So
“on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open,” is not a figure of speech (all the YEC claim actual fountains opened under the ocean).
“and the floodgates of the sky were opened” is just a figure of speech. How convenient.
If you want to play the figure of speech game you have to do it in Hebrew and justify it is a recognized Hebrew idiom. Arguing English figures of speech is really kind of pointless.
Man-made fountains are not relevant.
How do you decide what is a figure of speech? “Windows of heaven” and “fountains of the deep” are correlated clauses, and you should (in the normal use of language) treat them both the same, thus requiring that “fountains of the deep” to also be figurative.
But that’s besides the point: what should always be asked of any piece of human literature is “What did the author mean?” Here, whatever else may be the case, the original author did not mean anything scientific. Trying to shove science into the text is, as always, a mistake.
You really need to start paying attention to Exodus 20:16.
The term is lifted from Baal religion, in which Baal was known as “the rider of the clouds”. The phrase got used of other gods as well, but the Torah writer reclaimed it because only YHWH is master of any clouds, not Baal.
People object to recognizing that the Old Testament writers used terms from pagan literature, but that is really an empty-headed response first because it starts with ignorance and second because the ignorance is due to not asking the proper question: “Why would the writer do that?” Today we have the strange idea that taking phrases (or holidays) from elsewhere and using them about God somehow contaminates God, but that attitude is backwards from that of the writers of the Torah: as far s they were concerned, any term at all that held any degree of majesty and was used of any god but Yahweh was stolen, because by His nature all terms of majesty and ‘heavenliness’ belonged to Him – not to Baaal, not to Marduk, not to Ra, but to YHWH! In their view all those deities were thieves, and applying the terms to YHWH was a matter of taking back what had been stolen.
“Clouds of heaven” was a term of majesty because heavenly beings were believed to be surrounded by heavenly clouds, clouds of glory and mystery. The Torah writers refused to believe even for an instant that anyone but YHWH had anything to do with the clouds of heaven. This happens to be related to the verse that says that heaven and earth are full of His glory: that’s a sort of spiritual territorial claim asserting that there is no room anywhere in creation for anyone but YHWH to have any glory, not the least little bit.
Go read Deuteronomy 5:20.
Fallacy of non-sequitur. This is like claiming that because someone says “There is no beach” they are declaring that there is no ocean – when in fact they may well be just saying that they went down to the sea shore and it was all rock.
How has this been falsified?:
I like how you take the first part of this literally but then ignore the second part because there are no literal windows (or anything you could call windows) in heaven.
You didn’t even respond to what he said!
Bill’s statement was an observation that you were inconsistent in dealing with the text, choosing to declare one thing a figure of speech but treating a correlated phrase literally. He is quite correct – your statements about the text were inconsistent.
This is an excellent point!
In the Hebrew the text uses a couplet:
כָּל־מַעְיְנוֹת֙ תְּה֣וֹם רַבָּ֔ה
וַֽאֲרֻבֹּ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם נִפְתָּֽחוּ
“all the springs of the great deep were split open,
and the windows of the heavens opened up.”
The two subjects, the springs of the great deep (yes, it’s the same deep that the Spirit hovered/meditated over in the opening of Genesis) and the windows of heaven correlate; they are either both figures of speech or both objective assertions; you can’t pick and choose.
And it is important that the same word is used as in Genesis for “the great deep”; the writer is indicating that these waters are “the waters below” breaking up through the land – just as the second phrase is saying that “the waters above” were released on the land. In the Hebrew this is plainly referring back to Genesis 1 – the separation of waters from waters is being (partially) reversed. So as Genesis 1 talked about creation, here we are to recognize that this calamity is an act of uncreation.
“Fountains of the great deep” has nothing to do with volcanoes, it is a reference to where the ancient Israelites thought springs came from, that they were places where God allowed the waters under the earth to “leak” through. Note that this means the “great deep”, the “t’hom” of Genesis 1, contributes to ongoing creation by nourishing life where God allows those waters to come up. In contrast, here the text has God ceasing to restrain those waters, instead unleashing them not to aid life but to destroy it.
That’s a big part of the message here: the wickedness of ‘angels’ procreating with human women and all the things they taught to humans, the wickedness they taught to humans, was so bad that God was undoing creation! This isn’t just some ordinary water, it’s the primeval water in which God had made a space for this world.
Once again, trying to make the text speak science degrades the message. And claiming there is a figure of speech strips away the meaning the writer set down in ink.
[Sure, in English we use it as a figure of speech, but there is no indication anywhere that anyone in the ancient near east, including the Hebrews, meant it as one.]
Honestly, this is confusing. And an example of other exchanges I have found baffling.
When is a figure of speech a figure of speech not to be taken literally, or not a figure of speech that should be taken literally as a description of how the physical world works?
How does one decide?
I don’t find this a game at all. It’s baffling to me, and the criteria one uses have some pretty serious consequences.
On the use of images from surrounding mythologies in the Bible, a possibly helpful parallel is the common usage of Greco-Roman mythology in the western Christian tradition. Dante and Milton throw a number of characters from classical mythology into their writings whenever they provided a handy illustration of a particular point, for example, and even in more strictly theological writing such as Calvin’s commentaries one can occasionally find a metaphor based on a mythological allusion.
There is some Biblical endorsement of science as providing useful practical knowledge. It’s a part of Solomon’s wisdom, and Job 28 uses economic geology as the pinnacle of human achievement. Uzziah developed military technology, and Adam’s naming of the animals suggests value in knowing about the natural world. But the overall point of Job 28 is that knowledge doesn’t get you wisdom, a point made rather more pessimistically in Ecclesiastes. Solomon, Uzziah, and Adam are all prime examples of the perils of pride. The many examples of taking items from nature as an object lesson in theology in the Bible and in subsequent sermons and books (e.g., John Stott’s The Birds our Teachers) are finding an example that fits the theological principle, not claiming that any theological principle one might claim to infer from nature is valid. For example, the sluggard who goes to consider the ant should not learn to raid picnics or to kidnap other peoples’ kids and raise them as slaves. xkcd: Ballooning
omg what a load of tripe. honestly…what on earth is that nonesense???
BTW, read Deuteronomy 5:15
“remember that you were a slave in Egypt…”
oh thats right, you dont believe the Israelites were in Egypt or that the Exodus really happened.
Please dont quote apparent authority to me that you dont even believe in yourself St Roymond. That is called being a hypocrite.
Its pretty easy…in normal use of language there are quite consistent literary indicators that tell us whether or not what is being said is literal, figurative or a combination of the two.
English language in education is not my area of expertise (im a design and technology major). Having said that, i think people overcomplicate this issue on order to justify non biblical beliefs (im sorry if that upsets you but its true im afraid).
I dont know if its worth the trouble for me to pull out dozens of bible texts that show the difference between literal and non literal writing in the bible as given your profession you are already familiar with that process.
Lets just take the following illustration from my own lifes experiences. if i said to you “my wife made a cake last night, it was vegan, chocolate flavoured, tasted like heaven, my kids all loved it, and there is none left. If we had of purchased a similar cake it would have cost twice as much and may not have been vegan thus my wife wouldnt have been able to eat any”.
Would you make the claim that because it includes the words “tasted like heaven” that the entire historical statement i just made there is fiction?
Well some might say yes, however, its not because it included the phrase “tasted like heaven”.
So, how do we know?
Well because note how i lead into the illustration…i tell you using the words “lets take the following illustration using my lifes past experiences”.
The bible does exactly the same thing all through its pages. Its quite easy to understand when its talking literally or figuratively.
Thats why its important to ensure that one always includes the entire context of the passage being read as well as cross referencing the particular verse/s with other books in the bible.
When one ensures context + cross refencing, i would argue its impossible to not understand the intended meaning using normal language.
Kendel i hope the above isnt upsetting for you, i in no way seek to deflate your view of the gospel. At the end pf the day, all that really matters is that we are comfortable in our own conscience. For some that may mean they reject God altogether, for others its as simple as “doing unto others…”.
Its only my intention to explain myself and how i navigate these issues.
For me, Im a very mechanically minded individual and the intracies of the way an internal combustion engine works… i cant help but apply the logic of a functioning automative engine to my theology. All the parts are important in ensuring an engine runs “as intended/designed”. Mismatched/missing parts are not good for that system (ie in an engine).
Given i made a choice to reject the wordly view and embrace the heavenly view, i have made a philosophical choice to follow the bible (Gods principle source of revelation to us) That is why I reject naturalisms view of Evolution. Theres is not a choice to seek God…even you must agree that an atheist has no scientific interest in the God of the Bible.
We know that the split of believing vs non believing scientists hovers in the 50% range usually, how many of those scientists who do admit to there being a God actually are practising Christians? Im betting its a lot less than the 50% and thats the problem here…the claim “oh at least 50% of scientists believe in God so i can trust the majority scientific consensus on this” well that is trusting a gross exageration of the real numbers.
The above is why i seriously question those who turn their belief system into a hybrid of 2000 year old historical religious writings and 100 year old secular theories where the two dont even agree on the history?
(and there is no way secular naturalism agrees historically with the bible and vice versa).
So my faith is that the Bible is right and naturalisms science is wrong…
Identifying something as figurative is based ultimately on two factors:
What is the context?
How does it compare with known reality?
We can trust the scientific consensus precisely because we trust the Bible. It’s not an accident that science developed in a Christian context. If we believe that nature is created and guided by God, rather than the domain of rival powers or mere chance, then we can reasonably expect it to follow regular patterns. If we believe that God has tasked us to be stewards over creation, then we must be able to understand how it works. If we believe that we are finite, fallible, and fallen, then we will not trust our own intuition, but rather will seek to observe how the world really works.
Even though someone may not know or acknowledge the theological basis, when they are investigating science, they are looking at God’s normal patterns of directing physical events. Thus, anybody can get correct scientific results. The majority scientific consensus is something that, as far as we can tell, works well. If the earth actually looked young, atheists would claim that’s just the way that nature works. In fact, it was the most atheistic Greek and Roman thinkers who favored a young earth, because they (correctly) rejected myths of the distant past as unreliable.
Biblical literary techniques are based on internal evidences…not secular naturislic theories.
There is a difference between digging up a fossil and then claiming its age based on naturalism…especially given no one has ever lived long enough to attest to the authenticity of the claim of uniformatarianism or the missing links.
I find it incredible that a bunch of theories are strung together such that you decide they are proof.
Since when did theory become proof? Answer: in this case, when no better alternative solution is found.
The bible gives us that alternative solution, with genealogies, times, dates,places,people, multiple sources correlating these historical events, however, you reject it!
What we can see in your statement is largely that one should use mans own interpretations as evidences. You say “science gives us the answers” however, is not intelligent it must be interpreted (which is significantly different to the bible which is self revealing).
Science doesnt have a valid answer to the 4th commandment…“for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, but on the seventh day, he rested”.
The Sabbath has always been a memorial (if you like) of creation.
There is no possibility of reading milions of years into Exodus 20:8-11…there is no literary style that can alter that dilemma for TEism…hence most TEists worship on Sunday and not the original Seventh Day Sabbath as is expected of us.
TEists do not celebrate creation and the creator and that is highly problematic, because God only sanctified and blessed one day…the Seventh.
He (God) set aside a special day pf communion and worship before sin even enterred this world and that is the Seventh Day. Samuel told King Saul, “to obey is better than to sacrifice”!
The bible very clearly tells us that men who rely on their own reasoning are foolish and naturalisic evolutionary theories fit into that category.
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.*
As you know I am YEC. Ive never had imagery of a fountain in my head when i read “and the fountains of the deep burst fourth”. I have always imagined massive water jets breaking through the ground and shooting thousands of feet into the air. A very small scale illustration that many would be familiar with…a burst water main.
So you take it literally, not as a figure of speech. You apply your modern understanding and believe there is subsurface water that is breaking through. But your modern understanding doesn’t support actual windows in the solid dome so that has to just be a figure of speech for a lot of rain ignoring your modern understanding of where the water in rain comes from to allow for additional water.
If you want to believe in a global flood then where the water comes from and where it goes after has to be a miracle. Not saying God couldn’t have performed a miracle but I don’t believe it is in God’s nature to use one (in addition to the mayrid of other miracles needed for a global flood) just to get around the evidence we see in nature. Evidence that I believe is a result of God’s creation.
Nope. You didn’t.
And I hope what I write below doesn’t affect your view of the gospel.
Which is exactly what I asked you to do. Thanks for stepping out on a limb.
It’s no surprise that we disagree on just about everything related to biblical hermeneutics and their results, likewise on our stance to science.
Because we are dealing with texts that were written at a much different time and in a much different culture, it is precisely not pretty easy to determine what is literal, figurative, an anachronistic cultural reference and assumptions, mythology or something else. I am not a biblical scholar, but I was a foreign language major and lived in two countries that used that language. “Pretty easy” does not describe navigating contemporary culture and language even after years of study. As worthy as your motives, Adam, the type of reading you propose can’t give you the understanding of the bible that you say you want.
Again, I believe your motives are good, but your assumptions and strategy are faulty. The texts gathered into the bible were written over a long period of time by a wide assortment of people, many of whom are unidentifiable. While later writers often reference earlier writers, cross-referencing sections is an inadequate tool. Later writers often reinterpreted earlier texts into new contexts, and that not with the intent of clarifying figurative or literal language. Many of these texts are entirely new interpretations of more ancient ones.
I am careful about what I call a “worldly view.” Honesty and truthfulness seem important to God with so many biblical admonitions to tell the truth. So, truthfulness must be part of a “heavenly view.”
I don’t see that the bible ever tells us to describe the physical world in any way that is different from what we observe. Ancient writers of the bible described the physical world as well as they could with the tools they had, which included the cultural assumptions they lived with. And they based some aspects of their theology on those observations and assumptions. We must take the descriptions as they are, not reinterpret them as figurative language, when the writers meant them to be literal. To do otherwise is deliberately to employ postmodern hermeneutics in our interpretation of the bible.
Similarly, it is important to truthfully and accurately describe our observations of the world. If the conclusion is foreordained by a specific biblical interpretation, then there really is no need to study much of anything. Eventually it might be impossible to study without committing heresy. If the bible seems to require that the observations be changed in order to correspond to a specific interpretation of a biblical text, then I think one is mistaken at best.
I get this. I want it myself.
But I don’t believe that that is how life works, or even systematic theology. To make such a system work, something that doesn’t fit must always be explained away, forced into place, or smoothed out somehow.
And like you, I don’t want to tear down anyone’s understanding of the gospel, certainly not yours, Adam.
Thanks for your response.
You didn’t actually read it, did you? Because you just ignored it three times again.
Seriously, you claim the Ten are still in effect, yet you come on here and lie profusely!
No, there aren’t, as I demonstrated.
Then why do you refuse to do that? You ignore the language context, the worldview context, and the historical context with great determination!
Nope – unless you apply the three things above that I noted you ignore, you’ll fail to understand any literature.
Adam, YEC is founded on a worldly view, the view that without having to actually study anything your uninformed opinion is correct; it further rests on an assumption you can supply no reason for, namely that everything in the Bible has to be 100% scientifically and historically correct.
So tell us, where is that said in the Bible?
Yet you plainly don’t know what to do with someone who actually relies on 2k-year-old writings!
No, they’re not, they’re based on the language, worldview, literature, and other historical context.
No, we reject your arrogant assumption that the way you view the relationships between the above and how they were used is the totally correct one.
I come to this from the basis of the text. That means I have to let the Bible be what it is, namely ancient literature written in ancient forms for an ancient audience using their understanding of the world. It also means I have to reject claims about the scriptures that cannot be found in the scriptures or in their historical context.
Ancient Hebrew scholars disagreed with that because they said there were millions, even billions of years in the first Genesis Creation account.
As they ought to – our Savior is greater than the Temple and greater than the Sabbath.
The Sabbath was an image of a reality to come. Jesus is that reality, and once the real has come the image is superseded.
Yet you refuse to obey the Holy Spirit Who reduced the entirety of the Mosaic law to just four simple things.
Which makes YECists fools; they rely solely on their own opinion and not on any scholarship.
“Deceitful schemes” is a perfect description of the YEC system since it is based on lies and deception and treating the scriptures as something they are not.
“hence most TEists worship on Sunday and not the original Seventh Day Sabbath as is expected of us”
This is simply silly. Plenty of young earthers worship on Sunday. As Seventh-Day Adventist leadership forbids evolution and an old earth, there are indeed rather few people within that tradition who hold old-earth views (though at least a few have tried exploring various options). However, there are plenty of Jews worshipping on Saturday who accept an old earth and evolution. Discussion of the best day for worship would be a separate thread, and not overly relevant to BioLogos, but claiming that it is connected to TE is not credible.
TEists do celebrate creation and the creator. Although one day in seven had a special significance, God sanctified and blessed all days, and there are several additional days of special significance that God provided through Moses. Likewise, the day of resurrection and the day of Pentecost have special sanctification and blessing in the New Testament.
The claim that I am basing my statements on “secular naturalistic theories” is bad theology and slander. It is also a very frequent component of most young earth claims. Think and pay attention rather than repeating such claims. I am not identifying the age of the millions of fossils I have dug up (yes, most are very small) based on naturalism. I am identifying the age based on careful study of all of the available evidence, based on the assumption that God is in control of the workings of the world and on the assumption that I should honestly report my findings. Nothing is secular. All truth is God’s truth.
So you admit that you’re relying not on the scripture text but on your own imagination! You’re making something up and treating it as absolute truth.
That phrase “fountains of the deep” should instead say “springs from the t’hom”, that is, water from the “great deep” that is connected with darkness back in Genesis 1. The writer is using the understanding of the time that springs in the ground were tiny amounts of water leaking up from the great deep beneath the earth, and hearkening back to Genesis 1 where “the deep” represents chaos.
The second sentence here shows that the first is not correct: to take it literally would require translating “the springs of the t’hom split open” because that’s what the words said in their historical context. It’s saying that the channels through which waters normally trickled up from the great waters below the earth split open wide and let the waters (of chaos) flow onto the earth.
Bravo!
No kidding.
I can’t grasp how the fact that God Himself walked on Earth every day of every week, not just the seventh one, does not wipe out any other difference between days since every day He walked on Earth made that day holy. It’s like people think that Jesus was an addition to the Old Testament covenants rather than their foundation and fulfillment!
The day death died, as poets have put it, is what the early church often called the eighth day, which is significant because the number eight often stands for rest in the ancient Hebrew number symbology. The point then is that whereas the seventh day was an earthy day of rest, the Resurrection was the beginning of heavenly rest.
To actually pay attention would require surrendering a substantial part of the YEC arsenal that stuffs anyone who disagrees with them into a tidy slot.
That’s a very ancient Hebrew sort of thought.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.