The Meaning of the Word "Day" in Genesis 1

Faith & Science Conversation
153

Interesting – that would add a bit of weight to the “yom == 24 hours” side of the debate. However, I note that the article you linked to says this:

The Gap and Day-Age concordist views would have baffled the original audience, since these ancients would have had no concept of geological ages; if they could not fathom time periods of millions or billions of years, the text must have meant something different to them.

That being the case, where do 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 fit into the picture? Personally, I’ve always viewed these verses as being the key to unlocking the whole dichotomy between the days of Genesis 1 and the modern concept of geological time. In fact, 2 Peter 3 seems to me to be a prophetic foretelling of the whole creation/evolution/age of the earth debate that we’re getting into now – especially the second half of verse 4, where it says, “Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” Verse 8, and Psalm 90:4, both make it quite clear to me that people of Bible times must have had some understanding of “a day” as referring to an extended period of time, and if anything, verse 8 seems to me to be an instruction to us in modern times from God on how to handle scientific evidence about the age of the earth.

Does this make me a “day-age” concordist or a “Proclamation Day” non-concordist? Or both?

154

[quote=“bren, post:151, topic:4219”]
in which you pointed out much the same thing and then actually went to the trouble of quoting references.
[/quote]I can’t find the references now, I assume you are referring to the references regarding the waw-consecutive and historical narrative. Quoting the references is an appeal to authority and it is such because the names I quoted are ones that everyone recognizes as an authority. If these people say something about Hebrew, it is understood to be reliable. There are some things so accepted that they don’t need the multiplication of evidence. I didn’t think the forum here was the place to lay out that kind of argument for something that is well-established. The references make it possible for anyone to see the arguments for it.

I never suggested an hard and fast rule of anything. I think you are reading too much into that. I have tried to couch it as something like “typically” or “usually” these things indicate this or that. Again, I think that is well known. However, there are clearly patterns of uses and those patterns establish something approaching a rule of sorts.

[quote=“bren, post:151, topic:4219”]
You have simply brought forward zero support that the emphasis was on the number of hours or the length of time, and the inference from the text and the likely interpretative framework from that time period points only to a focus on the light-dark and morning-evening cycles.
[/quote]I think you would be hard-pressed to convince anyone that this is a valid or helpful distinction since the day-night cycle is the light/dark and evening/morning cycles. Talking about it in terms of hours is simply adaptive to how we talk about the light/dark and evening/morning cycles.

I don’t think the emphasis is on the number of hours or the length of time. It is on the cycle of light/dark that we call a day (as they did) that we know as 24 hours (which they did not). The reason people emphasize 24 hours is because of the position that the days of Gen 1 are long periods of time, not 24 hours. So I think you are making a distinction without a difference, and one that misses the whole reason 24 hours is talked about.

Perhaps the reason no one addresses that argument is because it isn’t actually an issue that makes any difference. It is perhaps like one person arguing that “and” is a conjunction and the other person saying, “No it’s not. It’s a word that joins two ideas together.”

[quote=“bren, post:151, topic:4219”]
I can’t imagine why they would write the text specifically in order to address a 21st century understanding of the universe any more than why they would write the text to address a Ptolemaic perspective.
[/quote]But how does showing it as six normal days of a light dark cycle help address any ancient issue? I have never been convinced of this.

[quote=“bren, post:151, topic:4219”]
There is a fairly large gap in the logic that is supposed to lead us to the conclusion that these features are markers of historicity. If you can fill that gap, I would be open to hearing it.
[/quote]I think you are missing the point here, but I won’t prolong this. I need to keep this shorter rather than longer. The point is that succession is marked and historical narrative is also marked by these things.

[quote=“bren, post:151, topic:4219”]
Either you are trying to convince us or not. If you are trying to convince your readers, the best way to get us to take one of the points in your argument seriously is either to debate it …
[/quote]Trying to convince? I am presenting a side that I think was missing at least missing with the level of support. I have tried to engage the respondents here, at the risk of appearing to dominate the conversation (which I do not wish to do) and at the expense of other things. The arguments I would make in a debate are the ones made in the various sources I have referenced. No one has to yet to seriously engage with that evidence that I recall. There has simply been a lot of punting for various reasons.

[quote=“bren, post:151, topic:4219”]
Unfortunately, this is where it goes very badly, since we see no references earlier than YEC references, and no references that are clearly independent of YEC influence.
[/quote]But those references provide the data sets for analysis. That data is the same for everyone. Anyone here can look it up and interact with it. No one has done that. No one has provided counter examples that would falsify the argument.

Several people said there are other contemporary literature examples that were omitted that would sway the conclusion. But no one has actually presented any. I want that data. I want to know what examples there are so I can look at them.

As of now, my argument is the only argument on the table and no one has presented a serious challenge to it. In fact, a great many people, including some of the most prolific responders to me, actually agree with the position; they differ on the method.

So I would say that any argument I would make would be a repetition of what in in the sources. I would welcome those who want to look at the data and provide a critique of the data or the method, or present data that was omitted or overlooked, or present a counter proposal that could move the argument forward by refining it or falsify.

In any case, I think are expecting too much of a forum like this.

155

[quote=“Christy, post:152, topic:4219”]
Actually, BioLogos contributor John Walton, in the Lost World of Genesis, agrees with the YEC folks on the linguistic analysis and says that YOM means regular day.
[/quote]Walton is an OT and a Hebrew guy; a great many, if not most, Hebrew scholars do agree on the linguistics because it is pretty clear. The people who object typically, though not always, are non-Hebrew people I think. I cited Wenham and Waltke earlier who are others examples. Numerous commentators on the Hebrew text will affirm the same thing.

. But I was actually referring to the larger debate about origins, not the specific debate about yom in Genesis 1.

[quote=“Christy, post:152, topic:4219”]
People who argue otherwise are concordists, something that BioLogos tries to stay away from.
[/quote]I think your article errs in labeling YECs as concordists. Concordists are usually those who a reconciling the Bible and an old earth. BioLogos actually gets this correct here: "However, the harmony sought by YEC proponents comes at the cost of entirely rejecting the standard geologic record, which they replace with Flood Geology. That isn’t what Ramm had in mind by seeking a “harmony.”.

I would encourage your editors to reconsider that chart in the article you link.

156

I think concordism is any attempt to reconcile everything the Bible says with scientific observations.

OEC accepts ancient earth and their task is to make everything that the Bible says about creation fit with an ancient earth.

YEC accepts a more literal reading of the Bible and their task is to make everything science says fit with their interpretation of biblical truth.

Both do lots of gymnastics, it’s just the OEC concordists do their gymnastics with the biblical text, and the YEC folks do their gymnastics with the scientific data. And to be fair, TE/EC folks do their own gymnastics with theology and ANE contextualization. So it often comes down to which kind of gymnastics is most acceptable to you spiritually and intellectually.

1 Like
157

Arguing about whether the Hebrew meant a REAL DAY rather than just an INTERVAL … is like arguing about whether Jonah was swallowed by a REAL FISH … or by a WHALE. Either way, the story is IMPOSSIBLE.

The Hebrew scribes used the term Day because it makes for a more dramatic story than saying it took God years to do his work.

The Hebrew scribes refer to 3 DAYS IN A FISH because it makes for a better story than talking about a man meditating about visiting Sheol for the mandatory 3 days.

People who fixate on WHAT PART of an impossible story must be true absolutely fascinate me.

The Romans told the story about Romulus and Remus being raised by a She-Wolf. But this is not a very ancient story, compared to the really old Roman legends. Virgil tells the story in The Aeneid, written around 20 BCE.

Could the twins have REALLY been raised by a she-wolf? Almost certainly not. The Latin term for “she wolf” is also the term for prostitute. So the idea that Rome, in a riverine coastal region frequented by sailors, could have been founded by the children of a prostitute - - well, that IS fairly believable. But you can’t tell THAT kind of story, right?

Was there even REALLY a set of twins named Romulus and Remus? One might think so, until you read more and more about the fantastic things they did. After a while, the awareness comes over you that Romulus and Remus are a convenient BACK STORY that was created to answer the question of “Who founded Rome?”

George

George

158

@jammycakes

I read 2 Peter in the context of people who were expecting an immediate eschatological fulfillment of Jesus’ promise to return and vindicate them. They thought it was imminent, but tomorrow kept coming and Jesus did not return and this was a big deal. Jesus had said some of them would not taste death before seeing Jesus come into his Kingdom and they were wondering what was up. People were dying off. There was persecution and bad stuff and they wanted to know why Jesus was taking so long.

So Peter is reminding them that even though they are living in “the last days” that doesn’t necessarily mean that God is on our timetable, and it might be a while, because one day is like a thousand years to God. I think the point of 2 Peter 3:8 is to encourage them not to lose heart in the face of persecution or lose hope in the promised Resurrection even though they had already waited much longer than they thought they were going to have to wait. I don’t think it’s a divine equation to help us calculate the age of the earth from Genesis.

With the Psalm reference you give, I think it is just an expression of praise for God’s greatness in comparison with humans. Unlike humans, whose fleeting lives come and go like grass or flowers or dreams, God is eternal, and solid, and steadfast. Reflecting on how insignificant our lifespans are compared to God’s eternity is part of the lesson that “teaches us to realize the brevity of life, so that we may grow in wisdom.” (Psalm 90:12)

In both cases, I think the point is to say “even though we experience time one way, in God’s reality it is different” It feels like Jesus is taking a long time to come back, but… It feels like our lives are really long and important, but…

I don’t think there is anything to unlock in Genesis related to modern science. The ancients clearly had no concept of how old the earth was or of biological evolution. God gave them revelation that made sense in their worldview and imparted the spiritual truth they needed to know to worship him well and treat others justly.

Someone needs to design a teen magazine- style test where we answer a bunch of multiple choice questions and add up our scores so we can find out what kind of creationist we are. @BradKramer has been messing around with survey design today, so maybe we all need to convince him that it would be a valuable use of his time to make us one. Or maybe that’s what his “favorite fruit” question was really designed to reveal… Forum User Survey 1

3 Likes
159

Does this really need to be repeated? The very quotes you invoke do not say what you want them to say! I fail to see why this simple distinction is not being acknowledged. The only rule that can be culled from the generally accepted references is: the waw-consecutive is always a grammatical construct used for narrative sequence or logical succession… as a logical inference from this, it is at least sometimes (but actually often) used for historical narratives. This allows absolutely no logical inferences from the quoted grammar to the implication that we are dealing with straight history. Do you really not see that? So this last paragraph was wasted; of course I accept what the grammars are saying, why would that be in doubt?

Nice softening, but even that doesn’t make sense. “Typically” or “usually” is helpful, but it doesn’t assure us of anything, so no, it can’t approach a rule of sorts at all, it can only give us the sense that if there are other markers of historicity and no other confounding literary markers, then, yes, this is likely a historical narrative. It totally fails to account for the fact that the examples where it is used for historical narrative are unambiguous in terms of other literary features, where this is not the case for Gen 1.

That’s fine, I frankly didn’t expect any acknowledgement that such a distinction is important. It is extremely easy to dismiss this one as irrelevant and move on especially when reading this emphasis into the text contributes to your interpretation, and it is pretty much where I expected you to go with this. I find it very obviously incorrect to say that changes in emphasis and eisegesis of modern perspectives is irrelevant to ultimate interpretation, but since proving to you that a 21st century focus just might obscure an ancient emphasis seems to be a probable waste of time, do what you want with that and throw in all of the modern emphases and scientific-modernist expectations that you happen to have available. The “24-hour” fixation is ultimately a minor player in this overall tendency to read modern expectations into the text anyway, and I’m not sure it matters in the end if someone is intent on picking out whatever data suits the right conclusion anyway.

Just to be clear; so they are specifically addressing our 21st century perspective instead of some other favored period (maybe the invasion of the Aristotelian perspective in the 13th century should have been covered?) and instead of something in their own context? Is that really the argument you’d like to make? It’s not something to “be convinced of”; you are making a clear statement of what the text was designed to answer to, you’re just wording it in a way to make it look like you are resisting some newfangled idea. Clever but nope; you have a view that needs defending with something other than statements of incredulity.

Fascinating, you just did it again. Not even subtle. Instead of quoting the grammatical “rule” directly (which would have made it an irrelevant point), you imported a word (historical) and then apparently make use of a logical fallacy. This is a correction from my original response btw since I muddled it! You inverse the real point that may be implied from your references, going from historical narrative implies need of this grammatical rule to grammatical rule implies historical narrative. Not legitimate.

What argument? You haven’t even bothered to summarize the key arguments from your sources, and the best references that you alluded to managed to make doubtful some of the points on poetic literary structure, but I don’t think they do what you want them to. I really see nothing on the table, and when I looked at the other tables you kept pointing to, I saw a feast, but nothing that was on your menu. If this is wrong, then correct me, what was the silver bullet argument that I failed to address and the source in which I failed to find it? If you can hit those two questions in a couple of sentences, then it would help to make sense of the posturing and maybe I would see why you are in a position to rest your case. I’m willing to do the work of sifting sources within reason, but I can’t figure out which of your arguments is supposed to have carried all that weight.

Thanks

160

Sorry, I wasn’t clear on this one: the problem here is not that this is wrong, it is that in order for it to help you in your thesis, it needs to successfully perform the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Hopefully that is more clear!

161

[quote=“bren, post:159, topic:4219”]
The very quotes you invoke do not say what you want them to say!
[/quote]I think they say what I want them to say, and you repeat what I have said and what I intended to support by the quotations. So it doesn’t seem as unclear as you suggest since you seem to agree with me. But perhaps we are talking past each other here.

The point I made is rather indisputable–that historical narrative is most frequently marked by waw-consecutives (and you seem to agree with that). Gen 1 is marked by waw-consecutives. That would lead us toward interpreting it as historical narrative, unless there are compelling textual reasons to the contrary. That is not affirming the consequent. It going where the evidence takes us. It is simply saying that, all else being equal, waw-consecutives push us towards interpreting it as historical narrative first. Of course there are waw-consecutives that aren’t historical narrative, and of course, historical narratives are not always marked by waw-consecutives. And there are other features as well. Nonetheless, the “rule” I stated is relatively undisputed though it is not iron-clad.

These rules of language point us in a particular direction. Genesis 1 uses waw-consecutives which often (to use your word) present historical narrative, and the events presented in Genesis 1 do present a succession of events that read like history: This happened, then this happened, then this happened, etc. So given these things, I would argue it would take a significant grammatical or syntactical reason to read it as something other than historical narrative. And the repetition of a “closing phrase” does not rise to the level that is convincing. In fact, that closing phrase might in fact indicate that it is a succession of days and it is repeated to make sure that isn’t missed. Remember, the connection to Exod 20:4-6 cannot be ignored here. If these are written about the same time, then it stands to reason that (whatever the actual case might be, whether young earth or old earth), it is presented as six successive normal days to lead up to the Sabbath command.

[quote=“bren, post:159, topic:4219”]
It totally fails to account for the fact that the examples where it is used for historical narrative are unambiguous in terms of other literary features, where this is not the case for Gen 1.
[/quote]Not sure this is true, but we would have to talk about what the othe literary features are to evaluate that.

[quote=“bren, post:159, topic:4219”]
I frankly didn’t expect any acknowledgement that such a distinction is important.
[/quote]You would need to make an argument that such a distinction between light/day cycle and 24-hours (which is the length of a light/day cycle) exists and is important. So far as I recall, you haven’t even told us what the difference is between a light/dark cycle and 24 hours aside from, as best as I can tell, that they wouldn’t have recognized it as 24 hours which I presume would be because of the lack of mechanical time pieces that early in history (though I am not sure of the dates of reliable time-keeping). I can’t respond to your argument because I don’t even know what it is (which may be my obtuseness in reading).

Thanks.

[quote=“bren, post:159, topic:4219”]
so they are specifically addressing our 21st century perspective instead of some other favored period
[/quote]No, Genesis is addressing a 15th century BC context. In 1500 BC. the light/dark cycle was almost exactly the same length that it is today–24 hours-ish. I am not sure that that is a view that needs defending. The scientists here could probably point to some study that would indicate that the length of a day marked by a light/dark hasn’t changed much since then. But I would think that is undisputed. The point is that the days of Genesis 1 are not some special use of language to indicate long periods of time. They are normal days whether we mark them by the rising and setting of the or by sundials or by mechanical time pieces.

[quote=“bren, post:159, topic:4219”]
What argument? You haven’t even bothered to summarize the key arguments from your sources
[/quote]Actually I think I have summarized the arguments, but why would I do that? Why not go read the few pages and then we can discuss it. Why do I need to repeat what is said?

162

The argument is sort of fluctuating, you seem to go back and forth from more to less confident versions of a rule that doesn’t exist. Again, you have a single logical inference open to you; it has this feature, therefore it must be a narrative. That’s it. Anything else is introducing inference where none is possible. Yes there are many other texts in the OT that are focused on historical narrative; so essentially the strength of your actual argument, worded clearly, is this: of all of the narratives in the OT, many are historical narratives, this text is one of those narratives, so it is almost definitely a historical narrative. Similar in structure to the following; I live in a predominantly German speaking community, I am a human just like them, therefore I am almost certainly German. I think we agree on this and it can fairly be called “not a rule” (unless rules really are made to be broken). As you said, all other things being equal, it would just be a matter of statistics. If things are not obviously equal, you can throw the stats out the window. I fail to see why the markers need to be particularly significant in order to put this statistical argument in doubt. To me and to many others, it is starkly obvious that Genesis is not your typical historical account, laying it side by side with the account of Nehemiah or the account of the exile. If it is not obviously comparable with any other unambiguously historical account, then no, things are not equal and no, you don’t get to invoke some unsure statistical argument to do anything meaningful. There’s no rule, there’s no unambiguous comparability to known “historical” texts, and there is no acceptable basis for what amounts to a statistical argument. There is simply nothing here.

As I said, I think we are done with the 24-hours argument. You seem to still not understand the argument (or at least your attempted summaries of it appear incorrect or incomplete to me) and I am running out of different ways to explain the eisegesis that appears to be undeniable (i.e. if you keep saying that the text is making a particular point like exact length, yet it never makes that point, it is eisegesis by definition). The weaker side of the point is the argument that imported emphasis can obscure the focus of the original text, because all you have to do is deny it. You did so. So we’re done.

This is misplaced and I think you misunderstood my focus here. My argument about the audience and the concerns being addressed is more general. That is, the text is not addressing modern scientific or materialist concerns (let alone specific historical concerns), it is addressing the cosmogonies and theologies of the ANE. Assuming it to be in dialogue with any context, this is the only obvious one available. You don’t think that the account is really rooted in the ANE context at all or that it is addressing the particular concerns of the Israelites. It’s just a straight up historical account, and if it doesn’t help the Israelites to deal with the claims stemming from the cosmogonies or religious positions of their polytheistic context, then that’s their problem. I’m not sure why the thesis that it is written to respond to the concerns of the Israelites in that context is particularly far-fetched or objectionable, but there it is.

I dealt above with the only argument for historicity that I have seem you seriously advancing, and I have scanned through your references without really seeing which argument is supposed to inevitably result in your conclusion. If that’s pretty much it, I guess I don’t see much else on the table. As I’ve said before, I think you argue your position very well, but I don’t think the position is very strong unless you qualify it a great deal.

1 Like
163

Did I come across as saying that? I certainly didn’t intend to, and I apologise if I did. I know that YECs claim that we OECs view it as such, but that’s just a straw man. The whole point of 2 Peter 3:8 is that God’s days do not correspond to our days, and that being the case, the days of Genesis 1 do not have to be 24 hour solar days in order to preserve the integrity of the Bible.

Your summary of the passage is correct and I am not disputing that: it is indeed primarily about giving us hope for God’s promises to be fulfilled. However, the passage does talk prominently about two other things: the reality of God’s judgment, and creation. The argument that the passage has nothing to do with creation is a YEC one and it simply isn’t true: verses 4 and 5 establish creation as a prominent theme here. Accordingly, we simply can’t dismiss it as irrelevant to our discussions about creation or the age of the earth.

164

I had to laugh at this reply. You took my question as a literal, as if I had not comprehended your meaning. However, what I wrote was an idea more like a metaphor. You, the expert, did not recognize that shift.

Liked your analysis. Would you do me the honor of analyzing my take on Gen 1. It is the thread “Poetically Harmonizing Genesis With Science.”

My answer to that is God. If the text is simply ancient cosmology that has failed to be true, why then do we accept the writer’s comprehension of spiritual things as truth? However, if God inspired the text, the words would represent their cosmology. The same words could be interpreted by Augustine to keep the text relevant to his time. The same words should bring revelation of God’s inspiration to our time and to future times. That includes the Big Bang and evolution. Our understanding of nature changes. Our understanding of an inspired passage that describes nature must change too, or it simply becomes an ancient text with no reality beyond what a person back then thought.

That is a very sad and limiting statement. It defines the word “concordist” as a foolish pursuit to relate two unrelated things. Taking such a hard line refuses to see why so many people, including me, insist that Gen 1 must match our understanding of nature for it to be reliable as a reference of who God is. It rejects the possibility that Gen 1 could have been inspired by God to match today’s standard science. I agree that we must not limit our understanding of nature to force it to fit an interpretation of the text. To be inspired text, it must match the science an atheist believes, not what we want to require them to believe. The interpretation that will fit will not be doing gymnastics, These two “unrelated things” will be dance partners.

Agreed

The text is circular poetry. It matches all the requirements. Circular poetry does not have to rhyme or have meter, so can be read as a narrative. The poetry style adds layers of meaning that is difficult to relay in a few words in a true narrative form.

165

I can only agree there. Shying away from concordist interpretations is one thing that troubles me about the BioLogos position. While I’d agree that these interpretations do have their limitations, I’m not happy about seeing discordance where none exists. To reject the connection between 2 Peter 3:8 and Genesis 1 is to do just that – it drives a wedge between science and the Bible that simply isn’t necessary.

It’s certainly possible that parts of the Bible could have interpretations that make sense to us today in ways that weren’t obvious to their original audience. Remember that before the Resurrection, Jesus’s disciples were completely confused when He talked about rising from the dead. Also, there are verses such as Daniel 12:4 and Habakkuk 2:3 that talk about revelation awaiting an appointed time and being sealed up until the time of the end etc.

167

Of course I have thought this out. The text is inspired by the living God who knew what was coming, what is still to come. Do you thing He is too weak for such a little miracle?

You fear “not always being right,” and are trying to force your fear onto me. The church has held that kind of fear throughout its history. If the church leaders were wrong, then that meant God was wrong and the institution would fold up. Loosing face was treated as an ultimate wrong. Well, the earth now circles the sun, the moon is marked with human footprints, blind men are regaining sight, and the lepers are healed because of science. Belief survived, but the church’s dogmatic beliefs had to go. Harmony is just one more step in the right direction.

We are the ones who do not know all the answers, not God. Don’t let fear keep you from seeing a miracle. Each of the time periods you mentioned found a way to match Gen 1 and the “science” of their time. That does not require the text to be nebulous. Gen 1 may have generalizations that allow for varied views, but it is not nebulous.

Matching a generation’s cosmology means it gives evidence of inspiration. God provided evidence of Himself in the first chapter of the book. Why is our generation any different? Are we too “smart” to need evidence of our Father’s existence? Why should believers in such a wondrous God worry about what may or may not be found tomorrow? Maybe, our generation’s interpretation will be the last one needed.

Remember, my claim is not just finding harmony between standard science and Gen 1, but also Gen 2-11. All of those strange stories and lists are neglected by believers because they don’t make sense any more. Yet, I found they tell the same story as standard science. They tell of the same loving God Jesus spoke to and about. Now, that is a miracle.

168

Thanks. Please look at my ideas concerning Gen 1 in the thread “Poetically Harmonizing Genesis With Science.” This is the very short version of the creation interpreted by standard science to show how circular poetry works in the text.

170

You see the Bible and science as contradictory. I do not. That is why God did not give you inspiration. You see a history of cosmologies as having too many contradictions to integrate. I see variations with common themes and images.

You want everything in neat little boxes. You are so rigid that you cannot see the fluidity and moment within the biblical texts. The bible is messy, history is messy, and science is messy. My point is that if you start in the wrong place (theology or science) you will probably end up in the wrong place. It might be an interesting place, an acceptable place, but not the correct place. How do you know if your exegesis is correct if someone else does not do an apologetic analysis of the passage first, during, or after you complete it? How do you know if your exegesis is correct if an anthropologist does not do the legwork first? How do you know your exegesis is correct if you do not show interest in finding out if maybe possibly you did not start in the correct place? Exegesis is not an isolated endeavor.

Not sure which “Classical Christianity” you refer too. I’ve seen too many references that would say “God can do anything, even the impossible,” but I’ve never seen one mention logic in that statement. However, I do believe that God’s miracles are based in the natural, even if we find them logically impossible. I never said God was defying natural laws in providing proof of His existence. That is what you believe. My proposal is not a square-circle. It is orienting a peg to fit into its matching hole, which is impossible until rotated. You refuse to rotate.

Believers in each of those generations understood Gen 1 as a description of creation. Harmonization kept them from discarding it as a myth. That means their understanding of creation and the text matched. You have set a limit for God because you do not want Him to do the same today, even though the world desperately needs a miracle from God.

You have stated “further discussion is useless,” repeatedly. The problem here is that you do not discuss anything. You argue and continue arguing when it is obvious that you have yet to look at my proposal. Why? Because it does not agree with your exegesis and therefore it is useless. Yet, you continue to argue against something you do not understand and are not likely to try to understand even to make a good argument. You assume that arguments used against others who have attempted harmonization will be suitable against mine. Wrong. You assume that making ridiculous statements about what you think I am saying is logical. Not.

171

Well, you can if you don’t think the Bible provides relevant information about the age of the earth and prefer to ask a geologist instead. :wink:

172

I don’t think it’s foolish to be a concordist and all of us are in it to “relate two unrelated things.” I think concordism is a commitment that drives one’s approach to evidence. It’s not BioLogos’ commitment, though they have their own. It’s not my commitment, but that does not necessarily imply disrespect for those for whom it’s important.

I’m not refusing to see your reasons. I have heard them out and they are not compelling to me, and in the end I disagree with you. But people can respectfully disagree. Yes, I don’t think it is at all preferable to “insist that Gen 1 must match our understanding of nature for it to be reliable as a reference of who God is.” or that “Gen 1 could have been inspired by God to match today’s standard science.” But here we are, at BioLogos, hosting a very long discussion for the benefit of those for whom it matters.