have been like this:

Narrative Day
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Order of events in reality
A B C A D E F

Narrative Day 4 could have been a jump-back to Narrative Day 1 (each describing something not specifically any length of time) and then the events of Narrative Day 5 continued in sequence after the events of Narrative Day 3.

Does that help?


I have no doubt that people have put a lot of research and scholarship into FI; however, I do not believe that their conclusion is correct. I do realize that this carries absolutely zero argumentative value, in fact, I am very careful to make sure it does. I have nowhere near the knowledge of ancient Hebrew language or culture to make any sort of authoritative argument, I have only my 21st century translation interpreted though a 21st century culture.


Oh, but you are able to evaluate arguments, which certainly qualifies you to make a judgment.


However, if that were one's underlying motive for FI, I think you can see how one would tend to favor good arguments and solid scholarship that supported FI rather than good arguments and solid scholarship that didn't. It was this motivation that lead me to take a more passive stance about Genesis 1 until recently.


But to be honest I have not seen any good arguments or solid scholarship that actually supports the other views over the Framework Interpretation.

It's good that we understand each other and what our assumptions are. You feel that the 'straightforward' chronological narrative rules out any possibility of dischronologization. I understand where you're coming from, but I can't agree especially since I haven't seen anything to persuade me of the plausibility of taking such a firm stance on only that.

Now I just have to convince you that even the 'straightforward' reading favors the Framework Interpretation, eh?

Thanks again OOT, I much appreciate your comments,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=328056#post328056


Welcome back Ted

I will quote and respond only to those parts I think it necessary to.


On the other hand, the creation account of Gen 1:1-2:3 is explicitly sequential in its presentation.


I completely agree. The narrative is structured sequentially. If you want to argue that this precludes dischronologization, go for it, but so far you've only asserted it.



If one wishes to argue that it is dischronologized, then a necessary consequence of that position is the implication that the presentation is false in its sequence. There is no way out of this.


I agree that it's false to make the jump from the narrative sequence to the idea that "it happened in this sequence in reality." That's the entire point of the Framework Interpretation.


And that is why I said that making the story into “myth” (i.e. less than fully factual) casts doubt on the truth of scripture and by necessary extension, on the value of the cross.


Evidence please.


But let me put the question differently. To semi-quote one other writer in this thread, “If the writer of the creation account wanted to say that it was a true story, what means could he have used to make it clear that aren’t already in the story?” Until a cogent answer to this is made, the FI must be rejected, since historical-grammatical interpretation requires that we read the genre of history as true history. And the creation account is presented as true history.


Since the FI reads it in the genre of history, I agree with you and see no objection here.


The second item is my objection to the “Two-Triadic” structure of the story. It’s not that there aren’t two matching triads. There are. The problem is that that is an artificial truncation of the story. It cuts off the prolog and epilog, which are the elements that provide the structure to the poem and complete it.


Since the FI doesn't truncate anything I see no objection here. The 7th day and prologue are very much a part of the text. However, the 'two-triadic' part of my paper focuses on the 6 days since that's what is in the two triads.


This poetic structure is another element that shows that the story is intended to be true. Also, since the Sabbath is the completion of creation (cf. Mark 2:27-28), it is the memorial of creation (Gen 2:3, Exod 20:11) established at creation. By truncating the story to simply two triads, the Sabbath gets ignored or has its rationale destroyed.


You might want to check with some other YECs on the nature of poetry and whether or not seeing the Genesis 1 text as poetry would help your particular interpretation. Trust me, it wouldn't.

And the FI takes the text to be true as well.


Basically, you still have a LONG way to go if you're going to contend that IF the Genesis text is intended to be dischronologized, then it's "less than true."

Thanks again,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=320308#post320308

For OBP, part 1


Statement A, with a slight modification: If there are no qualifying time markers, then dischronologization is possible, but if there are progressive markers such as found in Genesis 1, then dischronologization is not possible. [The caveat is for the gospel accounts, e.g. Jesus doing something on 'the Sabbath'] I also hold that any attempt to dischronologize a chronologically delineated account is eisegesis.


Ok, so you rule out the possibility of my position in advance. I understand where you're coming from, but again it's begging the question for your position against mine, and so I cannot take it seriously as having any argumentative value against the Framework Interpretation. This seems to be exactly the same case as for OracleOfTroy who sees the 'straightfoward' reading ruling out anything else.



Okay. Your hangup is that you can't conceive of a 24-hour period defined by anything other than the sun in the ANE. Fair enough? I agree that no-one in the ANE could have possibly come up with the creation account in the Bible on their own. As Safarti pointed out in his article, that's one reason the account is believable.


The Jews would have defined the day by the rising of the Sun. What you want to do with using this text as evidence for its believability is absurd. It's like if a conversation went like this:

Joe: Psalm 177 verse 3 teaches that the speed of light is always constant regardless of observer, thus special relativity

Ted: What are you talking about? There's no way it teaches that. The idea that light even has speed, much less that it's constant and that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer would have been utterly inconceivable to them!

Joe: Exactly, which is a great proof for the reliability of the Bible!


Sorry, but if you're going to use a text to establish biblical reliability, you can't use a particular interpretation's inconceivable-ness as an argument for that interpretation itself. You have to establish the interpretation on grounds _other_ than 'because it was inconceivable.' If you can actually do that, then you would be able to use it as evidence.

You basically commit the Fallacy of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief. "X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences".

Unfortunately for your position, if an interpretation leads to the people needing to resort to something so absurd to them, this is an excellent indication that the interpretation is wrong. It's called a 'reductio ad absurdum' argument.



This, I think, is the crux of our differences. I disagree that the first three days are necessarily abnormal at all from an 'in the trenches' POV. At dawn, a light source appeared. At nightfall, it disappeared; hence, morning and evening, about 12 hours apart (assuming a near-equatorial POV).


*laugh* I thought I'd get some real stretches in attempts to answer this argument, but I didn't think anyone would go so far as to say that the first three days weren't abnormal. A 'normal' day without the sun to them? Please. I've again tried to be as generous as I can, but this is just silly. I'm not trying to be offensive, but when your answer is patently absurd there's really no way to respond other than "I'm perfectly content with my argument." As I've said before, I don't think I'll convert you. It takes a lot more than just a superior argument to do that, especially when you beg-the-question for your interpretation based on the sequential structure of the narrative.



God's resting and God's rest are two different things here, however.


Again, I'm perfectly content to leave this as it is, obviously stretching in order to try and save your interpretation. You are free to disagree as usual. :)

I'll get back to part B later today.

Regards,
Brian

[Ted]

I completely agree. The narrative is structured sequentially. If you want to argue that this precludes dischronologization, go for it, but so far you've only asserted it.

Syllogisms you want? Syllogisms you get!

Major Premise: A “dischronologized” account is presented in something other than the sequence of actual events. That is, in order to become “dischronologized,” at least one element of the account must be removed from its actual position in time. (The purpose of dischronologization is not at issue, although it commonly suits some thematic purpose.)
Minor Premise: The Creation account is presented in an explicit sequence that is both chronological and sequential.
Conclusion: The Creation account is not dischronologized.

Discussion: The Major Premise is definitional, and not subject to argument. Thus, if the minor premise is true, the conclusion must be true. In order to conclude that the Creation account is dischronologized, the minor premise must be shown to be false. The burden of proof necessarily falls on the one asserting the falsity of the minor premise.

Argument Regarding the Minor Premise: (Please note, this will necessarily be a rehash of other arguments.)
The Creation account is presented in language that numerous “authorities” have noted to be straight-forward history. The usual comment goes like this, “If we didn’t know better, we would have to conclude that the Bible is saying that the earth and life were created in six ordinary days.” This language is demonstrated in several ways.

1: Toledoth structure. The Creation account terminated with a toledoth in Gen 2:4. This is a colophon, referring to the preceding account, based on the fact that it refers to the creation of heavens and earth, elements of the preceding account. If it is argued to be a byline at the beginning of the succeeding account, it would be necessary to show creation of heavens and earth in Genesis 2, but those elements are absent in Genesis 2. Therefore, it is a colophon, referring to Genesis 1:2-2:3. Further, toledoth is a technical word implying an official eyewitness family history. Such histories are literally true.

2: “Evenings.” Days 1-6 are all linked to evenings. In every other case in scripture, where a day is linked with an evening, it is an ordinary day. Proper hermeneutics require that when there are no exceptions to a rule in the rest of scripture, there has to be an overwhelming reason to deviate from it in the exegesis of a single remaining passage. No such reason has been shown.

3: “Mornings.” Days 1-6 are all linked to mornings. In every other case in scripture, where a day is linked with an morning, it is an ordinary day. Proper hermeneutics require that when there are no exceptions to a rule in the rest of scripture, there has to be an overwhelming reason to deviate from it in the exegesis of a single remaining passage. No such reason has been shown.

4: Ordinal numbers. In every other case in scripture where an ordinal number is attached to a day (either day of the week, month, or year), it is an ordinary day. Proper hermeneutics require that when there are no exceptions to a rule in the rest of scripture, there has to be an overwhelming reason to deviate from it in the exegesis of a single remaining passage. No such reason has been shown.

5: Poetic Structure. It has been shown that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a poem, with 1:1-2 the prolog, and 2:1-3 the epilog, with 1-4, 2-5, and 3-6 rhyming pairs. Scriptural poetry is written to emphasize the truth of its contents. While it may use figurative language, the emphasis remains on the truth of it. Thus, the Creation account is emphasized as TRUE.

The major elements of the Creation account virtually scream to us that it is written as a simple, factual account of the story of creation. Thus, it is explicitly chronological, based both on the sequence of the text and the use of ordinal numbers. Further, the use of “evening/morning/number/day” is a compound emphasis on the ordinary and sequential nature of the days. Finally, the toledoth and poetic structure re-emphasize that the account is true.

Nowhere in the discussion in this thread has a legitimate argument been raised that we should ignore good hermeneutics that point to seven ordinary sequential days as the time and sequence of creation. We have heard it argued that yom can mean something other than an ordinary day. This is true, but not when linked with “evening/morning/number.” Such an argument is flawed, because it ignores the way the word is used in the rest of scripture. If that evidence were considered, the FI would be rejected out of hand.

In side conversations with other participants, we have concluded that BrianB’s difficulty with taking Genesis 1 as literal history flows from the absence of the sun until day 4. I can add fuel to his fire by noting that ereb “evening” to begin day 1 seems impossible without light, since the common definition of the word (BDB) is the time of the setting of the sun. But recognizing that Hebrew words often have extended meanings, a further exploration in BDB shows this same root referring to blackness. Thus, it is possible that the intended meaning of way ereb way boqer is “there was darkness, there was daylight.”

Having dealt with that difficulty, we are left with daylight without sun. The various cosmological arguments would be lost on the ancient Hebrews. They knew the day by darkness and light. And Genesis 1:14-18 provide us with clues to resolve BrianB’s dilemma. Verse 14 says, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night...” The language of the first three days clearly includes daytime and nighttime. Thus, the writer of the account could not miss the fact that this addition of the sun, etc. was to supplant a prior method of separating daytime and nighttime. (It is also notable that in verse 14, a different use of yom is present. Here the “day’ is the light portion, since there is no evening/morning/number to identify it as a 24-hour segment.)

Put bluntly, the account clearly admits that the daylight of days 1-3 came from a source other than the sun. That source is not identified, nor does it need to be. God could provide that daylight (see day 1!) in any way he chose. And I pointed out that Revelation, drawing from the books of Moses, identifies one easy analogy, His divine presence. Scripture clearly allows this, and only a pre-supposition in the FI requires anything different. Therefore, we should accept the scriptural answer. The Creation account is a true history of an ordinary week in which extraordinary things took place.

Somewhat false:
Having shown (again) that there is no scriptural reason to take the Creation account as anything other than literal history, I now move to the issue of the implications of the FI. (Which I discussed before.)

The FI clearly takes the literal week of creation and makes it something else. By dischronologizing, it takes seven true days and makes at least one of them “not true.” That is, the FI forces it to be something different than the text declares it to be. The common element seen has been a recombination of days 1 and 4 to get the sun into place on day 1 to allow for days in the modern mind. This means that the sun was not created on day 4. Therefore, the account of day 4 is false in the FI.

Let me reiterate this. In the FI, as discussed in this thread, day 4 of Genesis 1 is false. We know that Genesis is part of the sacred writings (2 Tim 3:15-16). Jesus referred to them in numerous places, and specifically relies on the truth of the creation account in Mark 2:27-28. (Other cites could be made.) Thus, the Savior declares that the Genesis account is TRUE. But in the FI, it is not true. This means that Jesus was relying on a lie. If he was truly the incarnation of God, then he would have known it to be a lie, and was therefore lying to us. Since lying is sin, Jesus was not a sinless sacrifice on the cross, and had no ability to save us by his death.

A host of other parallel arguments could be made, but the essence is this. Either we can rely on the absolute truth of all of scripture as originally recorded, or we can rely on none of it. Once a witness has been impeached, he has no credibility. The FI tries to impeach God.

[One Bad Pig]

Yesterday @ 02:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=329893#post329893)
BrianB:

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&amp;postid=320308#post320308

For OBP, part 1
Statement A, with a slight modification: If there are no qualifying time markers, then dischronologization is possible, but if there are progressive markers such as found in Genesis 1, then dischronologization is not possible. [The caveat is for the gospel accounts, e.g. Jesus doing something on 'the Sabbath'] I also hold that any attempt to dischronologize a chronologically delineated account is eisegesis.
Ok, so you rule out the possibility of my position in advance. I understand where you're coming from, but again it's begging the question for your position against mine, and so I cannot take it seriously as having any argumentative value against the Framework Interpretation. This seems to be exactly the same case as for OracleOfTroy who sees the 'straightfoward' reading ruling out anything else.

Pretty much so, I'm afraid. I don't consider it to be begging the question, however. :shifty: Within the context of the passage, there is nothing to warrant anything other than a straightforward reading except something you consider impossible, nay, ludicrous; to wit, the concept of 'day' before 'sun'. God is not limited to human understanding. If God says that He created light and the separation thereof from darkness before He created the sun, I'll believe Him. Nothing in His nature prevents Him from doing that. If you can find a scripturally sound reason why God could not have operated that way, I'll convert to your viewpoint post haste. Until then, I'll remain sceptical.


The Jews would have defined the day by the rising of the Sun. What you want to do with using this text as evidence for its believability is absurd.

You're being unfairly precise here. The ancient Hebrew language didn't have all that many words. There was no reason for them to invent a word for the concept of "evening to morning to evening again" without the sun present. I know you'll think I'm unfairly broadening the semantic field, here, but some days the sun isn't visible at all due to unbroken cloud cover. How do you think the Hebrews defined those days?


Sorry, but if you're going to use a text to establish biblical reliability, you can't use a particular interpretation's inconceivable-ness as an argument for that interpretation itself. You have to establish the interpretation on grounds _other_ than 'because it was inconceivable.' If you can actually do that, then you would be able to use it as evidence.

Right back atcha. :teeth:


You basically commit the Fallacy of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief. &quot;X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences&quot;.

Nope. I'm going with the simplest explanation. When that works, it's automatically preferred over any other explanation.


Unfortunately for your position, if an interpretation leads to the people needing to resort to something so absurd to them, this is an excellent indication that the interpretation is wrong. It's called a 'reductio ad absurdum' argument.

Not so much absurd, but "I would've never thought of that!"


*laugh* I thought I'd get some real stretches in attempts to answer this argument, but I didn't think anyone would go so far as to say that the first three days weren't abnormal.

As I said above:

a) Hebrew just wasn't that precise.
b) With God, nothing is impossible unless it contradicts His attributes.

God's resting and God's rest are two different things here, however. God rested on the seventh day (restricted to that day), but they will never enter His rest (lit. [His] resting place, NETBible tn on Ps. 98:11, where this quote comes from).

Again, I'm perfectly content to leave this as it is, obviously stretching in order to try and save your interpretation. You are free to disagree as usual. :)

Okay, I'll try to spell this out a little more clearly.

From the NETBible notes on Gen. 2:2

The Hebrew term tbv (sabat) can be translated “to rest” (“and he rested”) but it basically means “to cease.” This is not a rest from exhaustion; it is the cessation of the work of creation.

God rested/ceased creating. This does not take time to carry out; it is more of a timestamp. "On this day, stamp, I stopped working."

God's resting place, on the other hand, has no time marker at all, implying permanence. The concept extends infinitely to the past and future.

The concepts look closer in English than they really are. I really don't see how a long, but finite (or infinite), period of time can be assigned to the seventh day based on the text of Hebrews 4. I went back to the original quotations used in Heb. 4, just like the ancients would have (e.g., the Bereans in Acts).


I'll get back to part B later...]


I look forward to reading your response. This dialogue has really helped me to critically examine my position, as well as yours. Thanks!

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=329286#post329286

Heya OBP,



1. God could have had Moses describe the same events under the different days of 2/5 and 3/6. However, the only one we have data for that suggests he did is on the Days 1/4 combo. The FI doesn't rule out the same for the other two, but neither does it teach it.


I don't see a valid reason for combining any of them, is all. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, once we figure out what it is we disagree about.


Yeah, for some reason I don't think we disagree on much here. There's no reason for combining (in the temporal sense) Days 2/5 and 3/6, but the paper gives ample reason for combining Days 1/4, showing dischronologization.




2. It's true that one can accept that the FI is the best interpretation of the Genesis text, and still hold YEC or OEC views. However, no longer can the Genesis creation text be appealed to support those arguments. The support would have to come from another source.


Isn't that being a little unfair? Genesis 1 is the main support for YEC, AFAIK.


'Unfair' is not the right word to characterize it.

Joe: At the time the Psalmist wrote, there were cattle on exactly 1000 hills.

Ted: Really? Where's your evidence for that?

Joe: Psalm 50:10

Ted: But that its metaphorical, and here are the reasons....
If you want to claim that there were cattle on exactly 1000 hills, you're free to do so, but you'll have to look elsewhere for your interpretation.

Joe: But that's not fair. Psalm 50:10 was my main support!


OBP, It's simply a matter of how language works. The whole point is that if the FI is the right interpretation, the YEC (24-hour) interpretation _of that passage_ is not correct, and so it cannot appeal to it for support.



In context, Psalm 50:10 is shown to be metaphorical. It is embedded in a passage that repeats the concept that God owns everything. Genesis 1, however, has multiple indicators that it should by taken in a straightforward manner. I consider the YEC position to by a straightforward interpretation of the passage. Many passages are contextually open to interpretation. These two, however, are contextually well-grounded. I believe that the burden of proof is sqarely on you, because you're trying to insert a metaphorical interpretation of Days 1 and 4 into an otherwise straightforward passage.


Again, you're doing what you've already said you do, and that's beg-the-question against my metaphorical interpretation. There's nothing of argumentative value here.


The paper, IMHO, improperly equated interpretation with evidence in this instance. I was pointing this out in response to your list of conclusions.


Since the only evidence we have is interpretations of the text, I don't see what you're getting at unless you're essentially saying "you haven't convinced me." But of course we already knew that. ;)



Creation itself is an inherently discontinuous process -- the abrupt existence of something that wasn't there before.


Evidence please!


The "droll" was sarcasm. Socrates made some arguments that I considered to be cogent, and you ignored them (with the exception of a snide remark to Sanity). I thought that was rather petty and unfair.


You can think what you like. Fortunately, it's still my choice.

And I don't remember making a snide remark to Sanity. I thought Sanity was perfectly respectful in our discussions. If something came across as snide it certainly wasn't intended.


OBP, I think we've gotten to a standstill, and it's the same standstill that OOT and I reached. Your assumption that the chronological narrative structure rules out the possibility of the Framework Interpretation conflicts with my openness to the possibility (and belief after examining the evidence) that it doesn't rule it out. The only way we could make further progress is if:

A. You were to convince me that the Genesis 1 narrative sequence rules out even the possibility of the Framework Interpretation.

or

B. I were to convince you that the Genesis 1 narrative sequence does not rule out the possibility of the Framework Interpretation.

If there are more points you'd like to bring up, I'm willing to listen, but if we keep running into the same roadblock assumptions, then I'm afraid we'll go nowhere.

And don't worry about the 'crassness.' We all do it from time to time when we get frustrated because think other people are missing the obvious, which we both do of course. I mean, just look at how you miss the obviousness of the FI.

*big grin*

Regards,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=329928#post329928

Hi Ted,

No offense, but you've gotta work on your logic. If you really want to go the route of syllogism, I suggest you actually present them in a coherent form. I frankly don't see how your argument is even valid, much less sound as it is. I suggest trying to put in symbolic format, because as far as I can see your conclusion, which should be the B in the syllogism

If A then B
A
Therefore, B

Is completely absent from any of the premises.


Frankly, since the rest of your material depends on the first part of your post I see no need to interact with it in depth. Here are just a few notes.

1. You're wrong on the Toledoth. It's not a colophon. Take this up in another thread in the Biblical Languages 301 forum if you want.
2. You don't take the first three days as "ordinary days" (to quote you) so you defeat your own position with point #2. I take them as ordinary days. You don't.
3. See my comment above on #2. I take them as ordinary days. You don't.
4. Same thing, I take them as ordinary days. You don't.
5. Claiming that the Genesis text is a poem severely undermines your position. One of the most striking things about poetry is its non-literalistic nature. Again, I suggest you consult your 24-hour colleagues about whether you should call Genesis 1 poetry.

That the _narrative_ is sequential/chronological I completely agree with.


This is classic:


We have heard it argued that yom can mean something other than an ordinary day. This is true, but not when linked with “evening/morning/number.” Such an argument is flawed, because it ignores the way the word is used in the rest of scripture.


Exactly my point. Since you're trying to argue that the first three days are abnormal, non-solar periods of 24-hours, you're interpretation must be rejected. Since I accept that ALL the Genesis days mean ordinary days, my interpretation is acceptable.

Ted, I suggest you go back to the drawing board and learn from the other 24-hour people here who have presented vastly better argumentation than you. The very fact that you appeal to Genesis 1 as a _poem_ in order to support your literalistic interpretation tells me that you need a lot of help in the area of hermeneutics.


Comments like:

Thus, the Savior declares that the Genesis account is TRUE. But in the FI, it is not true. This means that Jesus was relying on a lie.


and


Either we can rely on the absolute truth of all of scripture as originally recorded, or we can rely on none of it. Once a witness has been impeached, he has no credibility. The FI tries to impeach God.


lead me to the conclusion that you are utterly blind and not worth conversing with anymore.

I wish you well,
Brian

[One Bad Pig]

12-08-2003 @ 10:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=331666#post331666)
BrianB:

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&amp;postid=329286#post329286

Heya OBP,


'Unfair' is not the right word to characterize it.

Joe: At the time the Psalmist wrote, there were cattle on exactly 1000 hills.

Ted: Really? Where's your evidence for that?

Joe: Psalm 50:10

Ted: But that its metaphorical, and here are the reasons....
If you want to claim that there were cattle on exactly 1000 hills, you're free to do so, but you'll have to look elsewhere for your interpretation.

Joe: But that's not fair. Psalm 50:10 was my main support!


OBP, It's simply a matter of how language works. The whole point is that if the FI is the right interpretation, the YEC (24-hour) interpretation _of that passage_ is not correct, and so it cannot appeal to it for support.

Again, you're doing what you've already said you do, and that's beg-the-question against my metaphorical interpretation. There's nothing of argumentative value here.

That there "if" is mighty big, there. :teeth: You're comparing apples with limes, here (Pardon the fractured cliche).

Ted: That's a mighty fine lime you've got there!

Joe: It's not a lime. It's an apple.

Ted: But it's green! It must be an apple!

Joe: It may be green, but it looks like an apple, smells like an apple, and [bite] hey -- it tastes like one, too!

Ted: But that's not fair! My interpretation only works if it's a lime!

Your interpretation might be right, but the preponderance of the evidence is against you.


Evidence please!


Let me rephrase that. The act of creation is inherently accomplished outside of the natural laws of physics. God is not limited to what I think is plausible.


And I don't remember making a snide remark to Sanity. I thought Sanity was perfectly respectful in our discussions. If something came across as snide it certainly wasn't intended.

I didn't consider you or Sanity being snide to each other. I considered the following remark to be somewhat snide:
Oh, and please just ignore the posters who are unable to offer anything substantive and can only scream-and-hollar and insult people when their pet arguments are going down the drain. It's sad that it's what some YEC have been reduced to. Fortunately, not all YE people are like that even if a highly vocal minority are.
The only substantive poster you had not replied to at that point was Socrates. I know he tends to get into shouting matches, but there really is a baby in that bathwater. :noid::grin: Please don't throw him out.


OBP, I think we've gotten to a standstill, and it's the same standstill that OOT and I reached.

I agree. You've really made me think through my position, though. I hope I've done the same for you.

v/r,

OBP

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=333612#post333612

Heya OBP,



That there "if" is mighty big, there. You're comparing apples with limes, here (Pardon the fractured cliche).


You're exactly right. The whole point of this discussion is what happens IF (our big if) one accepts the Framework Interpretation as true. Whether or not the IF is true is the thing that is and should be the dispute between us.

My point was that:
IF the FI is the correct interpretation
THEN one cannot appeal to the Genesis 1 text _as a particular text_ to support either the 24-hour or Day-Age views.
They are free to cite other texts, but the Genesis 1 text is not longer available.

My point had to do with what happens if one answers "yes, the FI is true" to the conditional if statement. So I think we agree here. The real issue between us is the answer to the IF question. I say yes, you say no.



Let me rephrase that. The act of creation is inherently accomplished outside of the natural laws of physics. God is not limited to what I think is plausible.


Yeah, I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm asking for the evidence to support it. My view of God's creating things isn't limited to what we might call 'the miraculous' over against 'the normal.' I agree that God is not limited to creating things by his providential means, but when must creation be 'inherently accomplished outside of the natural laws of physics.'?

Why can't God create things through his normal providential guidance of the cosmos? Doesn't this limit God's power? Can't it be _both_ providential and 'miraculous' creation?




And I don't remember making a snide remark to Sanity. I thought Sanity was perfectly respectful in our discussions. If something came across as snide it certainly wasn't intended.


I didn't consider you or Sanity being snide to each other. I considered the following remark to be somewhat snide:

"Oh, and please just ignore the posters who are unable to offer anything substantive and can only scream-and-hollar and insult people when their pet arguments are going down the drain. It's sad that it's what some YEC have been reduced to. Fortunately, not all YE people are like that even if a highly vocal minority are.”

The only substantive poster you had not replied to at that point was Socrates. I know he tends to get into shouting matches, but there really is a baby in that bathwater. Please don't throw him out.


My reasons for ignoring him go beyond simple shouting matches, and the moderator felt it improper to begin explaining further than that so there'll be no further discussion on this particular topic.

If you feel he presented substantive arguments, then by all means take them up as your own and present them to me. One of the best ways you can be sure that they are actually good arguments is to adopt them as your own and present them in your own words. That's the reason I wrote my paper in the first place. :)



OBP, I think we've gotten to a standstill, and it's the same standstill that OOT and I reached.


I agree. You've really made me think through my position, though. I hope I've done the same for you.



Oh yes. And, there are still areas of it that I'm not completely comfortable with. It'd be a pretty foolish thing for fallible me to think that I've got the perfect interpretation of every text, so I'm not surprised that I find areas of uncertainty left to work through.

Regards,
Brian

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 10:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=333612#post333612)
One Bad Pig, replying to:

Brian B. Oh, and please just ignore the posters who are unable to offer anything substantive and can only scream-and-hollar and insult people when their pet arguments are going down the drain. It's sad that it's what some YEC have been reduced to. Fortunately, not all YE people are like that even if a highly vocal minority are.

The only substantive poster you had not replied to at that point was Socrates. I know he tends to get into shouting matches, but there really is a baby in that bathwater. Please don't throw him out.

I had no idea why, but on looking back at his posts I saw a probable reason. I had completely forgotten about it, but Brian still bears petty grudges. Over 6 months ago, Brian was likewise denigrating YECs to atheists as he did on this thread, and I pulled him up on it here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=42880#post42880), fairly gently by my standards. Then there was some "he said she said" stuff about Sailhamer here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=63827#post63827).

Then Brian returns to TWeb after half a year, but time is evidently not always a healer, and posts this nonsensical Framework stuff, which Kline pushes explicitly to compromise with old-earth and evolution. And Kline, avidly supported by Brian, desperately tries to see a smidgen of normal providence in the creation account so he can extrapolate that absurdly to the entire creation week. His whole scheme had not been seen on land or sea before last century, and as GP said (in the context of another crazy novel eisegesis of Genesis 1), theological novelty can even be heresy.

My aim is to return to the Reformation (and biblical) doctrine of Sola Scriptura, not perpetuate the modern error of Scriptura sub scientia.

[One Bad Pig]

Yesterday @ 11:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=334295#post334295)
BrianB:

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&amp;postid=333612#post333612

Heya OBP,

My point was that:
IF the FI is the correct interpretation
THEN one cannot appeal to the Genesis 1 text _as a particular text_ to support either the 24-hour or Day-Age views.
They are free to cite other texts, but the Genesis 1 text is not longer available.

Okay, I see your point now. However, if you take away Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, what textual evidence is left either way?:huh: What evidence do you use to support the 24-hour view?


Why can't God create things through his normal providential guidance of the cosmos? Doesn't this limit God's power? Can't it be _both_ providential and 'miraculous' creation?

God can do things however He wants to. Since the act of creation is limited to God, though, I don't see why He would constrain Himself to using physical laws while doing it.


My reasons for ignoring him go beyond simple shouting matches, and the moderator felt it improper to begin explaining further than that so there'll be no further discussion on this particular topic.

Okay. I just wanted to clarify my reasoning.


If you feel he presented substantive arguments, then by all means take them up as your own and present them to me. One of the best ways you can be sure that they are actually good arguments is to adopt them as your own and present them in your own words.

Yeah, I tried using what I really thought you should interact with, but ran up against the problem of insufficient access to resources. I agree that the best way to learn a position is to teach it.

We all done w/ part A (last post #74)?

v/r,

OBP

[Ted]

to BrianB

It saddens me to see you take the approach you do. At least twice you have simply waved your hand to brush away the evidence that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is intended by its writer to be a literal history. You make statements like,

No offense, but you've gotta work on your logic. If you really want to go the route of syllogism, I suggest you actually present them in a coherent form. I frankly don't see how your argument is even valid, much less sound as it is.

Unfortunately, you make no substantive argument that contradicts what I said. And I think that the other onlookers can see that I have made serious arguments for my position. I will illustrate by revisiting a point or two.

You're wrong on the Toledoth. It's not a colophon. Take this up in another thread in the Biblical Languages 301 forum if you want.

And with that, you brush off one of the substantive arguments that relate to the historicity of the account. If you can force me to move to a different forum, then you can avoid answering me. That is a mark of someone who cannot deal with an argument that is directly on point. Your assertion would remove the creation account from the toledoth structure of the book. And thus you would remove an argument that the account is historical. But your wishes will not remove the fact that Gen 2:4 says, This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. Genesis 2:5ff doesn’t talk about the creation of the heavens or the earth at all. In fact, the next text that does is Exodus 20:11. In other words, if Gen 2:3 is a byline rather than a colophon, it’s a byline for the Ten Commandments. I’m sorry, the evidence is strongest that it is a colophon, pointing back to Genesis 1. But of course, you aren’t interested in the evidence, are you?

Next, and particularly offensive, is your comment:Comments like: Thus, the Savior declares that the Genesis account is TRUE. But in the FI, it is not true. This means that Jesus was relying on a lie.[\quote] and [quote] Either we can rely on the absolute truth of all of scripture as originally recorded, or we can rely on none of it. Once a witness has been impeached, he has no credibility. The FI tries to impeach God. lead me to the conclusion that you are utterly blind and not worth conversing with anymore.

I showed how our Lord and Savior depended on the absolutely truthful character of the Creation account in his ministry. But if the Lord of the Universe, supposedly incapable of lying, used a false account as the basis of any argument, asserting it to be true, he has lied and is disqualified from being our Savior. You left out the argument, and went straight to an ad hominem attack. I’m sorry if you don’t like the results of the careful application of logic. But when those go against your preconceived positions, it is incumbent on you to either show how the steps of the logic are flawed or to accept the results. You have done neither, and as such have left us in a quandary. Are you incapable of the careful legwork, or are you unwilling to accept that your position is fatally flawed? Please show us more than a dismissive attitude.

By the way, before you go to such a derogatory statement as: Ted, I suggest you go back to the drawing board and learn from the other 24-hour people here who have presented vastly better argumentation than you. The very fact that you appeal to Genesis 1 as a _poem_ in order to support your literalistic interpretation tells me that you need a lot of help in the area of hermeneutics. I would suggest that you engage in a bit of reflection. After all, the issue of the poetic structure of Genesis 1 is not original with me. It comes from Richard M. Davidson, PhD, Chair of the Old Testament Department at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan. His presentation is quite emphatic that the poetic structure of Hebrew writing, anywhere in the Old Testament is designed to emphasize the truth of what is being said. Yes, it can employ either literal or figurative language, but the form displays a spontaneous “bursting into song” about the wonders of God. The truth of these wonders is emphasized by the poetic form.

The Bottom Line
The Creation account is intended by its writer to be a literal account of history. It is not intended to be a science book, but where it bears on a scientific question, it is true. The writer used a variety of methods designed to show that it is factual. In fact, it would be difficult to find a literary device intended to emphasize the factual nature of the account that he did not use. Given his use of multiple methods, at least three of which (evening/morning/number) are never used in conjunction with yom for anything other than a literal day, proper hermeneutics demand a literal week of seven days in the sequence presented in the account.

The burden of proof lies with one who would deny this. BrianB, if you think I am wrong about this hermeneutical principle, show good counterexamples from scripture. Show hermeneutics texts that allow a universal use of a lexical form to be inverted in a solitary exception which is questioned.

Your key counter-argument so far has been a red herring. You complain that we are using “abnormal” days for days 1-3. Your definition has been that a normal day includes the sun. Yet it has been clearly shown by others that this definition for a day is not what the ancients would have known. Rather, they would have identified the daylight hours as the light part of 24, and the night as the dark part. This is the definition we have shown to be reasonable and proper.

Your own definition falls flat when we look at day 1. The language identifies an evening and a morning. But in your view, the sun has to come into being at the light part of the first day. If we then take the common definition of ereb, there has to be a sun on day zero! Otherwise, there can’t be an evening! An evening has to be a transition between light and dark, and the light wasn’t created until the next daylight time!

Your solution has to come from my exploration of the Hebrew, where I found that the better reading seems to be “there was darkness, there was daylight.” With such a reading, we do not have to have the sun on days 1-3, all we need is light. And God can provide light any way he wants. Your demand that he do it by providing the sun on day 1 is limiting God. Don’t do that.

You seem to be so convinced that your wisdom is greater than God’s that you cannot read what He put in scripture without your sunglasses. If you are to make good biblical sense, you need to deal with the arguments that have been placed in front of you. You cannot simply brush them away. And you must remember that, since every lexical element in the creation story seems intended to reveal a simple, true history of the event, the burden of proof is on you to show how it isn’t literal. Having done that, then you must relieve God of the problem of lying to us when he depends on its historicity.

It’s a small task. I’m sure you can handle it.

May the Lord bless as you study HIS word,
Ted

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=335043#post335043


Hi again OBP,

Some more thoughts.


Okay, I see your point now. However, if you take away Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, what textual evidence is left either way? What evidence do you use to support the 24-hour view?


None as far as I know.




Why can't God create things through his normal providential guidance of the cosmos? Doesn't this limit God's power? Can't it be _both_ providential and 'miraculous' creation?


God can do things however He wants to. Since the act of creation is limited to God, though, I don't see why He would constrain Himself to using physical laws while doing it.


He might or might not have. Your claim was (I thought) that the creation was inherently outside the operations of normal providence, which is what I objected to. My position is that it can be both, not just limited to miraculous.



If you feel he presented substantive arguments, then by all means take them up as your own and present them to me. One of the best ways you can be sure that they are actually good arguments is to adopt them as your own and present them in your own words.


Yeah, I tried using what I really thought you should interact with, but ran up against the problem of insufficient access to resources. I agree that the best way to learn a position is to teach it.


That is sometimes a problem.

Now that we've come to the roadblock about whether or not the sequential character of the Genesis narrative rules out the possibility of dischronologization, have you read my new addendum that discusses the grammar of the text?

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=335662#post335662

I think I've sufficiently argued that the straightforward reading purposely avoided a chronological enumeration of days through avoiding the pattern specifically used for that purpose. I'd be interested to hear what you think of it.

I think that's it for Part A. Was there more to do for Part B?

Regards,
Brian

[Ted]

BrianB,

Having read the entire post you reference, you neglect one key point. Even though the creation account uses echad without the article, a form different from the other scriptural patterns, the result must be the same. After all, if I have a "second day," "third day," "fourth day," "fifth day," and a "sixth day," then the first in the literary sequence must be the first day, whether the form is cardinal with or without the article.

Once again, the assumption that Moses wrote the account (the toledoth argument) comes into play. There are a number of places in Genesis that make it clear that the original account was carefully preserved, with an editorial insertion made so that Moses' contemporaries would understand it.

The best answer is still that the account was handed down from the earliest days (time of Adam). Thus, the verbal form might be less than perfect according to later grammatical conventions, but still carry the same meaning. We see a similar issue in the solecisms in Revelation, where John preserves the ancient Hebrew wording, even though the result is bad Greek.

Ted

[One Bad Pig]

Today @ 03:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=339310#post339310)
BrianB:

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&amp;postid=335043#post335043


Hi again OBP,


Now that we've come to the roadblock about whether or not the sequential character of the Genesis narrative rules out the possibility of dischronologization, have you read my new addendum that discusses the grammar of the text?

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&amp;postid=335662#post335662


I just went there. I'll reply to it there, so we don't get two competing discussions going.


I think that's it for Part A. Was there more to do for Part B?

Regards,
Brian

I think this is Part B. I don't see a reply to my last post (#74) on part A.

OBP

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=331484#post331484


Back again, OBP. Sorry about the A/B confusion. This is following up on your post #74.



Ok, so you rule out the possibility of my position in advance. I understand where you're coming from, but again it's begging the question for your position against mine, and so I cannot take it seriously as having any argumentative value against the Framework Interpretation. This seems to be exactly the same case as for OracleOfTroy who sees the 'straightfoward' reading ruling out anything else.


Pretty much so, I'm afraid. I don't consider it to be begging the question, however. Within the context of the passage, there is nothing to warrant anything other than a straightforward reading except something you consider impossible, nay, ludicrous; to wit, the concept of 'day' before 'sun'. God is not limited to human understanding. If God says that He created light and the separation thereof from darkness before He created the sun, I'll believe Him. Nothing in His nature prevents Him from doing that. If you can find a scripturally sound reason why God could not have operated that way, I'll convert to your viewpoint post haste. Until then, I'll remain sceptical.


The reason it is begging the question against my position is because you start with the assumption that what you see as the narrative structure of Genesis rules out the possibility of dischronologization, and then use that to argue against my position. It's an assumption on your part, unargued for, and you in-principle cannot allow any evidence to overcome that assumption.

You said:

I also hold that any attempt to dischronologize a chronologically delineated account is eisegesis.


Translation: "It doesn't matter what evidence you offer, you're wrong before you even start."

You rule out in advance any attempt to show it is dischronologized. That would qualify as begging the question as far as I know.

My paper provided several solid and unrefuted arguments that show dischronologization, far from 'nothing to warrant anything other...'. However, now the addendum has shown that the straightforward reading is intended to show that Moses was not enumerating time periods since he purposely avoided the grammatical pattern used for time-period-enumeration. He chose to use the countables pattern instead.

And, on God not being limited...God is limited to human understanding when he is trying to get us to understand something.

Here's another example conversation.

Ted: God was describing the details of how to resolve the tension between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in Genesis chapter 4.

Joe: What are you talking about? There's no way the Hebrews would have understood what you're talking about.

Ted: You're just trying to limit God. He's not limited to our understanding. Nothing in His nature prevents him from doing that. If you can find a scripturally sound reason why God could not have communicated the resolution of Relativity and QM in Gensis 4, then I'll convert to your viewpoint. Until then, I remain skeptical.

Sorry OBP, but the line of reasoning you try wont work.



The Jews would have defined the day by the rising of the Sun. What you want to do with using this text as evidence for its believability is absurd.


You're being unfairly precise here. The ancient Hebrew language didn't have all that many words. There was no reason for them to invent a word for the concept of "evening to morning to evening again" without the sun present. I know you'll think I'm unfairly broadening the semantic field, here, but some days the sun isn't visible at all due to unbroken cloud cover. How do you think the Hebrews defined those days?


They didn't need to invent a new word if that was what Moses was trying to communicate. He could have avoided using 'yom', 'morning' and 'evening' altogether and instead made a point of talking about just the transition from light to dark.


On cloudy/overcast days they still defined it by the rising and setting of the sun. Unless you're going to claim that they were too stupid to realize that the sun was still the thing providing the light behind the clouds I don't think you're going to get anywhere with this one. ;)


The other points I'm all set with just disagreeing on.


I look forward to your response on my addendum article. So far the only response has been to (essentially) point me back to the article itself, as if that somehow is a valid response.

Regards,
Brian

[Jason Clark]

I think Brian summed it up best when he said that if you accept the framework interpretation you can interpret scripture to accomadate it. That really is an example of begging the question, but I think Carl Weiland has said that all arguments are ultimately circular.

As a continually existing universe seems unacceptable to both philosophy and science God must have engaged in creation ex nihilo. Creation ex nihilo is not something we can ourselves observe or emulate so God's act of creation is outside of the realm of physics.

Ultimately Okham's Razor will eliminate FI.

The simplest reading of Genesis 1 gives the young earth creation position. No more is necessary.

I like Socrates, he's knowledgable, and entertaining, what more can one ask for.

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=347216#post347216

Hi Jason, and welcome to the discussion. :)


12-18-2003 @ 09:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=347216#post347216)
Jason Clark:

I think Brian summed it up best when he said that if you accept the framework interpretation you can interpret scripture to accomadate it.


Huh? Not sure when I said that...or even what you meant by it.


That really is an example of begging the question, but I think Carl Weiland has said that all arguments are ultimately circular.


Hmmm, I wouldn't say all arguments are circular, but I would say that we do ultimately begin with presuppositions that are themselves not supported by anything eand are the foundation upon which we build everything else. Interesting epistemological discussion, but probably not fit for this forum.



Ultimately Okham's Razor will eliminate FI.

The simplest reading of Genesis 1 gives the young earth creation position. No more is necessary.


Actually, you're going to need a lot more than a simple assertion that Ockham's Razor will eliminate the FI. You'll have to argue for it, unless it's simply an autobiographical comment on what you think. :)

Regards,
Brian

[wdwwilder]

I do not think anyone who lived in the bible times would think of such a contrived explaination of genesis. For me the question is Why? is it the avoid an apparent conflict with "science". I believe the God would have boxed the creation into a tight night and day six day time frame just to confuse us. the sabbath day come from the creation it is the reason we are to have a sabbath therefore the six days of creation came first. the seventh day was the end of the creation events it ended just as every day since has ended no one believes that each day in the whole bible must be numbered? the creation events were not subject to natural law it shound not surprise us it the study of natural process(science) conflicts with what is supernatural. I don't believe you have drawen out the meaning of scripture but merely forced your theological ideas on to it.

[wdwwilder]

I had seven years of college science education and a some theology and I really can't figure out what this framework hypothesis is is it so deep or double talk my vote ift anyone cared would be the latter.

[BrianB]

Yesterday @ 07:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=370180#post370180)
wdwwilder:

I do not think anyone who lived in the bible times would think of such a contrived explaination of genesis. ...I don't believe you have drawen out the meaning of scripture but merely forced your theological ideas on to it.

Gee, well..err..that's nice, but it'd be even better if you gave something resembling an argument.

What's really baffling is that you could say:


I had seven years of college science education and a some theology and I really can't figure out what this framework hypothesis is...


and while admitting that you don't have a good understanding of it, at the same time declare that it's wrong and the result of forcing a theological view of it.

Amazing.

*shrug* Thanks for playing.

Brian

[One Bad Pig]

12-16-2003 @ 06:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=341993#post341993)
BrianB:

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&amp;postid=331484#post331484


Back again, OBP. Sorry about the A/B confusion. This is following up on your post #74.




You said:
I also hold that any attempt to dischronologize a chronologically delineated account is eisegesis.

Translation: &quot;It doesn't matter what evidence you offer, you're wrong before you even start.&quot;

You rule out in advance any attempt to show it is dischronologized. That would qualify as begging the question as far as I know.

If a list of actions is sequentially numbered, why wouldn't it be chronological? :noid: It's kinda like asking why water is wet, IMO. If you found good evidence that the list had been rearranged at some point, or the numberings were a scribal addition, I would consider your position more tenable.


My paper provided several solid and unrefuted arguments that show dischronologization, far from 'nothing to warrant anything other...'. However, now the addendum has shown that the straightforward reading is intended to show that Moses was not enumerating time periods since he purposely avoided the grammatical pattern used for time-period-enumeration. He chose to use the countables pattern instead.

And when he did, he counted to seven.:grin: Your paper, IMO, took a pre-conceived notion (no light before sun) and then tried to mold the scriptures into justifying it.


And, on God not being limited...God is limited to human understanding when he is trying to get us to understand something.

However, God does not try to explain everything to us. "My ways are not your ways, and your thoughts are not my thoughts, says the LORD"(Isa. 55:8). The Israelites didn't have to understand how God did something, just that He did it.


You're being unfairly precise here. The ancient Hebrew language didn't have all that many words. There was no reason for them to invent a word for the concept of &quot;evening to morning to evening again&quot; without the sun present. I know you'll think I'm unfairly broadening the semantic field, here, but some days the sun isn't visible at all due to unbroken cloud cover. How do you think the Hebrews defined those days?


They didn't need to invent a new word if that was what Moses was trying to communicate. He could have avoided using 'yom', 'morning' and 'evening' altogether and instead made a point of talking about just the transition from light to dark.


If the transitions were on the same timescale as a typical day, why make a distinction?


On cloudy/overcast days they still defined it by the rising and setting of the sun.

Yes! Where was I going with this? :huh: On cloudy days, they had to infer the start of a new day by the transition to light (pre-Exile) without actually seeing the sun. I just don't see that great an intuitive leap from that to day/night transitions before the sun. The Israelites knew from personal experience (during the Exodus) that God Himself could manifest as light.


The other points I'm all set with just disagreeing on.


Okay. I was just trying to clarify my response there, as we didn't seem to be on the same wavelength.

v/r,

OBP

[rhart]

First, I will intro myself as the new guy. I have read the whole thread (Long). I will say that I feel there was error from the very beginning. Why only three methods to look at? You already submit creedence to pre-formed ideals. You worked from ideas backwards. I am not sure but this is not my favorite method.

Why dischronologization?

Ezra 4 never said Cyrus lead and was removed, the first leader.
Xerxes lead and was removed the second leader. ect.

Matt 4 never stated:
Jesus tempted to turn the stones to bread, the first temptation.
Jesus tempted to throw himself down, the second temptation.

luke 4 never stated in the same fashion.

Genesis, however, made such statements:

Genesis 1:5 (KJV)
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Genesis 1:8 (KJV)
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

This is cause for a demarcation from the text your theory of choice implies.

Your use of Randall Buth therefore doesn't apply here since it assumes there are "NO" grammatical indicators. Here there are.

You have not even considered the fact that this could be a re-generation of the earth.

Let me make an example I hope is useful (going on a limb here).

If I live here at a farm and I have bucket in my barn. I leave town and my wife writes me a tells me one of my helpers was in the barn feeding the horses and while he was working he kicked the bucket.

What context do I have to say he died. Even though our genre allows for such I would not force its use unless context was certain.

Why would we go to such extent to force such thinking in light of more obvoius direct context and language.

By this method one might dischronologize revelations prophecy and all kinds of wrongful interpretations would insue.

meanings beyond meanings beyond meanings, dangerous method indeed.

1. THE JEWISH METHOD OF INTERPRETATION. Jewish exegesis from Ezra to Christ may be traced in the Apocrypha, the works of Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud. Interpreters of this period set a value on each letter and held each one to be the source of great mysteries. To every letter they attached a numerical value and imposed fantastic meanings on plain historical statements. For example, the letters in the name Eliezer have a numerical value in Hebrew of 318. In Gen. 14:14 we read that Abraham had 318 trained servants. This was made to indicate that Eliezer was equal in value to all these servants. The word Keturah in Hebrew means sweet odor. We are told that Abraham married Keturah. This was interpreted to mean that he wedded a holy life. In Gen. 25 we are told that Abraham had six sons by Keturah; so if we believed the Jewish method of interpretation, we could not believe the literal, which states that Abraham married a woman and had these sons by her.
The Scribes carefully guarded against errors and interpolations in the text, but they set up an oral law or tradition, which in time came to be looked upon by the Jews as equal in authority to the Scriptures. Christ swept away all these traditions and interpretations and accepted the plain literal written Word of God as the only truth (Mk. 7:1-13). Paul also rebuked the Jews for taking their traditions before they would the Word of God (Gal. 1:13-14; Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 1:4; 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:14-16; Titus 1:14; 3:9).

The above type is evolved in D.A. Carson's quote.

2. THE ALLEGORICAL METHOD OF INTERPRETATION. The early Church Fathers, instead of following the plain literal meaning of Scripture as did Christ and the apostles, followed more or less the Jewish method of interpretation. The literal sense of Scripture was overlaid with the allegorical, moral and spiritual interpretations. Origin gave a threefold meaning to all Scripture corresponding to the body (literal), the soul (moral), and the spirit (spiritual or mystical). He greatly influenced others in the church for many centuries. Clement interpreted the scarlet cord out of Rahab’s window as meaning the blood of Christ. Chrysostrom believed the six steps of Solomon’s throne to mean six steps leading to God. And so it was with nearly everything in Scripture. The literal and historical meaning was almost completely done away with and the spiritual and mystical meaning took the place of the literal.
This method of interpretation continued to the Reformation. Since then the Scriptures have been more or less freed from the early traditions of men who began to study the Bible in a more literal sense. In spite of this new freedom of Scripture from much of the former spiritualizing tendencies and magical meanings, there are many ministers today who have gone back to the unintelligent methods of the past. We should reject and utterly avoid all such foolishness. The habit of these men is to disregard the common significance of words, the grammatical construction, and the literal intention of God in Scripture. They force into Scripture any meaning their fancy chooses, and they make the interpreter equal to God and his interpretations even better than the plain Word of God.

I will go further into the re-creation account if you so desire, but your request was more of our thought on your paper and not to intro other ones. It does however bridge the gap if you will between the semantic case of the 24hr. and the day-age desire to explain the problematic areas that to force the earths age, ect.

Since I am new here I will await responses. Hope to engage in many enlightening conversations here.

Grace and peace,

Richard

[One Bad Pig]

Today @ 05:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=374687#post374687)
rhart:

First, I will intro myself as the new guy. I have read the whole thread (Long).

Welcome! You have much fortitude! :smile: I'll just comment on the things I disagree with. I haven't read much of the Patristic writings, so I'm not going to comment either way on what you have to say about them.


You have not even considered the fact that this could be a re-generation of the earth.

I find no support in the text for re-generation. Genesis 1:28 in the KJV may look like it supports this theory, but it really showcases how words can change with meaning over time. "Replentish" used to mean "fill", not "fill again". I grew up using the KJV. However, when even the 1769 revision (today's "KJV") is not easily comprehended correctly by today's typical layman, it's time for an update.

According to my Ryrie study Bible, the Hebrew word translated "created" doesn't rule out the use of pre-existing material in Genesis 1:1-2, but none is mentioned or implied here. Some people understand a 'gap' between vv. 1 and 2, but the construction of the Hebrew does not support it.

Since I don't know Hebrew, I rely on those who do.


I will go further into the re-creation account if you so desire, but your request was more of our thought on your paper and not to intro other ones. It does however bridge the gap if you will between the semantic case of the 24hr. and the day-age desire to explain the problematic areas that to force the earths age, ect.


Please do. I've never heard a detailed argument in favor of the re-creation theory before. I'll be honest, and state up-front that I'll probably disagree with the theory, but who knows? You might change my mind. :noid:

v/r,

OBP

[Ted]

OBP,

The Ryrie Bible suggests the idea that “the earth became unformed and unfilled” as part of developing a Dispensational theology. That is, it allows a Dispensation before Adam and Eve (in its radical form) where God eventually destroyed everything and started over. Of course, this would deny Paul’s theology that death came as a result of sin...

I have three close friends who are professors of biblical Hebrew. They are unanimous in their conclusion that the Hebrew does not allow “the earth became unformed and unfilled.” It says, “the earth was unformed and unfilled.” And this brings us to bara.

Dispensationalism, at least in one form, now suggests that this first, failed earth, was now “re-formed” into the present earth. While I will not argue that the earth in an unformed and unfilled state did not exist prior to creation week, (after all, the text says, “the earth was...”), Genesis 1:1 does declare that God is the creator of all that exists. My professor friends are again unanimous. When bara is used of God’s actions, it specifically refers to creation ex nihilo. That is, God created out of nothing.

There is no temporal link between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. 1:1 is a complete statement that stands by itself. 1:2 is the introduction to the poem of creation. While answersingenesis will argue contra me, I see no problem with asserting God as the ultimate ex nihilo creator while suggesting the possibility that he made the earth in a preliminary form, then, during the creation week, “terraforming” it and filling it with life. This is consistent with the Hebrew and with Paul’s theology.

I hope this helps with the Ryrie comment.

Ted

[rhart]

Here is the site describing the theory. If you have questions, please repost.

http://custance.org/Library/WFANDV/


Here is the site against:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1994/r&r9407a.htm

It nothing else you will see it should have been included in the paper of BrianB.

To be fair I gave you both to help in your research.

Thanks for the welcome..

Grace and Peace,

Richard

[One Bad Pig]

Today @ 08:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=376603#post376603)
Ted:

OBP,

The Ryrie Bible suggests the idea that “the earth became unformed and unfilled” as part of developing a Dispensational theology. That is, it allows a Dispensation before Adam and Eve (in its radical form) where God eventually destroyed everything and started over. Of course, this would deny Paul’s theology that death came as a result of sin...

I have three close friends who are professors of biblical Hebrew. They are unanimous in their conclusion that the Hebrew does not allow “the earth became unformed and unfilled.” It says, “the earth was unformed and unfilled.”


Ted,

My Ryrie Bible (NASB 95 Update, to be precise) argues against using the word "became" here, and suggests that "was" rules out an indeterminate 'gap' in time between vv. 1 and 2.


And this brings us to bara.

Dispensationalism, at least in one form, now suggests that this first, failed earth, was now “re-formed” into the present earth. While I will not argue that the earth in an unformed and unfilled state did not exist prior to creation week, (after all, the text says, “the earth was...”), Genesis 1:1 does declare that God is the creator of all that exists. My professor friends are again unanimous. When bara is used of God’s actions, it specifically refers to creation ex nihilo. That is, God created out of nothing.

What is their proof for this interpretation?


There is no temporal link between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. 1:1 is a complete statement that stands by itself. 1:2 is the introduction to the poem of creation. While answersingenesis will argue contra me, I see no problem with asserting God as the ultimate ex nihilo creator while suggesting the possibility that he made the earth in a preliminary form, then, during the creation week, “terraforming” it and filling it with life. This is consistent with the Hebrew and with Paul’s theology.


I agree with all this. The text itself intimates that water was used as the starting material. I believe that Gen. 1:1 is an abstract, if you will, of creation account. Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 are not temporally linked per se, but there isn't any room for a gap, either.


I hope this helps with the Ryrie comment.

Ted

Yes; reasoned discourse typically does. :smile:

[One Bad Pig]

01-13-2004 @ 10:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=376741#post376741)
rhart:

It nothing else you will see it should have been included in the paper of BrianB.


I see that now, thanks. Ockham's Razor causes the Gap Theory to bleed all over the place, IMO, but then again I think the same of the FI.

OBP

[BrianB]

Just an update. This paper is also found in PDF format here:

http://mysite.verizon.net/bbbweb/framework_interpretation.html

Also, a followup paper, "One, Two, Three, and an Ordinal for Thee - Grammatical Irregularities, Definitions, and Genesis One" is found at the same link, and was discussed here on TW at:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15129

Hope everyone is doing well!

Brian B