I think I see what you’re getting at.
However, that still leaves my question unanswered. If “yom with a number” is a valid rule of Hebrew, why did nobody say anything about it at all until the 1970s? And why are the only people acknowledging it today all young-earth creationists?
Besides, it still doesn’t address my point that atheists a hundred years ago would have loved this particular argument, regardless of whatever else they’re arguing. Yet their silence on the matter is deafening.
Do you realize you haven’t made one scriptural argument using scripture… No one said yom with a number is a valid rule of Hebrew? The argument was systematic theology, and the consistency of scripture interpreting scripture
It wasn’t an issue in the 70’s. Evolution was not a battle ground as it is today.
Your last question is loaded. That’s like asking why aren’t all the books of the bible not in the bible? I came to a road 5 years ago where I wanted to know if there was a God, so I pitted Christian philosophers against Atheist philosophers. In the end I became a Christian and read and studied the bible relentlessly. I concluded that there was no way for me to harmonize evolution and Genesis. I decided to trust the bible, rejecting evolution. All this came about before I even knew what a YEC or an OEC meant.
I am not sure I know what you mean by systematic theology as your definition whatever it is, doesn’t seem to agree with what I know about it.
Hebrew scholars who have no dog in this hunt don’t recognize this as a valid rule.
If you want to go with the “that is just the exception that proves the rule theory” here are just 3 examples of “yom with a number” where the days are figurative and not literal, Isaiah 9:14, Hosea 6:2, and Zechariah 14:7. But it just takes one counter example to disprove a rule.
You are not using scripture to interpret scripture. You are using Strong’s Concordance to interpret scripture.
You should study
[quote=“Bill_II, post:105, topic:5534”]
Hebrew scholars who have no dog in this hunt don’t recognize this as a valid rule.[/quote]
Irrelevant
[quote=“Bill_II, post:105, topic:5534”]
You are not using scripture to interpret scripture. You are using Strong’s Concordance to interpret scripture.[/quote]
and you are using secular science. Which one is closer for biblical interpretation?
Study what?
How?
So we must reject scientific evidence (and with it, Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1 and Psalm 111:2) and accept the unbiblical Omphalos hypothesis instead?
Theistic evolutionists tend to ignore the obvious, and look for obscure verses in scripture so that it fits with their model and runs contrary to the verses they try to disprove. The context must drive our interpretation. The verses you provided do not disprove anything, my friend
Wookin, I’ve tried my best to be nice when communicating with you. But I have to admit that your “That’s because of your bias…” reactions are getting rather tiring, and distateful. You are constantly assuming what everyone’s positions are and nobody is allowed to speak for themselves. I’ve told you that these questions were on my mind when I believed the earth to be young, many times. These passages never made sense to me, when I was a YEC.
This does not seem to matter you, however, because you’d rather assume what everyone’s presuppositions are … no exception.
In your worldview, people like Augustine shouldn’t exist, because he was a YEC, and believed the days to be non-literal! … Are you going to accuse him of bias as well?
It’s your assumption that the first light was replaced. But there’s nothing in the text that would give you the impression that the first three days were being governed by a “non-solar day”, and the second set of three days weren’t. Do I have to keep communicating to you that there’s a difference between literal and non-literal versus 24 hour period, and long period of time?
Thinking of the days in a non-literal way just makes better consistent sense of the text. Days 1-3 discuss “domains” … while days 4-6 discuss “functionaries” that occupy and rule over the domains discussed in the first triad.
Day 1 relates to Day 4. Day 2 relates to Day 5. Day 3 relates to Day 6.
I feel like you are wanting to disconnect “light and darkness” from the sun and moon, when scriptures wants us to connect the two. Interpreting the light on Day 1 as being God is inconsistent with the text, theologically confusing, and also contradictory … because that would be mean that God created himself sometime after he created the earth.
The primary descriptions you see in Genesis 1, are about giving functions and purposes to the created order … God names things declaring His ownership of them. He gives commands to the birds, fish, and people to reproduce and multiply. He separates and divides, shapes and forms. He develops a hierarchy by establishing roles for His creation … the man rules over all the lower creatures. The sun and moon rule over the light and darkness.
This is discussing the way things are currently, and how it is we are to view the created order. There is nothing in the text that implies “light was ever being replaced” … again, I shall repeat these verses.
“And God separated the light from the darkness…” Day 1
“And God made two great lights … to separate the light from the darkness…” Day 4
When scripture uses similar phrasing, God is calling us to see and notice the connection (thematic analysis). Oftentimes in the Bible, recapitulation takes place … where the first passage gives an overview of went down, and then the next passage gives more detail. For instance, in Genesis 10, it discusses how many different language groups were in the world … then in Genesis 11 it says, “And the whole world was of one language, one tongue” … in a similar manner, Day 4 is hearkening back to Day 1. Recapitulation.
The reason why it sounds like Day 1 is talking about sunlight is because it is … not some unknown, unmentioned, “other light” …
“And God said, “Let there be light!” And there Light. And God saw the light, that it was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light “Day”, and the darkness He called “Night”. And there was the evening, and there was morning, the first day.”
This is a bit of different topic, but if you want to get technical, only the words in “bold”, were God’s verbatim words. A lot of Genesis 1 seems to be from the perspective of someone receiving visions. and then writing down what he saw.
Hosea 6:1-2 is an interesting discussion. But I’d also like to add Hebrews 4 in the discussion, which describes the “seventh day” as an ongoing event … it hasn’t yet ended.
We have the only three days in history (complete with sunlight) that doesn’t have a sun and moon. I would question what’s “ordinary” about this.
This was a response to Jonathan, but I just wanted to say that I don’t believe “The earth orbiting the sun” is observable. Both the geocentric model (the one argued by Tycho Brahe). and the heliocentric model (as argued by Copernicus) satisfies all our observations. The heliocentric model is accepted because it better fits mathematical equations proposed by Kepler, Newton etc., … i.e., it makes better sense of the data. We’ve never observed Pluto orbiting the sun … that would mean we would have had to watch Pluto in it’s orbit, with a telescope, for a whole 300 years. We accept that it does take about 300 years, based on calculations of current trajectories.
But for all we know, Pluto could just up and decide to leave the solar system one day, for some unexplained reason … but that would challenge our Christian concept that the creation is study-able, and can be investigated as having an order and a structure.
And yet YOU are using many, many outside passages, where the word “yom” occurs, that have nothing to do with Creation, to explain the creation passages in Genesis 1.
I have used a civil tone. I haven’t called anyone names. I will fully admit that I am bias, because I am a presuppositionalist. I am not stopping anyone from speaking, my friend
I am seeing a strong pattern of similar experiences with WP.
No, I am not doing anything of the kind. You have now acknowledged (finally), that it is valid to accept facts which are made known from sources outside Scripture. Thank you, we’re done here.
Wookin,
There is a level of arrogance implicit in one word or short sentence off-hand dismissals of opposing arguments or questions that has no place in a discussion like this, so please show a little more respect.
Running through your responses, it is clear that you don’t even care that the “yom with a number rule” isn’t actually rule that is based on Hebrew scholarship. For you, bizarrely, it is a linguistic rule that is based on systematic theology. It has been shown to you that it is only maintained by YECs for a particular purpose and is essentially unsupported by linguists who are not specifically trying to defend a particular text in Genesis.
This would normally give someone pause and get them to reflect. Instead, you have returned with two arguments that are extremely doubtful. Points for unyielding perseverance in the face of reasonable criticism.
The first; no one cared to defend or debunk the YEC timescale back then, so no one thought to come up with the rule, and second, that it is a rule that is independent of whatever linguists think and is based on “systematic theology”.
I am not saying that normal days, as we would understand them, were not envisioned by the author. In my opinion, this may well be the case (though it would hardly establish the genre and overall intent any more than it would in a parable). My point is not that. My point is that you are resisting the obvious conclusion that this “rule” is no such thing, and that it is being dishonestly wielded as a general rule that proves the YEC timescale when it never was a general rule; it was only invented to support that timescale in the first place. I am beginning to look on this as a test-case for how you handle new information that doesn’t fit with your views. Let’s see what you do next.
Why shouldn’t Augustine exist. He contributed much to Christendom but he was not infallible, We are all bias, my friend 
[quote=“Mazrocon, post:109, topic:5534”]
It’s your assumption that the first light was replaced. But there’s nothing in the text that would give you the impression that the first three days were being governed by a “non-solar day”, and the second set of three days weren’t. Do I have to keep communicating to you that there’s a difference between literal and non-literal versus 24 hour period, and long period of time?
Thinking of the days in a non-literal way just makes better consistent sense of the text. Days 1-3 discuss “domains” … while days 4-6 discuss “functionaries” that occupy and rule over the domains discussed in the first triad.[/quote]
The planet basically has to rotate. You don’t need the sun
What? God said, “let there be light”. I have no clue how you interpret that as God created Himself?
[quote=“Mazrocon, post:109, topic:5534”]
The primary descriptions you see in Genesis 1, are about giving functions and purposes to the created order … God names things declaring His ownership of them. He gives commands to the birds, fish, and people to reproduce and multiply. He separates and divides, shapes and forms. He develops a hierarchy by establishing roles for His creation … the man rules over all the lower creatures. The sun and moon rule over the light and darkness.[/quote]
[quote=“Mazrocon, post:109, topic:5534”]
The reason why it sounds like Day 1 is talking about sunlight is because it is … not some unknown, unmentioned, “other light” …[/quote]
It’s not. Scripture is clear. V3. Says, let there be light 3rd day. God created the sun on the 4th day. I can’t get around this, my friend
All of scripture is God breathed. God wrote the bible. His word. All writers directed and guided by the Holy Spirit.
Is not a creation verse. The use of “day” is to signify a short period of time in order to repent. No long period there, as a person could not live for millions of years, let alone thousands
[quote=“Mazrocon, post:109, topic:5534”]I don’t believe “The earth orbiting the sun” is observable. Both the geocentric model [/quote] But we know that the earth does rotate
[quote=“Mazrocon, post:109, topic:5534”]And yet YOU are using many, many outside passages, where the word “yom” occurs, that have nothing to do with Creation, to explain the creation passages in Genesis 1.[/quote] Of course I am, since the Christians who I am debating do not believe that Genesis is literal history, so I use a systematic theological argument to support my case that day means day in Genesis 1, my friend
Not when those outside sources conflict with scripture, based on nothing but interpretation, best guess work (imagination) devoid of any biblical influence, but, instead hostile towards it. Thank you for the civil debate, my fellow brother in Christ
Never said he was infallible.
You’ve heavily implied through this whole discussion that the only reason people are interpreting Genesis 1 with non-literal days is because of an old earth bias. Ergo, I showed you an example of a Christian who couldn’t possible have an old earth bias, because he believed the earth to be young, AND the days in Genesis to be non-literal.
So this particular argument of yours is invalid.
This is a very short response to my lengthy comment, but I’d like to make a couple of points.
Joshua 10:12-14
Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth.
Who hath established all the ends of the earth?
He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever.
The world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof?
For the pillars of the earth are the Lordʼs, and he set the world on them.
It is I who have firmly set its pillars.
Why are you inserting modern ideas into the Bible, if you want to be consistent with your model?
If according to your model, the earth was spinning for three days without the sun, then it would mean that the theory of gravity is brought into question. The earth spins, “because it spins”, not because of the sun.
You need a sun to have sunlight.
Under your interpretation, one would have to conclude that the sun and moon are irrelevant to the day and night cycles … If they are relevant one would have to say that day and night cycles would continue if the sun and moon ceased to exist.
“and there was evening and there was morning … day 1”
“and there was evening and there was morning … day 2”
“and there was evening and there was morning … day 3”
“and there was evening and there was morning … day 4”
“and there was evening and there was morning … day 5”
“and there was evening and there was morning … day 6”
There’s no implication that the evenings and mornings are any different on any of the six days. There’s no implication that some “other light” was replaced on day 4. And no one reading the Bible thousands of years ago would have concluded “The earth has to rotate. You don’t need a sun.” … so your understanding of the text has changed because of modern scientific claims.
There IS an implication that the seventh day is somehow different than the first six days. It’s the only day that doesn’t use the phrase “evening and morning” … which many concluded (like in Hebrews 4) and others, that the day is ongoing, even right now.
I did not interpret that. It was a logical conclusion based on YOUR interpretation earlier. You said that “maybe God was the light, since he is light” … I made quite a lengthy response on that matter, to which you did not respond.
Assume this was a typo and meant, “Let there be light … and there was evening, and there was morning … the first day”.
I never said that the seventh day implies millions of years. Just that it’s ongoing, and that we are still “in the seventh day” … how is it possible to enter God’s rest if God’s rest ended thousands of years ago?
Then your argument against Roger is therefore invalid, because you are using the same exact hermeneutics for your understanding of Genesis 1 …e.g., using non-creation passages to understand creation passages.
I have. You might want to take a look at “The Hermeneutical Spiral” by Grant Osborne. He explains the basis for systematic theology. He also explains the roles history and tradition play in interpretation. Also “The Creationists” by Ronald Numbers (on my list, but I haven’t read it yet) gives an account of the recent change from acceptance of an old earth to a young earth by Christian fundamentalists.
A Hebrew scholar, an expert in the language, who says your made up rule is invalid is not relevant? Do you know more Hebrew than them? Are you aware of the limitations of the Hebrew language?
Hard for you to believe, but no I don’t. I don’t appreciate you putting your ideas in my motivations. Only I know why I do what I do. And I do not use science to interpret Scripture.
Whow did you look up those verses? I wouldn’t call them obscure. And I am not trying to disprove anything. You certainly are. The rule you are trying to use is NOT based on the context as the counter examples show. It is based on your need for an interpretation to match your current beliefs.
You have got to be kidding. A passage that begins “In the beginning” is not about the Creation!?
I never said that. I said, it’s a passage that is not specifically dealing with creation
Says who?
Says the context of the passage.
So … what you are saying here is that if a Bible passage is primarily about one subject, then anything it has to say about any other subject should be ignored?
“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.