This first quote from Perman's page sets up Sailhammer's assumptions
He then draws this conclusion. The six days don't apply to the universe but only to the land of Canaan:
Sailhamer's view starts going off track when he says that Let there be light only applies to the promised land. That it was dark and a wasteland (tohu and wabohu).
If the universe had been made AND the sun and moon had been made before all this activity on the land of Canaan, and the Sun Revolved around the earth, it is never explained why the promised land was dark? He did claim that waters were on top of it, but that can't be true geologically speaking. The Levant is geologically part of Asia and it was above water since the Miocene times. Geologically having water over it makes no geological sense.
Then I looked up his claim about the same phrase "Let there be light" to see if that was true. It wasn't. Below I have used Logos software to see the words used, and I copied their Strong's number for each of the 4 verses he says are the 'same phrase' I was incredibly disappointed that he tried to say they were the same.
Light, owr, comes in two forms, a verb H215, and a noun H216 Genesis 1:3 literally says 'become light' using the verb form. Exodus 10:23 says during the darkness over Egypt God made it light in the Hebrew's dwellings. There he used become light again. But no where does Exodus 10:23 say anything about morning H1242. The guy is just wrong
Genesis 1:3 H1961 H216 become light--verb a miracle
Genesis 44: 3 H1242 H215 morning light the men
Exodus 10:23 H1961 H216 Become light in their dwellings A miracle
Nehemiah 8:3 H4481 H216 from light to midday
Sailhamer is the theologian and I am not, but even I can look up words in a Hebrew bible and see that they are not what he claims them to be. I am a scientist and he is not, and his science is atrocious.
If the land is the promised land, then all this was already done over the rest of the earth, why did this Promised land lag behind other lands? Is Sailhamer trying to say that there was a dark cloud over the Levant for billions of years? The fossil record would say definitely not given the fossils found in rocks from that area.
The Biblical land did not rise out of the ocean separately from Turkey and Egypt. Geologic data clearly shows this. So when Sailhamer tries to limit this rise to just the promised land, it fails geologically
This gets ridiculous because we are supposed to believe that all the action from Genesis 1:2 to the end of the chapter was referring to JUST the promised land, and now, since he can't find a way to make the sun moon and stars just apply to the Promised land, he changes the standard and says God gave the sun significance. Good grief. The sun's significance was that it had given life giving rays to the rest of the world for billions of years and we are to believe this statement is the only reason the sun has significance? Bad So this is a superfluous fluff that couldn't be tied to any physical event so it is a declaration of purpose.
quote from Sailhamer:
You could have fooled me about God creating the 'luminaries' because what v 14 literally says is 'be luminaries'. To be, is to exist, so when God says 'be light' in Genesis 1:3 forgive everyone for thinking he was telling light to exist. And here in v. 14 when God says: 'be luminaries' one could certainly think he was creating the stars.
But why, Sailhamer asks, did God wait until the fourth day to declare His purpose in making the celestial bodies? There are two reasons. First, Moses "is intent on showing that the whole world depends on the word of God. The world owes not merely its existence to the word of God, but also its order and purpose"https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...-promised-land
How exactly does waiting until the fourth day show that the whole world depends on God? This leaves me speechless. I can't even begin to imagine the chain of mislogic going into that. Maybe if God had waited until the 18th day it would have really shown the world that it depends on God! How about the 100th day? Sheesh
For Sailhamer's next quote we need to quote Ex 20:11, which says: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day"
Sailhammer p. 106 from
" ...this passage in Exodus does not use the merism 'heavens and earth' to describe God's work of six days. Rather, it gives us a list of God's distinct works during the six days....That list refers to God's work in Genesis 1:2-2:4, not to His creation of the universe in Genesis 1:1. Exodus 20:11 does not say God created 'the heavens and earth' in six dayshttps://www.desiringgod.org/articles...-promised-land
Wow, I thought that is exactly what Exodus 20:11 said, that God created the heavens and the earth in six days! funny how words change their meaning as I read them. Sadly, Sailhamer makes me think of a Thomas Huxley quote about theologians and their metaphorical interpretations of Genesis and how stupid they are:
.
"Sailhamer's view, called historical creationism, affirms the inerrancy of the Bible, upholds the historicity of Genesis, and rejects evolution--just like creationism and progressive creationism. As Sailhamer writes, the author of Genesis "does not expect to be understood as writing mythology or poetry. His account, as he understands it, is a historical account of creation" (45).1 The main difference is that historical creationism denies the three central assumptions lying behind the other three views. These three assumptions are, first, "that the chapters' primary purpose is merely to describe how God created the world. Another is that originally the world was a formless mass, which God shaped into the world we know today. A third is 'the land' which God made during the six days is 'the earth' in its entirety, as we know it today"https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...-promised-land
He then draws this conclusion. The six days don't apply to the universe but only to the land of Canaan:
The text just does not say. Genesis 1:2and following, which recount God's acts during the six days, therefore do not refer to the creation of the universe.https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...-promised-land
Sailhamer's view starts going off track when he says that Let there be light only applies to the promised land. That it was dark and a wasteland (tohu and wabohu).
Day one. God's command on the first day, "let there be light," was the decree for the sun to rise. Sailhamer writes that,"The phrase 'let there be light' doesn't have to mean 'let the light come into existence.' Elsewhere in the Bible, this same phrase is used to describe the sunrise (see Exodus 10:23; Nehemiah 8:3; Genesis 44:3)https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...-promised-land
If the universe had been made AND the sun and moon had been made before all this activity on the land of Canaan, and the Sun Revolved around the earth, it is never explained why the promised land was dark? He did claim that waters were on top of it, but that can't be true geologically speaking. The Levant is geologically part of Asia and it was above water since the Miocene times. Geologically having water over it makes no geological sense.
Then I looked up his claim about the same phrase "Let there be light" to see if that was true. It wasn't. Below I have used Logos software to see the words used, and I copied their Strong's number for each of the 4 verses he says are the 'same phrase' I was incredibly disappointed that he tried to say they were the same.
Light, owr, comes in two forms, a verb H215, and a noun H216 Genesis 1:3 literally says 'become light' using the verb form. Exodus 10:23 says during the darkness over Egypt God made it light in the Hebrew's dwellings. There he used become light again. But no where does Exodus 10:23 say anything about morning H1242. The guy is just wrong
Genesis 1:3 H1961 H216 become light--verb a miracle
Genesis 44: 3 H1242 H215 morning light the men
Exodus 10:23 H1961 H216 Become light in their dwellings A miracle
Nehemiah 8:3 H4481 H216 from light to midday
Sailhamer is the theologian and I am not, but even I can look up words in a Hebrew bible and see that they are not what he claims them to be. I am a scientist and he is not, and his science is atrocious.
If the land is the promised land, then all this was already done over the rest of the earth, why did this Promised land lag behind other lands? Is Sailhamer trying to say that there was a dark cloud over the Levant for billions of years? The fossil record would say definitely not given the fossils found in rocks from that area.
The Biblical land did not rise out of the ocean separately from Turkey and Egypt. Geologic data clearly shows this. So when Sailhamer tries to limit this rise to just the promised land, it fails geologically
This gets ridiculous because we are supposed to believe that all the action from Genesis 1:2 to the end of the chapter was referring to JUST the promised land, and now, since he can't find a way to make the sun moon and stars just apply to the Promised land, he changes the standard and says God gave the sun significance. Good grief. The sun's significance was that it had given life giving rays to the rest of the world for billions of years and we are to believe this statement is the only reason the sun has significance? Bad So this is a superfluous fluff that couldn't be tied to any physical event so it is a declaration of purpose.
quote from Sailhamer:
Sailhamer writes that the "Hebrew verbal construction in verse 14 is significantly different from verse 6" even though
our English translations don't always reflect that difference. In the Hebrew text of verse 14, God does not say, 'Let there be lights in the expanse to separate the day and night...' as if there were no lights before His command and afterward they came into being [which is the way it was with the expanse in verse 6]. Rather according to the Hebrew text, God said, 'Let the lights in the expanse be for separating the day and night...' God's command, in other words, assumes that the lights already exist in the expanse. To be sure, there has been no mention of these 'lights' earlier in Genesis 1, but their existence is assumed in the expression 'heavens and earth' in Gen 1:1. (131-132).
Thus, on the fourth day God was not creating the sun and stars, but stating the purpose for which he had already created them "in the beginning"
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...-promised-land
our English translations don't always reflect that difference. In the Hebrew text of verse 14, God does not say, 'Let there be lights in the expanse to separate the day and night...' as if there were no lights before His command and afterward they came into being [which is the way it was with the expanse in verse 6]. Rather according to the Hebrew text, God said, 'Let the lights in the expanse be for separating the day and night...' God's command, in other words, assumes that the lights already exist in the expanse. To be sure, there has been no mention of these 'lights' earlier in Genesis 1, but their existence is assumed in the expression 'heavens and earth' in Gen 1:1. (131-132).
Thus, on the fourth day God was not creating the sun and stars, but stating the purpose for which he had already created them "in the beginning"
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...-promised-land
You could have fooled me about God creating the 'luminaries' because what v 14 literally says is 'be luminaries'. To be, is to exist, so when God says 'be light' in Genesis 1:3 forgive everyone for thinking he was telling light to exist. And here in v. 14 when God says: 'be luminaries' one could certainly think he was creating the stars.
But why, Sailhamer asks, did God wait until the fourth day to declare His purpose in making the celestial bodies? There are two reasons. First, Moses "is intent on showing that the whole world depends on the word of God. The world owes not merely its existence to the word of God, but also its order and purpose"https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...-promised-land
How exactly does waiting until the fourth day show that the whole world depends on God? This leaves me speechless. I can't even begin to imagine the chain of mislogic going into that. Maybe if God had waited until the 18th day it would have really shown the world that it depends on God! How about the 100th day? Sheesh
For Sailhamer's next quote we need to quote Ex 20:11, which says: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day"
Sailhammer p. 106 from
" ...this passage in Exodus does not use the merism 'heavens and earth' to describe God's work of six days. Rather, it gives us a list of God's distinct works during the six days....That list refers to God's work in Genesis 1:2-2:4, not to His creation of the universe in Genesis 1:1. Exodus 20:11 does not say God created 'the heavens and earth' in six dayshttps://www.desiringgod.org/articles...-promised-land
Wow, I thought that is exactly what Exodus 20:11 said, that God created the heavens and the earth in six days! funny how words change their meaning as I read them. Sadly, Sailhamer makes me think of a Thomas Huxley quote about theologians and their metaphorical interpretations of Genesis and how stupid they are:
Originally posted by Thomas H. Huxley, "Lectures on Evolution" in _Agnosticism and Christianity_, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1992), p. 14
.
Comment