Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Do YOU Believe?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Athanasius again.
    I'm very glad you're back on the forums brother. You were missed.
    "Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back that is an outrage."

    Comment


    • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

      Originally posted by BrianW View Post
      I'm very glad you're back on the forums brother. You were missed.
      And here I am starting to feel like a nuisance - thanks!

      Comment


      • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

        Originally posted by Athanasius View Post
        That's not actually what I'm concerned with. I'm concerned with the question, can someone adhere to a non-YEC interpretation of Genesis without destroying the text? My answer is yes.



        I don't (yet) know of anyone who adheres to YEC who thinks a Christian who isn't YEC is going to hell as a result of not being YEC. It's been stated in this thread and elsewhere that it's not a salvific issue, so why would anyone bring up hell? That said, there are a lot of things one could say before bringing up hell that are problematic (as you go on to list). Here are some others:

        If you don't believe in YEC it's because you're rejecting the 'straightforward reading and understanding of Genesis':



        If you don't believe in YEC it's because you're denying God's word and believing man instead:



        If you don't believe in YEC it's because you believe the textbooks of man rather than God:



        If you don't believe in YEC it's because you value money more than Scripture:



        If you don't believe in YEC you might not be born again:



        If you don't believe in YEC it's because academia has corrupted you:



        And so on.

        Returning to 'straightforward reading and understanding' or 'what is plainly written' language - what's the implication? That anyone with a different interpretation is ignoring the obvious to interpret the text so that it fits a certain narrative or agenda, that they aren't concerned about reading Genesis for what it is but are instead concerned about forcing Genesis into something it isn't. It's a serious charge that goes beyond, 'well, you're just honestly mistaken but hopefully you get there'.



        You might be surprised to read that I haven't said anything about the YEC interpretation, or about my own views. What I've been saying is that there are good reasons to believe any number of interpretations, and that the YEC interpretation isn't the only one that stays true to the Genesis text.



        For the list above: If you don't believe in YEC you're disagreeing with Jesus.

        I'm not 'defending' TE or non-YEC views because I'm TE or non-YEC, and I'm not saying, 'hey, wait on a minute' of the YEC view because I'm not YEC. I'm involved because indictments of non-YEC views go well beyond 'it's not an issue of salvation' with the many 'buts' that are added (like those listed above). Saying 'fair enough' is one thing, but to then take the position that anyone who disagrees is committing some level of sin? Not cool.
        Athanasius:

        I been in several different forums over the last few years, presenting some pretty amazing data, (so some of us think) as well as news worthy tid-bits and how they link to Genesis and related issues (see the dino thread). I run into all kinds of amazing and interesting people out here in cyber-land. This particular forum is the best yet I’ve seen. I have really enjoyed my time here.

        Debating via this medium (forums) does have its limitations; as tone, body language, lengthy explanations etc.. can be lacking and can sour conversations, many times quite mistakenly. Sometimes, in these forums, things are said that come out wrong or are confusing in the way they were written. I am guilty of this. Sometimes things are simply misinterpreted. My grammar is terrible to, it was never a strong suit of mine. You seem like a very intelligent person to me, thus far, reading your posts, and I do enjoy everyone’s contributions including yours.

        But I must respectfully say, you seem to misunderstand, misrepresent and twist our words quite frequently. I will be the first to admit, that I may not have best explained our or my position at times. I’ve made more than a few dumb comments over the years. I am more than willing to admit such, or try and clarify the original point(s).

        Am I really saying what I am trying to say that badly? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

        I’ve said it a gazillion times but I guess one more time won’t hurt.

        My best friend, a Christian, my mentor, the man who lead me to Christ is not a YEC. Why not? These issues (biology, archaeology, geology etc..) don’t interest him, so he won’t even look it long enough to grasp the issues. It’s simply irrelevant to him.

        Thats OK, tho, I still love Him very much and respect his own personal “interpretation” of Genesis.

        • I don’t think he ( or anyone else who is not “YEC”) is “sinning” because of his views on Genesis.
        • He is no less a Christian than me or any other non-“YEC” (btw I don’t like this term)
        • I do think he missing out on some pretty amazing information and therefor some pretty amazing conclusions.
        • This issue is not salvific, generally speaking, but for some, it can be. I know people who won’t come to Jesus because Genesis is filled with “tales” that are “unbelievable”. ( Global floods with all life on a wooden ark for a year, 930 year old men etc…. If these “tales” cannot be believed, why should I believe the doctrine of original sin? Why can't this mean something else to? Why then do we need a savior? If Genesis has the Global flood wrong what else does it have wrong?

        Do you mean to tell me you can’t see this see this logic?

        Anyway, I’ve said enough. You and I do appear that we are not going to see eye to eye on much. That's OK. I am not looking for a fight or to belittle anyone’s interpretation of anything. My aim was simply to show “another way” to interpret the data.

        Simple. Take it or leave it, we are all free men.

        A final aside. I looked into to John Walton's book and it looks interesting, ( I have no problem with the concept of the Temple in Creation) It would interesting to see how he addressed young earth issues, ( apparently he does) my friend has the book, I will try and look into it.

        Regards.
        Last edited by bluesky22; Jul 6th 2016, 07:13 PM. Reason: clarity
        A cannot be A & not A at the same time.

        מקום כניעה סך הכל

        Comment


        • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

          Originally posted by bluesky22 View Post
          Athanasius:

          I been in several different forums over the last few years, presenting some pretty amazing data, (so some of us think) as well as news worthy tid-bits and how they link to Genesis and related issues (see the dino thread). I run into all kinds of amazing and interesting people out here in cyber-land. This particular forum is the best yet I’ve seen. I have really enjoyed my time here.

          Debating via this medium (forums) does have its limitations; as tone, body language, lengthy explanations etc.. can be lacking and can sour conversations, many times quite mistakenly. Sometimes, in these forums, things are said that come out wrong or are confusing in the way they were written. I am guilty of this. Sometimes things are simply misinterpreted. My grammar is terrible to, it was never a strong suit of mine. You seem like a very intelligent person to me, thus far, reading your posts, and I do enjoy everyone’s contributions including yours.

          But I must respectfully say, you seem to misunderstand, misrepresent and twist our words quite frequently. I will be the first to admit, that I may not have best explained our or my position at times. I’ve made more than a few dumb comments over the years. I am more than willing to admit such, or try and clarify the original point(s).
          I'm not sure that I have misrepresented or twisted your words (who is the 'our'?). Misunderstanding is always a possibility, but we seem to address that as soon as it's noticed, so I'm also not sure any continuing misunderstanding is at play here. Would I be correct in assuming that you're referring mainly to my reply in post #150?

          You'll notice from my list that I cited TonyP the most - he sticks to his guns and says it like he thinks it, and that's fair play to him. As a result it's pretty difficult to misunderstand, misrepresent, and / or twist his words, e.g. when I say 'Not everyone agrees with the YEC interpretation of Genesis. It doesn't mean those people are ignoring the text.' And his reply is, 'Actually, that is precisely what it means. They MUST ignore the text to fabricate another theory that they actually have more faith in, such as TE. The language in Genesis is as simple as it gets.' (post #135). The other quotes I pulled from him aren't out of context, but if you think they are then by all means I'd like to know in case I have misunderstood (and consequently misrepresented).

          When I first quoted you I was careful to be indefinite, as I think you weren't trying to say what it could sound like you're saying (but I'm not sure). The second time at the end of the post I was more direct because you were. The essence of that thought comes down to: Jesus supports our view so really, there's no room for any other. Do I think you meant to say that? No. But I also didn't have you in mind when I said the things I said in post #150 - you just happened to be the one I was replying to. I'm thinking almost exclusively of Tony, because he's making more serious claims that you are. If anything I'm not sure you give much consideration to the implications of some of the things you say, but that's true of most of us.

          Originally posted by bluesky22 View Post
          Am I really saying what I am trying to say that badly? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

          I’ve said it a gazillion times but I guess one more time won’t hurt.

          My best friend, a Christian, my mentor, the man who lead me to Christ is not a YEC. Why not? These issues (biology, archaeology, geology etc..) don’t interest him, so he won’t even look it long enough to grasp the issues. It’s simply irrelevant to him.

          Thats OK, tho, I still love Him very much and respect his own personal “interpretation” of Genesis.

          • I don’t think he ( or anyone else who is not “YEC”) is “sinning” because of his views on Genesis.
          • He is no less a Christian than me or any other non-“YEC” (btw I don’t like this term)
          • I do think he missing out on some pretty amazing information and therefor some pretty amazing conclusions.
          • This issue is not salvific, generally speaking, but for some, it can be. I know people who won’t come to Jesus because Genesis is filled with “tales” that are “unbelievable”. ( Global floods with all life on a wooden ark for a year, 930 year old men etc…. If these “tales” cannot be believed, why should I believe the doctrine of original sin? Why can't this mean something else to? Why then do we need a savior? If Genesis has the Global flood wrong what else does it have wrong?

          Do you mean to tell me you can’t see this see this logic?
          The logic of the last point? I hear it all the time and I think it's bad logic. I haven't met anyone who would believe in the doctrine of sin - or Scripture generally - if not for Noah's flood and extremely long-lived men. They reject the whole thing, regardless of the specific points they raise, because they're unregenerate. The more general logical point is a non-sequitur. On what basis is someone warranted in denying the doctrine of sin because they don't think Noah's flood happened? There is no basis: Noah's flood is Noah's flood, and the doctrine of sin is the doctrine of sin. If someone didn't believe in the Noahic flood, does that mean they think Genesis has it wrong? Not necessarily, they could see the value of accounts like the Noahic flood as other than the literal, concrete, 'did it happen'.

          Originally posted by bluesky22 View Post
          Anyway, I’ve said enough. You and I do appear that we are not going to see eye to eye on much. That's OK. I am not looking for a fight or to belittle anyone’s interpretation of anything. My aim was simply to show “another way” to interpret the data.
          Who says we don't see 'eye to eye'? I'm responding to the idea that YEC is the only legitimate, God fearing, Scripture affirming, Jesus loving interpretation of Genesis. You might not be saying that (though I think you are), but TonyP is. There is room for other interpretations, Genesis isn't definitive enough to rule out all but one.

          Originally posted by bluesky22 View Post
          A final aside. I looked into to John Walton's book and it looks interesting, ( I have no problem with the concept of the Temple in Creation) It would interesting to see how he addressed young earth issues, ( apparently he does) my friend has the book, I will try and look into it.

          Regards.
          Unless his view has changed, I seem to recall he thinks the creation account is myth rather than history, so he's not a young earther even though he affirms the 24 hour understanding of yom (which refer to functional periods of creation, or something like that).

          Comment


          • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

            There's so much to say here, but I will restrict it to this.

            Who says we don't see 'eye to eye'?
            LOL, I am saying we don't see eye to eye. Trust me!

            peace
            A cannot be A & not A at the same time.

            מקום כניעה סך הכל

            Comment


            • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

              Originally posted by bluesky22 View Post
              There's so much to say here, but I will restrict it to this.

              LOL, I am saying we don't see eye to eye. Trust me!

              peace
              ◔̯◔ if you say so.

              Comment


              • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                Originally posted by Athanasius View Post
                I'm not making the claim. I'm only pointing out that no one is creating a new definition of 'day', they are appealing to another (recognized) definition of day. Someone might find Geisler's argumument convincing, for example: http://www.christianpost.com/news/do...ionism-114464/. They could find Craig's argument compelling (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...anscript/s9-03), Justin Taylor (https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org...-hour-periods/), in addition to others: Charles Hodge, J P Moreland, Peter Kreeft, etc.

                I already 'accept the actual words used in Genesis'. If someone disagrees with YEC they aren't denying the words of Genesis.
                These articles all present the same theme. First, deny the actual language to "allow room" for a wholly man created concept of millions of years. Then present no evidence whatsoever for why they cannot read a simple text. The average third grader can clearly ascertain what is written. Only the blind cannot see it. Their excuses are laughable. One of them even admitted the fact that they don't know what "let their be light" is about, since the sun and moon were created days later. Clueless.

                So, again I ask, where in scripture is the word Yom, singular, used for anything greater than 24 hours? Good luck, I've already tried to find this when I had a hard time believing. Then we have the actual text of Genesis that further clarifies the day. Morning and evening, the 1st day. It isn't the rocket science that people make it out to be. Either believe it or not. Be honest one way or the other. The worst thing to do is create the nonsense in the articles above. Go down that road and everything in the Bible becomes anything a person wants it to be. God isn't fooled, so why all the effort to fool oneself?

                Comment


                • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                  Originally posted by Tony P View Post
                  These articles all present the same theme. First, deny the actual language to "allow room" for a wholly man created concept of millions of years. Then present no evidence whatsoever for why they cannot read a simple text. The average third grader can clearly ascertain what is written. Only the blind cannot see it. Their excuses are laughable. One of them even admitted the fact that they don't know what "let their be light" is about, since the sun and moon were created days later. Clueless.

                  So, again I ask, where in scripture is the word Yom, singular, used for anything greater than 24 hours? Good luck, I've already tried to find this when I had a hard time believing. Then we have the actual text of Genesis that further clarifies the day. Morning and evening, the 1st day. It isn't the rocket science that people make it out to be. Either believe it or not. Be honest one way or the other. The worst thing to do is create the nonsense in the articles above. Go down that road and everything in the Bible becomes anything a person wants it to be. God isn't fooled, so why all the effort to fool oneself?
                  No they don't. Geisler and Craig both appeal to Hosea 6.1-2 as an example of yom not always meaning a 24 hour period:

                  Originally posted by Geisler
                  (5) Further, there are biblical alternatives to the strongest argument for a 24-hour day. (a) For example, a numbered series with the word "day" (as in Genesis 1) does not always refer to 24-hour days, as Hosea 6:1-2 shows.
                  Originally posted by Craig
                  In the original context, Hosea was talking about the two days are of God’s judgment and wrath upon Israel and the third day is the day of deliverance and redemption. And those aren’t 24-hour days.
                  Geisler also provides examples of other instances of yom in the Genesis text that are taken to mean a period other than 24 hours. Craig makes the further point that yom could very well mean a literal 24 hour period, but its use as a literary device (going back to his illustration use 'arm' and 'fortress') could be entirely different.

                  The purpose of Taylor's article was not to argue that a 24 hour reading of Genesis is wrong, but that there is room for other interpretations. He gives the name of 5 people who weren't Young Earth Creationists, the point of which is to show that disagreements over the meaning of yom aren't the sole result of evolutionary theory. He then also appeals to Hosea 6.1-2, Genesis 2.4, the 7th day of creation, and Genesis 1.1 not being a section title but a description of a creative event that has no day assigned to it, and so on, in support of alternative readings.

                  In each case none of these men have '[denied] the actual language', '[presented] no evidence', are blind, making excuses, etc.

                  Comment


                  • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                    I had some time to read this:
                    They could find Craig's argument compelling (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...anscript/s9-03)
                    I am a big fan of Craig, read a book of his years ago, it was great and answered a real problem for me in the early years.

                    I must say I was a little surprised by it his answers here in this article. I am clearly no scholar, but all of his "points" where easily answered in my mind as I read it. ( to me anyway) One point, I was not so sure about, so I did a quick internet search and found some satisfactory answers in about 25 min. I find many people don't really take the time to look for honest answers [relating to the YEC interpretation].

                    He stated that:

                    I am saying this not on the basis of modern science. I am not falling victim to concordism – reading modern science back into the text.
                    I fear that many people do, do this, as "modern science" is so engrained, it takes real work to look at things truly objectively.

                    He says this at the beginning of the article:

                    I suggested last time that the arguments on behalf of the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1 are not compelling.
                    The later he says:

                    If this is right, that would mean that the creation account is not meant to be transpiring in six consecutive 24-hour days. That is not to deny that the literal interpretation of Genesis is one legitimate interpretation. I think that is a perfectly feasible way of construing Genesis 1.
                    So he is allowing all "interpretations" on the table, which I think I fine for investigative purposes, but in the end, diametrically opposing views can't all be truth. It can't be a literal 24 hour period of time and not 24 hour period at the same time. The truth must be there, no?

                    Anyway, just some thoughts, I will read the others soon.

                    Regards
                    Last edited by bluesky22; Jul 8th 2016, 07:05 PM. Reason: clarity/spelling
                    A cannot be A & not A at the same time.

                    מקום כניעה סך הכל

                    Comment


                    • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                      Originally posted by bluesky22 View Post
                      I had some time to read this:

                      I am big fan of Craig, read a book of his years ago, it was great and answered a real problem for me in the early years.

                      I must say I was a little surprised by it his answers here in this article. I am clearly no scholar, but all of his "points" where easily answered in my mind as I read it. ( to me anyway) One point, I was not so sure about, so I did a quick internet search and found some satisfactory answers in about 25 min. I find many people don't really take the time to look for honest answers.

                      He stated that:

                      I fear that many people do, do this, as "modern science" is so engrained, it takes real work to look at things truly objectively.

                      He says this at the beginning of the article:

                      The later he says:

                      So he is allowing all "interpretations" on the table, which I think I fine for investigative purposes, but in the end, diametrically opposing views can't all be truth. It can't be a literal 24 hour period of time and not 24 hour period at the same time. The truth must be there, no?

                      Anyway, just some thoughts, I will read the others soon.

                      Regards
                      What I've provided is the text transcript of the 3rd part of a 21 part series on 'Creation and Evolution' from Craig's 'Defenders' podcast - an Apologetics podcast (this one in the form of systematic theology). The purpose is to introduce, examine, and briefly comment on the various interpretations of Genesis:

                      - Literal
                      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...anscript/s9-02
                      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...anscript/s9-03
                      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...anscript/s9-04

                      - Gap
                      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...anscript/s9-04

                      - Day-Gap and Day-Age
                      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...anscript/s9-05

                      - Revelation-Day and Literary Framework
                      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...anscript/s9-06

                      - Functional Creation (Walton)
                      - http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...anscript/s9-07
                      - http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...anscript/s9-08
                      - http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...nscript/s9-081
                      - http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...anscript/s9-10

                      And so on for another 11 parts (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/s9). Part 13 ff is where he begins discussing evolution and creation in more detail (death discussed in Part 14).

                      He's careful to say that he doesn't find the argument for a literal interpretation of Genesis to be compelling, which is a different thing from saying that the arguments are bad, unreasonable, illogical, etc. Rather, he finds arguments for a different interpretation of Genesis to be more compelling than those offered for the Literal reading. He's not saying that everyone should believe 'X' interpretation, as the purpose of the series is not to determine which of the 5 competing theories is the correct one - you decide that for yourself. And as Craig is well aware of the law of non-contradiction, he's not about to claim that they're all true, relatively speaking. I suspect he would say that the text isn't definitive, there are good reasons - some better than others - for finding different interpretations compelling, so go with the one you find compelling because it's not obvious which is the out-right best one.

                      In the very least it should make us wonder why people like Craig don't support the purportedly obvious any-3rd-grader-who-isn't-a-blind-idiot interpretation (paraphrase of Tony). Is it that they are over-educated, deceived by men, not Christian, blind, etc., or is the topic perhaps more nuanced than it's commonly believed to be?

                      Comment


                      • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                        He's careful to say that he doesn't find the argument for a literal interpretation of Genesis to be compelling, which is a different thing from saying that the arguments are bad, unreasonable, illogical, etc. Rather, he finds arguments for a different interpretation of Genesis to be more compelling than those offered for the Literal reading. He's not saying that everyone should believe 'X' interpretation, as the purpose of the series is not to determine which of the 5 competing theories is the correct one - you decide that for yourself. And as Craig is well aware of the law of non-contradiction, he's not about to claim that they're all true, relatively speaking. I suspect he would say that the text isn't definitive, there are good reasons - some better than others - for finding different interpretations compelling, so go with the one you find compelling because it's not obvious which is the out-right best one.
                        I can agree with what you said here in this paragraph, nicely said.

                        Saying that something is "not compelling" is indeed a very nice and diplomatic way of saying that you disagree with a position. The rest of the article does have a bit more of a negative-edge tone in spots...tho imho But I agree its a much better way of framing it.

                        I can't help but see clearly tho. that the biggest hurtle for some people (Craig?) accepting the YEC version, is that it conflicts with "modern science".

                        In fact, its really the only reason, as I can see, as, why could God have NOT have done it exactly how he says in the text?

                        Why put God into such a small box? Surely He could do all he said in 24 hours, just as he pulled fish from a basket, healed a blind man instantly, etc...

                        I do agree this is a very complex topic and its not for everyone. I have looked into all of these interpretations and I find all the other interpretations not compelling. However, with that said, all the different versions do have good and bad elements, (mine included)

                        I know what Tony is trying to say, even the NT would agree, [that men can be haughty with excess education, deceived and "blind"... but we can't tar all who disagree with this brush. I concur, and there are nice ways to say we disagree. I think Tony would to.

                        Peace
                        A cannot be A & not A at the same time.

                        מקום כניעה סך הכל

                        Comment


                        • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                          Originally posted by bluesky22 View Post
                          I can agree with what you said here in this paragraph, nicely said.

                          Saying that something is "not compelling" is indeed a very nice and diplomatic way of saying that you disagree with a position. The rest of the article does have a bit more of a negative-edge tone in spots...tho imho But I agree its a much better way of framing it.
                          Agreed, though I'd say Craig is being genuine here, not 'merely' diplomatic. 'Negative' isn't the word I'd use, but if you mean that he's not keen on a Literal interpretation of Genesis, then I'd agree there as well as he isn't.

                          Originally posted by bluesky22 View Post
                          I can't help but see clearly tho. that the biggest hurtle for some people (Craig?) accepting the YEC version, is that it conflicts with "modern science".
                          Right: Young Earth Creationism (aka the 'Literal' reading) has conflicts with modern science, but the Genesis text itself doesn't necessarily. Craig makes clear that he wants to understand what the text itself is saying before considering what modern science has to say, as he wants to avoid concordism. So his objections to a Literal reading come first from the text itself. Disagreements between YEC and modern science would be a separate issue than disagreements between the Genesis text itself and modern science.

                          Originally posted by bluesky22 View Post
                          In fact, its really the only reason, as I can see, as, why could God have NOT have done it exactly how he says in the text?
                          The point is that the text isn't clear, even if it's clear to you. Is there a gap between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2? Is Genesis 1.1 a section header, a subordinate clause, or something else? Why doesn't the initial creation of the 'heavens and earth' follow the pattern of the following 7 days? Why doesn't the 7th day not have a 'morning and evening' refrain? How can yom mean a period of 24 hours if there is no sun? etc., etc. You can confidently present X, Y, Z answer to these questions, but someone else might not find them as compelling as you do. They fundamentally understand the text and what it's saying differently.

                          Originally posted by bluesky22 View Post
                          Why put God into such a small box? Surely He could do all he said in 24 hours, just as he pulled fish from a basket, healed a blind man instantly, etc...
                          I wouldn't say that they are (putting God into a small box). It's just as miraculous for God to have created over a period of 15 billion years, as it would be for Him to create over a period of 6, 24 hour days, as it would be for Him to have created in a few minutes, as it would be for Him to have created the universe with a complete history up until now 30 seconds ago. If you start saying God can't do X or Y because... then that is putting God into a box, but that's not what these people are doing.

                          Originally posted by bluesky22 View Post
                          I do agree this is a very complex topic and its not for everyone. I have looked into all of these interpretations and I find all the other interpretations not compelling. However, with that said, all the different versions do have good and bad elements, (mine included)

                          I know what Tony is trying to say, even the NT would agree, but we cant tar all who disagree with this brush. I concur. I think Tony would to.

                          Peace
                          Tony makes much stronger claims than you do, I await his next one

                          Comment


                          • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                            Originally posted by Athanasius View Post
                            No they don't. Geisler and Craig both appeal to Hosea 6.1-2 as an example of yom not always meaning a 24 hour period:

                            Geisler also provides examples of other instances of yom in the Genesis text that are taken to mean a period other than 24 hours. Craig makes the further point that yom could very well mean a literal 24 hour period, but its use as a literary device (going back to his illustration use 'arm' and 'fortress') could be entirely different.

                            The purpose of Taylor's article was not to argue that a 24 hour reading of Genesis is wrong, but that there is room for other interpretations. He gives the name of 5 people who weren't Young Earth Creationists, the point of which is to show that disagreements over the meaning of yom aren't the sole result of evolutionary theory. He then also appeals to Hosea 6.1-2, Genesis 2.4, the 7th day of creation, and Genesis 1.1 not being a section title but a description of a creative event that has no day assigned to it, and so on, in support of alternative readings.

                            In each case none of these men have '[denied] the actual language', '[presented] no evidence', are blind, making excuses, etc.
                            Where is the evidence the Hosea 6:1-2 isn't talking about literal days? I realize the recent view has become that each day represents 1000 years, in which Jesus, being gone nearly 2000 years, would seem to suggest His coming soon. I don't a problem with being hopeful for our Lord's return. But, hopeful isn't really strong evidence that Hosea isn't to be taken literally. Even IF each day represents 1000 years in Hosea and that can be extrapolated back to Genesis, that would only make Genesis 1 a possible 6000 years of creation. In any case, millions of years are consistently out of the question. The old earth theory is again defeated by their own scriptural proofs.

                            Comment


                            • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                              Originally posted by Athanasius View Post
                              Tony makes much stronger claims than you do, I await his next one
                              Ha!

                              Let's take a step back, if possible, and consider why people don't take Genesis 1 literally. As far as I read in ancient texts, the old earth theory is a modern one. I will list a few verses first to start.

                              Jonah 3:3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent.

                              Genesis 19:34 It happened on the next day that the firstborn said to the younger, “Indeed I lay with my father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.”

                              Exodus 12:16 On the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation for you. No manner of work shall be done on them; but that which everyone must eat—that only may be prepared by you.

                              Okay. These are rather simple, right? Would you ever consider any of these verses to be talking about millions of years? I doubt it. They are plain and simple. We don't have any problem believing them. Why? That is the question. Why is it easy to understand a day in these verses means a literal day, and why is it so hard to understand the same words used in Genesis?

                              The answer has to do with the baggage we bring into Genesis that we don't bring into the verses above. The words are the same. The only difference is baggage, the wisdom of this world, conflicts with scripture. The "facts" of this world conflict big time! Therefore, what do we do?
                              One, could just discount Genesis as fiction.
                              Two, we could accept it as fact and reject the modern old earth theories.
                              Or three, we could invent a gnostic view of Genesis and try to have it both ways.
                              The latter is the most ridiculous, IMO.

                              Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

                              Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’

                              Moses and Jesus both have the same literal understanding of Genesis 1. Therefore, we have a choice. Accept it or reject it. I chose to accept it, no matter how big a fool it makes me look in eyes of the world. That is my personal choice. Each must make up their own mind. I will say this, however. Once I made that choice, Jesus has shown me many things that I did not know, as per Jeremiah 33:3. Maybe it is a coincidence, maybe it isn't.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What Do YOU Believe?

                                Originally posted by Tony P View Post
                                Where is the evidence the Hosea 6:1-2 isn't talking about literal days? I realize the recent view has become that each day represents 1000 years, in which Jesus, being gone nearly 2000 years, would seem to suggest His coming soon. I don't a problem with being hopeful for our Lord's return. But, hopeful isn't really strong evidence that Hosea isn't to be taken literally. Even IF each day represents 1000 years in Hosea and that can be extrapolated back to Genesis, that would only make Genesis 1 a possible 6000 years of creation. In any case, millions of years are consistently out of the question. The old earth theory is again defeated by their own scriptural proofs.
                                They're using Hosea 6.1-2 as Hosea's audience would have understood the prophecy, rather than how it's sometimes interpreted Christologically. Israel wasn't restored in 3 literal 24 hour periods, it's an example of yom + cardinal, so therefore yom + cardinal in Genesis could mean something other than concrete 24 hour periods.

                                Originally posted by Tony P View Post
                                Ha!

                                Let's take a step back, if possible, and consider why people don't take Genesis 1 literally. As far as I read in ancient texts, the old earth theory is a modern one. I will list a few verses first to start.

                                Jonah 3:3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent.

                                Genesis 19:34 It happened on the next day that the firstborn said to the younger, “Indeed I lay with my father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.”

                                Exodus 12:16 On the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation for you. No manner of work shall be done on them; but that which everyone must eat—that only may be prepared by you.

                                The answer has to do with the baggage we bring into Genesis that we don't bring into the verses above. The words are the same. The only difference is baggage, the wisdom of this world, conflicts with scripture. The "facts" of this world conflict big time! Therefore, what do we do?
                                One, could just discount Genesis as fiction.
                                Two, we could accept it as fact and reject the modern old earth theories.
                                Or three, we could invent a gnostic view of Genesis and try to have it both ways.
                                The latter is the most ridiculous, IMO.

                                Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

                                Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’

                                Okay. These are rather simple, right? Would you ever consider any of these verses to be talking about millions of years? I doubt it. They are plain and simple. We don't have any problem believing them. Why? That is the question. Why is it easy to understand a day in these verses means a literal day, and why is it so hard to understand the same words used in Genesis?

                                Moses and Jesus both have the same literal understanding of Genesis 1. Therefore, we have a choice. Accept it or reject it. I chose to accept it, no matter how big a fool it makes me look in eyes of the world. That is my personal choice. Each must make up their own mind. I will say this, however. Once I made that choice, Jesus has shown me many things that I did not know, as per Jeremiah 33:3. Maybe it is a coincidence, maybe it isn't.
                                The answer is context. Mortal men don't live millions of years, so it would be very odd indeed to argue that Jonah's journey to Nineveh took a million years or more. Similarly, it would be odd for Lot's daughter to sleep with Lot, wait a million or more years, then advise her sister to do the same. Exodus 12.16 doesn't require that the days of Genesis be literal days for the pattern of work and rest to make sense, and Jesus in Mark is quoting the Genesis text, not making a statement on the Literal interpretation (everyone would agree that 'from the beginning of Creation God "made them male and female."') On the other hand, when God 'In the beginning created the heavens and the earth', how long was that? If it's a section header, then we run into an already created earth in Genesis 1.2, when did that happen? How do you calculate an Earthly 24 hour period for the first 3 days of creation when the sun was only created on the 4th day? Genesis 1 is quite a different text compared to Jonah's journey, Lot's daughter's incest, etc.

                                (Also, a non Literal view of Genesis doesn't require that you also be an Old Earth Creationist.)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X