Thanks for enlightening my little corner. Your instance on 24-hour days when there is not the slightest mention of any such thing throughout the entire Bible is defended by what amounts to a condescending dismissal. Your shrugging off the relevance of our unjustifiably chronocentric reading of a text that is written from a very different cultural perspective is defended by a reference to “the arguments”. Love to get my hands on those things, whatever they are.
You had been doing pretty well up to that point and you have defended what I view as a not very defensible position with some skill, but this was not a serious response by any stretch of the imagination. Let me know when you are interested in offering a serious response instead of what might start to look like a patronizing reply when seen in poor lighting. Better yet, as our grandparents told us, if you feel you must post a patronizing answer with no obvious content, better to just pretend you didn’t notice the other post in the first place. Pretty sure that was what they said.
Why should I prop my assessment of it’s theological value on whether or not it is succeeds as strict history? This is not making sense. Wasn’t that the whole point? If something intended as straight history fails as straight history, then I have reason to doubt it in other respects, but I rather thought my point to be that it isn’t obviously intended as straight history… Is this not what you understood from my comments?
It’s great to see some excellent explanations of a few more of the many weaknesses of a favorite claim of traditional Young Earth Creationists.
2Peter 3 also provides a devastating debunking of the global-flood claim by contrasting the Greek words KOSMOS and GE, even though the single English word “world” has traditionally been used to translate both. The future destruction of the world by fire is applied to the GE [the world of continents and rocks] but the Noahic Flood is associated with the KOSMOS [the inhabited world of people, just as John 3:16 says that God so loved the people of the world that he gave his son for them, not for the planet earth itself.] This is yet another example of not-so-much-love for exegetical literalism among traditional Young Earth Creationists!
Tradition is a powerful force. As a result, Young Earth Creationist ministries will continue to belabor the same failed arguments, generation after generation, even though their arguments were shredded long ago. When I was a creation science advocate in the 1960’s, I was determined to cling to the traditional position of my church because I feared that yielding even the tiniest point in the debate would lead to the abandonment of the Gospel message itself. The slippery slope warnings of Drs. Morris, Whitcomb, and Gish as well as their many Dispensational allies reinforced my fears.
Of course, that is why exegetical arguments and scientific evidence alone are rarely all that effective with traditional Young Earth Creationists. Most of us were very fearful of what we thought were the inevitable implications of releasing our grip on the cherished traditions mandating our defiant line in the sand. Until that fear is dealt with, piles and piles of scripture evidence and scientific evidence will rarely free us from debating in circles. (Indeed, the cars and routes analogy (?) posted above should be a sobering reminder of this exasperating process. I’m saving that one.)
And yet predictably ubiquitous nonetheless! After all, the same “literalism” arguments they demand of Genesis 1 are just as predictably applied to the Bible’s genealogies. Yet even those who distance themselves from Bishop Ussher nevertheless insist that “the Bible teaches an age of the earth certainly under 100,000 years.” For anyone who cares about the evidence God gave us within creation itself, 100,000 years versus 6,000 years makes for a difference without significance. There is zero evidence for a young earth and overwhelming consilience for a very very old earth.
And that is why YECist origins ministry leaders will never engage the stark theological implications of considering that a deity would fill his creation with deceptive evidence virtually everywhere we look. With all of their the-sky-is-falling warnings about slippery slopes, they dare not consider the blasphemous implications of a Divine Deceiver who insists that we blindly and calmly accept a General Revelation in total contradiction to their tradition-bound twisting of Special Revelation. (In such a view, “the heavens are telling” contains a message that YEC traditionalist are committed to ignoring because it is deceptive and evil, rather than telling a story to the glory of God.)
[quote=“LT_15, post:56, topic:4219”]
I have already explained how “evening and morning” is possible without a sun.[/quote]
Yet, no reader thus far has managed to find it.
So you honestly believe that nobody (including God himself) could have presented what you claim is the message of Genesis 1 in a less ambiguous way that has left even Bible-loving inerrantists of nearly identical doctrinal persuasions mired in debate for the past half century? After all, it’s not just a “theological liberals versus conservative evangelicals” difference of interpretation. One can find plenty of Old Earth Creationists, Gap Theorists, Days of Proclamationists, and you-name-its even within the very same independent very conservative evangelical “Bible churches” all over the country. Do you believe that—if God truly intended for Genesis 1 to present an historical chronology of how our world came to be—he was incapable of doing so with less ambiguity? That amazes me! It tells me that you’ve chosen to disregard how much time and effort many generations of sincere, truth-seeking, Holy Spirit filled, God-fearing Christ-followers have devoted to carefully translating and interpreting one of the most difficult passages in all of scripture.
Indeed, favoring one’s own set of interpretations over those of one’s Christian brethren is one thing. (And I doubt that anybody has problems with that.) But to pretend that the interpretation and proper understanding of Genesis 1 is obviously (even perhaps obviously obvious, so to speak) an undeniable “six, successive, 24-hour(ish) days in Hebrew” simply defies reality. It ignores the many glaring internal contradictions and conundrums which have spawned uncounted thousands and thousands of pages of exegetical commentary for at least 2000 years of Church history—and the fact that even you found it necessary to concede “24-hour(ish)” days in Hebrew forced an audible chuckle from this reader.
Of courses, for anyone who regards Genesis 1 as focused on contrasting the one God of Israel with the pantheons of neighboring cultures and presenting God as absolute master of all domains of his created world, the many problems which rigid literalism and insistent expectations that the text address historical and scientific details which simply didn’t matter to the author(s) and ancient audience exemplifies the pitfalls of anachronistic impositions upon the Biblical text.
Incredible.
Seriously? So anyone who casually ignores a universe filled with evidence for a history which traditional Young Earth Creationists claim never happened are showing greater respect for God’s omniscience? (You’ve raised the hand-waving-away of evidence to not just an art but a humble act of reverence and worship?)
I agree 100%. But amending that 6,000 to 60,000 or even 600,000 helps your argument not one bit.
I think you do know why. And I probably know why you think complaining about it while side-stepping the central issues will help your argument.
It is not a devious “switch” of some sort! It’s called the Scientific Method! It’s not a difficult concept: Scientists collect data (aka evidence) in order to formulate explanations (aka scientific theories) which explain the data.
If you’ve truly been assuming that this distinction was some sort of sinister conspiracy, no wonder you are confusing the two.
It’s not just the creation science movement that claims that " there is data and there is explanation of the data." That’s what modern science is all about! Yes, you are engaged in one of the favorite tactics of the creation science movement and a great many Young Earth Creationist ministry leaders work hard at this: Trying to convince ill-informed non-scientists that (1) science is unreliable and nothing but “interpretations”, and (2) “mere” interpretations are nothing more than somebody’s opinion, and (3) “we all know that everybody has opinions and that that doesn’t mean that their opinion is necessarily better than somebody’s else opinion.” Many non-scientists think that that passes the smell test and sounds perfectly reasonable. Of course, that’s a massive misrepresentation of how science operates.
I know the tactic well because I once used it myself as a creation speaker/debater. And the tactic of trying to convince the audience that an opponent is guilty of some alleged sleight-of-hand—when actually they are simply using terminology properly and distinguishing between data/evidence and the scientific theory based upon the evidence—the naive non-scientists thinks that, once again, their godly advocate for Biblical truth has caught those ungodly compromisers and “evil atheists” conspiring to trick them.
“Undermines it”? Really? Of course scientists are focused on an explanation of the data. That is the purpose of science! We don’t just collect data based on observations. We want to explain the date in order to understand how the universe operates. You try so hard to make it sound sinister but I find it very difficult to believe that you have no idea why scientists do what they do.
Yes, you chose the word “admit” because a naive reader may be fooled into thinking that I made some sort of reluctant concession in response to being caught in the act of something sinister. (After all, we evangelical Christians in America today are quite accustomed to being told that all of the world’s scientists and universities are engaged in a covert conspiracy to destroy belief in God.)
Yes, I’m familiar with all of the popular disclaimers which always arise when these topics are discussed. We so often hear “I’m not a Kent Hovind or AIG fan”, “I’m don’t believe the earth is 6,000 years old”, and even “I’m not a Young Earth Creationist.” But those disclaimers are secondary to the fact that so many of the arguments many Christians present are shared with and even have been made popular by those sources. And that is why so many of us address the broader audience in the aggregate rather than just the individual. I don’t know who first made the claim that “We all share the same evidence. It is only the interpretations that differ.” And that doesn’t really matter. The argument is so crucial to science-denialism in general that the very first exhibit a visitor to the Creation Museum sees is a life-size diorama of a “secular scientist” and a “creation scientist” excavating a fossil. The latter has an open Bible supposedly guiding his science while the implied “unbelieving evolutionist who is committed to naturalism and man’s fallible ideas” is assumed to be hopelessly mired in bias. Many visitors will assume, “Yes, it’s all just a matter of interpretations” and many will assume that “interpretation” means “assumption” or even “wild guess”.
Notice that the same people who use the “it’s all in the biased interpretations” argument often claim “Evolution is just a secular religion.” The fact that no religious studies or comparative religions textbook agrees and that academics define religion as “reverence for the transcendent” is the very opposite of how most Young Earth Creationist leaders define the word evolution: a result of “godless naturalism”, the very opposite of the transcendent! (Obviously, if evolution is “pure naturalism”, then it is a rejection of the transcendent and cannot be a religion.)
While we are on the topic of playing games with terms and definitions, Ken Ham and virtually every Young Earth Creationist and anti-evolutionist I’ve ever known likes to say, “We love science!” Yet, whenever Ken Ham actually defines the word “science”, he claims that today’s “committed-to-naturalism scientists” have hijacked the word, which “properly understood, comes from the Latin word SCIENTIA, meaning knowledge!” Ignoring Ham’s failure to learn the linguistics maxim that etymology is not necessarily the path to lexicography, it is easy to see why he prefers to abandon the dependence of modern science on the Scientific Method in favor of a much more generic and archaic definition understood by the ancients, when a science was simply some body of knowledge. Michael Behe similarly embarrassed himself in the Dover Trial when he admitted that even astrology fit his definition of the kinds of alternative science that he wanted to see presented in the science classroom.
Nevertheless, don’t just take my word for it when I claim that so many Young Earth Creationist advocates go beyond simply alternative interpretations of the scientific evidence and ignore it entirely when it doesn’t fit their paradigms. All one has to do is read their articles, watch their videos, and most tellingly, read their Statement of Faith appearing on their ministry websites.
Of course, I’m also including a great many fundamentalist and evangelical academic institutions where every faculty member (and even janitors, cafeteria workers, and handymen at some schools) have emphatic clauses in their contracts establishing in advance that *any evidence of any sort which does not obviously agree with the origins position of the ministry’s Statement of Faith must be rejected outright—and any staff member who fails to comply with that standard, or even fails to be sufficiently clear and emphatic in that position, even when speaking off-campus, is subject to immediate dismissal!
Needless to say, academic freedom and genuine tenure protections for following the evidence wherever it leads are effectively meaningless for Christians at a great many ministry organizations and schools. Of course, Ben Stein made no mention of this whatsoever in his comical EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. (That’s probably the most honest and ironic title in the history of propaganda cinema!) Needless to say, the embarrassing film was widely panned by evangelicals for its blatant dishonesty and lamentable ethics and the production company eventually went bankrupt.
It’s very simple: Most Young Earth Creationists state to various degrees of clarity and honesty (as do so many of their employers/institutions/ministries) a position paraphrased as follows: “If the scientific evidence appears to contradict my church tradition’s cherished interpretations of the Bible, I must disregard that evidence.” Dr. Kurt Wise is well known for the fact that, despite a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University, he is quite willing to ignore “all the evidence in the universe”, even if 100% of that evidence indicated that his interpretations of the Bible were wrong. See for yourself:
“Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.”
Does Dr. Wise “love science”? That’s hard to say, but he definitely doesn’t respect the scientific method nor the revelation the Bible claims that God provided in creation itself. No matter how much evidence exists in that creation and no matter how unambiguous is the history of the world which that evidence reveals, Wise is completely willing to ignore it–all for what the Bible “seems to indicate”. (Isn’t it amazing how casual Dr. Wise sounds when it comes to Bible interpretation, even when all of the evidence and common sense itself would suggest that he consider the possibility that his interpretations of scripture are incorrect?)
Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind, Chuck Missler, and countless other Young Earth Creationist ministry leaders have made similar statements. Bill Nye and Ken Ham were asked, “What would it take for you to change your position?” Bill Nye said “Evidence.” Ken Ham spoke for millions when he said that nothing would ever change his position on origins because he takes for granted that his interpretation of Genesis is God’s interpretation of Genesis. That view is extremely common in the “creation science” world—and that explains why YEC “creation science” isn’t science at all. It doesn’t come up with alternative explanations of the “same evidence.” No, it is doctrinally obligated to cherry-pick the evidence which is assumed to harmonize with already defined interpretations of the scriptures and must ignore all of the rest of the evidence.
Contrasting YEC “Creation Science” & Real Science
It is very revealing (though not surprising) that “creation scientists” had a very different reaction to Dr. Mary Schweitzer’s “soft-tissues in a 64 million years old dinosaur fossil” announcement than did REAL scientists. Different interpretation of the evidence or ignoring of the evidence? Let’s consider.
The science academy reacted as follows:
Were appropriate laboratory procedures followed? Any contamination?
Can Dr. Schweitzer’s data collections and findings be repeated by other researchers using the same methodologies? Are ancient soft-tissues truly present or did she find something else?
Can the evidence be explained by any processes we already understand?
…or is there some other process(es) at work in preserving what appears to be soft tissues bu we’ve never seen before? If yes, how and under what conditions do those processes operate?
The “creation scientists” at AiG, ICR, and many other Young Earth Creationist organizations and schools responded very differently:
“It is impossible for organic material to last that long!”
“Therefore, it must be only a few thousand years old. Science has now demolished everything scientists thought they knew about dinosaurs living many millions of years ago!”
“We must tell our donors immediately so they can celebrate with us and know that we’ve been proven right all along! The earth is young and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously with humans. They were on Noah’s Ark!”
I’m not exaggerating. In fact, I would defy anyone to show me where I’m wrong. Real scientists did what they always do: Remain skeptical and demand EVIDENCE----and they continued to ask questions! Many “creation scientists” didn’t even wait for more information but immediately declared, “Dr. Schweitzer’s discovery has proven that the Theory of Evolution is false and dinosaurs couldn’t have lived millions of years ago because soft tissues and DNA fragments couldn’t survive for so long!” Their interpretations of the Bible (as well as their employment contracts) demanded that they take such positions.
Notice also that “creation scientists” are ready to seize upon even just ONE item of evidence—one that isn’t even fully understood—and will immediately pretend that that one poorly understood, initial report somehow trumps CENTURIES of science which has survived the scientific method. (They made no mention of the mountainous piles of evidence from many different fields of sicence which provide incredible consilience for millions and millions of years of the earth’s history. They didn’t provide alternative explanations, but they did simply ignore the massive quantities of evidence contradicting their position.) Of course, this type of cherry-picking is entirely consistent with a pseudo-science which makes its conclusions FIRST and then searches for even the most obscure and uncertain “evidence” which must be utilized to support the presupposition which all employees of the Young Earth Creationist ministries MUST agree to support—no matter how much EVIDENCE denies it.
The many headlines on Young Earth Creationist websites lauding “Dinosaur Soft-Tissue Discovery Debunks Millions of Years & the Theory of Evolution” remains a prime example of why “creation science” is NOT real science at all.
So, in answer to the question “What data do the evolutionists have that the creationists don’t?”, I’ll go with:
All of the available evidence and not just a tiny subset which might possibly be twisted into harmony with preconceived, doctrinally-based conclusions, and…
a willingness to use the Scientific Method and to participate in the peer-review process of the science academy, and…
Honesty, and…
a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of theological and/or philosophical agendas.
Postscript
Knowing that someone will probably repeat the accusation that “evolutionists ignore evidence for a young earth and all evidence which refutes the Theory of Evolution”, I would be grateful if someone of that position would post a summary description of the most significant evidence which you believe the science academy is ignoring. (Obviously, dishonest traditional mantras from Young Earth Creationist websites, such as “There are no transitional fossil forms”, “Nobody has ever observed evolution”, and “Cells are too complex for evolution to create”, don’t address my request.)
Much more could be said but that is about as much as I feel like explaining while waiting what seems like forever for a delayed flight. Exasperation breeds exasperation. I think I’ll take a break from posting in order to address my blood pressure, which is elevated due to memories of my days in the creation science movement.
[quote=“LT_15, post:60, topic:4219”]
But here’s my question for you: Don’t evolutionists do the same thing? They dismiss the data that doesn’t fit their system.[/quote]
If that’s the case, LT, how did any of these “evolutionists” find and describe horizontal gene transfer. It’s a big exception to common descent.
How did they find non-Darwinian mechanisms?
Do you realize that the only way you get genomes stuffed with nonfunctional DNA is by non-Darwinian mechanisms?
[quote]And they do it for the same reason, namely, anything that doesn’t fit what we have already decided is true has to have another explanation.
[/quote]But they don’t. Scientific conclusions are always tentative.
@Mr.Molinist, that’s really long post without much substance to speak. It seems like you haven’t kept up with the conversation since you miss some things. Here, I will cherry pick only a few things to respond to.
[quote=“Mr.Molinist, post:87, topic:4219”]
2Peter 3 also provides a devastating debunking of the global-flood claim by contrasting the Greek words KOSMOS and GE, even though the single English word “world” has traditionally been used to translate both.
[/quote]Do you have any NT scholars that make this argument?
You say that the English word “world” has traditionally been used to translate both. The word γῆ is used about 250x in the Greek NT. The NASB (considered the most literal), the NRSV, and the ESV appear to never translate it as world; always as something related to dry ground or earth as opposed to water. The 2011 NIV translates it as “world” just 3x (Mark 9:3; Rev 13:3; 18:23). BDAG (the standard Greek NT lexicon) does not give “world” as a gloss for it, but rather focuses on ground primarily. (You can pull your BDAG off the shelf and look it up; I am sure you have one since you are commenting authoritatively on this topic.) So on what do you base your claim above?
Can you clarify your argument here and use some support from recognized NT scholars and Greek language resources so we can do a little informal “peer review”?
[quote=“Mr.Molinist, post:87, topic:4219”]
Yet, no reader thus far has managed to find it.
[/quote]It was earlier in the thread. God does not require a sun and moon to mark time.
[quote=“Mr.Molinist, post:87, topic:4219”]
So you honestly believe that nobody (including God himself) could have presented what you claim is the message of Genesis 1 in a less ambiguous way that has left even Bible-loving inerrantists of nearly identical doctrinal persuasions mired in debate for the past half century?
[/quote]I am asking how that could have been done. Do you have a suggestion? Please tell us how, in Hebrew, normal 24-hour days could have been communicated more clearly. I don’t grant your claim of ambiguity, but if you think it is, show us a better way to do it.
[quote=“Mr.Molinist, post:87, topic:4219”]
Indeed, favoring one’s own set of interpretations over those of one’s Christian brethren is one thing. (And I doubt that anybody has problems with that.)
[/quote]You seem to have a problem with it. You are favoring your own interpretation over mine and making some pretty strong statements against me.
[quote=“Mr.Molinist, post:87, topic:4219”]
So anyone who casually ignores a universe filled with evidence for a history which traditional Young Earth Creationists claim never happened are showing greater respect for God’s omniscience? (You’ve raised the hand-waving-away of evidence to not just an art but a humble act of reverence and worship?)
[/quote]No, you missed the point (which you have done a number of times). It has nothing to do with God’s omniscience. When someone says, “This is the only explanation; there are not others,” they are making a claim to omniscience: How can you know there are not other explanations unless you know everything? I am not hand-waving anything. You seem to be.
[quote=“Mr.Molinist, post:87, topic:4219”]
It is not a devious “switch” of some sort! It’s called the Scientific Method! It’s not a difficult concept: Scientists collect data (aka evidence) in order to formulate explanations (aka scientific theories) which explain the data.
[/quote]If you go back and read, you will see what was actually said. OldTimer claimed that “probably the biggest lie” was that both creationists and evolutionists have the same data and only the interpretation (i.e, explanation) of the differs. That is a claim the evolutionists have different data than creationists. Then he proceeds to say that the evolutionists present better explanations of the data. That was a switch of subjects from “data” to “explanations of the data.” I believe in the distinction. He is the one who made the claim. And apparently both you and Christy agree with me against him.
[quote=“Mr.Molinist, post:87, topic:4219”]
t’s not just the creation science movement that claims that " there is data and there is explanation of the data." That’s what modern science is all about!
[/quote]So you seem to agree with me that OldTimer was incorrect in his assertion.
[quote=“Mr.Molinist, post:87, topic:4219”]
Yes, you chose the word “admit” because a naive reader may be fooled into thinking that I made some sort of reluctant concession in response to being caught in the act of something sinister.
[/quote]You weren’t even the one I was responding to. Why do you think this is about something you said? Did you read the conversation? OldTimer (who bailed out on us) made the claim. I chose the word “admit” because he (not you) admitted that his distinction did not hold. By the switch, he admitted he wasn’t appealing to different data, but to a different (and better) explanation of the data.
[quote=“Mr.Molinist, post:87, topic:4219”]
So, in answer to the question “What data do the evolutionists have that the creationists don’t?”, I’ll go with:
All of the available evidence and not just a tiny subset which might possibly be twisted into harmony with preconceived, doctrinally-based conclusions, and…
a willingness to use the Scientific Method and to participate in the peer-review process of the science academy, and…
Honesty, and…
a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of theological and/or philosophical agendas.
[/quote]In response …
That isn’t different data. Your claim is that YEC don’t use some data that they have. Fine. But that’s not different.
That is not different data. That’s a different method.
That is not different data.
That is not different data.
So you give four statements, none of which answer the actual question. As a scientist, should you answer the actual question rather than stating a question and then proceeding to answer something else? Why not go where the evidence leads? What evidence is there that evolutionists have some data that creationists do not have? What is the data they have that creationists do not?
To me, this is not a helpful response from you. It doesn’t address the actual issues that are being discussed.
[quote=“bren, post:85, topic:4219”]
Your instance on 24-hour days when there is not the slightest mention of any such thing throughout the entire Bible is defended by what amounts to a condescending dismissal.
[/quote]That assumes the conclusion. I think they are mentioned in the Bible and have provided arguments for that, and links to extended arguments for it. If you disagree, then read the articles and interact with them.
[quote=“bren, post:85, topic:4219”]
…“the arguments”. Love to get my hands on those things, whatever they are.
[/quote]Two sources were linked above. Did you read them? They are there.
[quote=“bren, post:85, topic:4219”]
this was not a serious response by any stretch of the imagination.
[/quote]It was a brief response but very serious. The fact is that I saw what was said, and it was incorrect on a number of different levels, and it showed no familiarity with the arguments in the case. The lack of explanation of that does not make that unserious. The explanation had already been given (and ignored by you). So why should I repeat it?
And it wasn’t patronizing, certainly not to the degree that you, Mr. Molinist, OldTimer, and some others have been. The most respectful interaction here as been Christy, and I appreciate that from her.
[quote=“bren, post:85, topic:4219”]
Why should I prop my assessment of it’s theological value on whether or not it is succeeds as strict history? This is not making sense. Wasn’t that the whole point? If something intended as straight history fails as straight history, then I have reason to doubt it in other respects, but I rather thought my point to be that it isn’t obviously intended as straight history… Is this not what you understood from my comments?
[/quote]I thought my questions were clear. But again, the question is this: If you can’t trust its presentation of history, then why would you trust its presentation of theology? Why would you assume it is accurate about God if it isn’t accurate about history? That’s not a gotcha question. I am curious as to how you make that distinction in a way that convinces you.
That they accept some data and work it doesn’t mean that they accept all, or that they are considering all options.
[quote=“benkirk, post:88, topic:4219”]
Scientific conclusions are always tentative.
[/quote]So the conclusion that the world as we know it is the product of evolution with an age in the billions is tentative?
> But here’s my question for you: Don’t evolutionists do the same thing? They dismiss the data that doesn’t fit their system.
No, they do not. Please listen to this lecture and see for yourself: Building Scientific Knowledge: The Story of Plate Tectonics by Dr.Naomi Oreskes. You will hear her explain that earthquakes in Virginia are a difficulty with Plate Tectonic Theory, although the theory is still the best explanation for what we observe.
No I’m afraid they are not clear; they assume what is in need of proof: “If you can’t trust its presentation of history…” I have been fairly upfront about the obvious fact that this only makes sense where history is intended, so I find it fairly odd to respond by simply assuming the point in question as your premise. If history is not the intent, then the argument has no foundation. I’m not understanding something about your reasoning here.
It assumes nothing at all; it is a simple assertion that the Bible does not anywhere discuss 24 hours or any equivalent marker of duration. I don’t need a link or a paper, I need a simple passage in the Bible that establishes that this is not a correct assessment of the biblical data, and it seems that this should not be hard to provide if it is there.
Thankfully, the McCabe paper addresses this for day 4 on page 39: “If the singular use of “day,” when it is not part of a compound grammatical construction, is always used throughout the Old Testament as a literal day, then this provides solid evidence that the “fourth day” was a literal day.” Good, whether or not this is conclusive, now what we have to do is see where McCabe supports the connection between the term “literal day” and “24 hour duration”. He supports it on page 19 in footnote 3; “In this paper, I am using the expression “literal” day to refer to a normal, 24-hour day and “figurative” day to refer to a non-literal day.” - which is to say, he supports it by asserting it in a footnote and then completely fails to discuss where in the whole of the literature at his disposal the Hebrew concept of day related to an exact duration (24 hours) as opposed to a period of light (or work) framed by an morning and evening. So no, he simply doesn’t address my point, and this is why I see no reason to withdraw it. Hasel doesn’t address it either; merely sticking with the refrain; “solar days of 24 hours”. In the context of telling how I spent Tuesday of last week, the 24 hours is a very good bet; in the context of the creation of the cosmos by God in a stylized and arguably symbolic context where the sun only shows up on day four; not much of a bet at all. You guys just don’t seem interested in defining “day” as the Israelites might have thousands of years ago; if you did, we might be able to admit together that duration was likely entirely beside the point!
You seem to want me to interact more with your sources than with you, since they apparently answer all of my questions. Let’s see for McCabe:
McCabe also rushes to support your position by explaining what exactly is doing the shining in the first 3 days. This is what we get:
“By fiat, the next creative act of God was the creation of light: “Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (v. 3). While light is generally connected to luminaries, it may also exist independently from them, as is the case with the physical phenomena of lightning. According to some rabbinic interpreters, God created a primeval source of light that was independent of the sun.120 Since God is light, he certainly could have created a nonsolar source of light, prior to the sun’s creation. 121 As Whitcomb has suggested, “God created a fixed and localized light source in the heaven in reference to which the rotating earth passed through the same kind of day/night cycles as it has since the creation of the sun.122” (pg 45)
That’s it? The above isn’t even an argument. Yes, I’ve seen the rabbinic efforts to explain this problem, and in a context where it must be historical, of course we must hypothesize a “primeval source of light”. But this is proof of nothing at all: If you define yom as a literal day, you must define literal day, if you define literal day as a 24-hour solar day, then you must ask how you can call something a 24-hour solar day when there is no sun to provide that cycle and in a context where duration doesn’t seem to be of interest. At a minimum, this should lead to a greater degree of tentativeness, but instead, it leads to further entrenchment.
The next part finally explains where why you have been making use of the book of Revelation (I was really wondering about that after scanning through the chapters you alluded to): You seemed to be saying that Revelation somehow connects the possibility of a day-night cycle with the absence of the sun (I may have misunderstood), but Whitcomb, quoting Revelation, was saying nothing of the sort. I’m guessing that you didn’t check the reference properly or that it’s been a long time since you looked at it (again, unless I misunderstood). Revelation 21 can only be used to support the idea that the glory of the Lord would illuminate the new Jerusalem (whether this is figurative or not is anyone’s guess, but I’ve already mentioned why this would be a good bet); with no occurrence of day night cycles at all. This is a poor parallel for explaining why day 1 to 3 would be a 24 hour solar day; did the glory of God rise in the East and set in the West? Was it located where the sun would later be placed? Is there any reason at all why we should view this as 24 hours? This also explains why no one has managed to locate a hint of the justification that you thought you saw in these apparently symbolic chapters.
“The terms “evening” and “morning” “respectively signify the end of the period of light, when divine creativity was suspended, and the renewal of light, when the creative process was resumed.” (pg 55)
I quite agree, and I don’t think we can get much more out of these words or sequences, especially the idea or precise duration.
Footnote 184 on pg 56 explains the overall methodology for dismissing the stylized literary elements: “Inerrancy allows for literary shaping but never at the expense of the historical accuracy of the actual events, and it requires that the historical account set parameters on literary shaping.” And yet the literary shaping is so intrinsic to the ordering and nature of the events in Genesis that on some level we must choose; which was subordinated to which and why, if literary shaping was subordinated to historicity, why does the literary shaping remain so intrinsic and pervasive?
But McCabe wants to get rid of any sense that there is a dichotomy here:
“This discussion of Genesis 1:1–2:3 also demonstrates that there is no necessary dichotomy between stylized narrative and chronological history. Not only does the framework’s interpretation of stylized narrative provide a license to find elements that are more figurative in the creation account, but it also implies that there is a dichotomy between stylized narrative and sequential history. In effect, literary form and literal meaning are mutually exclusive. In the case of the creation account, the literary form, “hymn-narrative” in Blocher’s words, excludes the literal, chronological substance of Genesis 1:1– 2:3.202” (pg 63 to 64)
While I would agree that there is no necessary dichotomy between stylized narrative and chronological history, stylized narrative can be used to diagnose intent; in the case of Genesis, the stylized narrative, connected with apparent embedded symbolism, points to the likelihood that the theological purpose (and perhaps the polemical purpose) is the central concern here rather than the straightforward laying out of historical facts. And when the order and nature of the events seems to be a part of that stylization, then yes, we start to see a necessary dichotomy.
On the whole, I would say that McCabe was very informative, but that he quite clearly did not deal with my points, and you don’t seem to want to do so either, probably because you are swamped by other replies. If my points are illegitimate for reasons not covered by your linked papers or for reasons covered elsewhere in the dialogue, I’m open to hearing it or following the link, but otherwise I will take it that you have not really dealt with these issues and that I just may have understood them slightly better than you thought I did. I am not advocating the framework hypothesis, I am advocating the realization that the generally recognized literary features (call them stylization if you’d like) are ambiguous and intrinsic enough to allow for a very different understanding of authorial intent, and that far more caution and circumspection is needed when assessing intended historicity, even if you think a historical reading is probably the best conclusion in the balance.
I’m sorry if you feel there is reason to return the charge of being patronizing, but I don’t think my comments have lacked content or have failed to cover new ground, and I would like to see if there is a real response out there, one not provided so far by you or by your links.
Hi. I’ve been out of circulation for a few days and see the number of posts have rocketed. I’m a slow reader so I admid that I have only scanned through them. I apologise if I repeat anyone’s comments.
There are several points I would like to deal with.
The night/day during the first three days:
Although LT_13 has suggested a possible answer to this, some seem to have had difficulty in understanding it. If I might be so bold as to reword it. Just as indicated in Revelations, God creates His own light. He does this on day one. This is His light, not a ‘heavenly’ body’s. It is also directional. As the newly created earth rotates, any part of it would ‘see’ a day and a night (evening and morning). Therefore the text could be perfectly acurate if interpreted as a ‘24’-hour day. (Note: as someone indicated, the day’s length may have indeed slowed, but the implication of 24-hours is of a full earth rotation, not an exact 24-hours.) When God created the sun on day 4, He would then have removed His own created light and allowed the sun to take over. To argue that the text cannot mean solar days because the sun was not created ignores the fact that God can create His own independent light. (Although I appreciate that this is not the only argument.)
Ignoring the evidence:
From my readings, it is clear that some on both sides - YECs and OECs - have ignored some evidence that seems to contradict their worldview - at times, me included. But not everyone and not all evidence that seems to contradict. There are many on both sides that admit that, if a piece of evidence (scientific or scriptural) doesn’t seem to fit, it needs further examination. But in my experience, many - both YECs and OECs - will argue that if the scientific evidence doesn’t seem to fit their honest interpretation of Scripture, then it is possible that they have interpreted the evidence wrongly. I think to argue that OECs accept all scientific evidence and it fits their interpretation, and it’s just YECs that ignore, or pick and choose the evidence is unfair.
4th Commandment:
I’m not sure if anyone answered this - apologies if they did - but the 4th commandment says six days. If it should be interpreted as six long periods, then that’s a very long week.
If God had meant…:
I previously asked the question ‘another way to look at it is, if God really had created everything in six solar days, how could He have made it much clearer?’ to which Mr Molinist tried to provide an answer.
Poetic structure, etc., doesn’t stop the word ‘day’ meaning solar-day. It simply means God wanted the structure to be poetic. (Although there are still many who don’t see this so called poetry, etc.)
As far as I can see, it is historical narrative, and so do many others.
I see no contradictions. (For evening and morning before the sun is created, see above.) Evening and morning in every genuine case that I have ever come across suggests that particular part of a single 24-hour period. I have never known it to mean anything else, as far as I can remember (please advise me of a genuine case that it might be). And I would hazzard a guess that the writer and original readers of Genesis would probably feel the same way - though, that’s only a guess.
God didn’t create a universe that contradited the idea of a 6,000 year old world.
That’s because they keep getting the same tired ‘answers’.
Other:
Many of the alternative quotes that show that different words have different meanings to their ‘literal’ ones are in passages that are supposed to be interpreted as metaphorical.
Just one question – isn’t focusing on the scientific evidence getting a bit off-topic here? I thought, given the title of this thread, that it was more about the linguistic and hermeneutical aspect of how to understand “yom” in Genesis 1.
[quote=“gbrooks9, post:99, topic:4219”]
How about just 5 verses into Genesis?!?!?!
[/quote]Different grammatical usage than the usage that enumerates the days. And BTW, don’t use Strong. At least use BDB or HALOT.
I am running out of time so I won’t respond to all your comments. Let me just hit some key ideas.
[quote=“bren, post:93, topic:4219”]
I have been fairly upfront about the obvious fact that this only makes sense where history is intended, so I find it fairly odd to respond by simply assuming the point in question as your premise. If history is not the intent, then the argument has no foundation. I’m not understanding something about your reasoning here.
[/quote]But how do we know that history of some sort is not intended? That’s the assumption. I don’t agree with it. When you read history in the OT Hebrew Bible, it partakes of the exact same form as Gen 1. So the text of Gen 1, when compared to contemporary literature, reads just like history. It seems the burden of proof is on those who say it isn’t history, and I have yet to be convinced by the arguments. If others are, so be it. But there are some high hurdles to overcome.
A key part of your argument (and indeed OEC or EC as a whole) is that Gen 1 is not historical narrative. And yet there is not real textual reason to dispute that. Everything about Genesis 1 screams out historical narrative even it its structure.
[quote=“bren, post:93, topic:4219”]
it is a simple assertion that the Bible does not anywhere discuss 24 hours or any equivalent marker of duration. I don’t need a link or a paper, I need a simple passage in the Bible that establishes that this is not a correct assessment of the biblical data, and it seems that this should not be hard to provide if it is there.
[/quote]It is definition #2 in HALOT (“a day of twenty-four hours”) which lists a number of places. It is also definition #2 in BDB (“Day as a division of time” with a number of sub-categories). So the uses are all over. Some specific references are Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; Exod 20:4-6; Deut 5:13; Gen 7:11; 2 Sam 23:20; Eze 45:21, and I could go on for a very long time.
Is your issue that the Bible doesn’t expressly use the exact phrase “24 hours” in reference to “YOM” and so therefore we don’t know what it means? You don’t believe something like the “fourteenth day of the month” is a reference to the 14th period of 24 hours? How is any language about the passing of time possible with this standard? What’s a month? Or a year by this standard you have set up? It seems clearly that they marked days by the passing of time and God gave the sun and moon so that they could mark the passing of time. And the days in Gen 1 are marked by evening and morning. What else is necessary?
Even note that the Passover starts on the 14th day at twilight, so it can’t be referring just to daylight there. It has to be referring to the whole period, what we commonly think of as as day.
[quote=“bren, post:93, topic:4219”]
He supports it on page 19 in footnote 3; “In this paper, I am using the expression “literal” day to refer to a normal, 24-hour day and “figurative” day to refer to a non-literal day.” - which is to say, he supports it by asserting it in a footnote and then completely fails to discuss where in the whole of the literature at his disposal the Hebrew concept of day related to an exact duration (24 hours) as opposed to a period of light (or work) framed by an morning and evening.
[/quote]The whole section you are reading is where he supports it. Again, it’s hard to imagine that is disputable. There are some things that are evident prima facie that really don’t need a defense. Are we really at the point that we have to defend that a day is 24 hours long?
But let’s assume for the sake of argument that YOM is referring to the day light portion of the day. It doesn’t really change it because you have the first one (then night), then the second one (then night), then the third one (then night), etc. In other words, you have the exact same thing … a succession of day light periods which are inevitably marked off by the night that separates them.
[quote=“bren, post:93, topic:4219”]
You guys just don’t seem interested in defining “day” as the Israelites might have thousands of years ago; if you did, we might be able to admit together that duration was likely entirely beside the point!
[/quote]In Genesis 1, it is defined as “evening and morning” which most people would understand to be the rotation of the earth. What evidence is there that the Israelites never used it that way? How do you think the ISraelites used YOM? Can you give a catalog of ways?
[quote=“bren, post:93, topic:4219”]
On the whole, I would say that McCabe was very informative, but that he quite clearly did not deal with my points,
[/quote]I think he dealt with your points quite well. Your objections don’t make a lot of sense to me. If you want to argue on science or evidence, that’s one thing. But this is about the Hebrew text. Do you have some background in Hebrew that would enable you to offer a critique of McCabe or Hasel? Is it possible that your mind is so made up that you are unable to see through that?
I’d say that anyone with bilingual fluency in ANY two languages would immediately see why McCabe’s quest to establish the alleged uniqueness and specificity of his imagined Nth-YOM-rule is an exercise in the doesn’t-matter. As the professors already explained in this thread, IT MATTERS NOT A BIT if every EVERY OTHER occurrence of some word, phrase, idiom, or grammatical construction ALWAYS has a particular meaning in the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Does that really have to be repeated again? Why ignore that obvious fact?
American Christians have a LOT of advantages over many of us from other countries but here is a good example where coming from a monolingual society tends to make at least some of you vulnerable to these types of imagined “rules of grammar” that any first year comparative linguistics student sees right through. Even if EVERY other parallel construction in the HMT happened to point to a particular meaning, it simply would NOT establish the silly “always rule” that McCabe and others are wishing so very hard would help salvage their arguments.
Also. Does it seem at all surprising that this alleged rule-of-grammar never existed before a bunch of young earth creationists from the creation science movement invented it a very few years ago? Does it seem surprising that this alleged rule does not appear in any of the leading Hebrew grammars used in leading universities of the world? Does it seem likely that the definitive defense of what is actually an obvious linguistic fallacy (“Every other occurrence in my corpus X means this, therefore the structure in Language Y always means what I claim it means in the occurrence Z in X.”) would have escaped the notice of many centuries of Semitic language scholars but the Registrar of an unaccredited school, which publishes staff submissions in its non-peer-reviewed “journal”, claims to have established it beyond all doubt? How often has this supposed landmark paper been cited outside of a narrow doctrinal community? (I hope I don’t have to explain how panel discussions at ETS conferences function very differently than at AAR or SBL. ETS peer-review is not the same kind of peer-review one sees at major academic conferences. Politics plays a much larger role, even if that it is rarely mentioned outloud.) No doubt the author is a fine fellow but good Biblical studies scholarship publication works much like peer-review in the science academy. Sound research hypotheses resonate within the broader and much more diverse international academy, not just in a narrow sectarian corner. Of course until McCabe’s paper gets beyond such an obvious linguistic fallacy of “Holy Spirit Hebrew”, it will remain obscure if not entirely unknown in departments of Semitic Languages & Cultures worldwide. The fact that reaching an opposite conclusion could have placed McCabe’s employment as Registrar in jeopardy (see DBTS Statement of Faith) doesn’t give one a lot of confidence in the objectivity of the scholarship.
I recall reading a Bible & Science Forum article about some colloquium lecture of a guest linguistics professor which was about this phenomenon. Apparently it became a popular story in SIL-Wycliffe circles and I get the idea that it is much more broadly known. So readers probably know of it. The title was something like “Fear of the Hapax.” And the illustration was the classic one about the space aliens from thousands of years future visiting a post-apocalyptic earth. They start studying the Ancient English language and race to publish lexicons and descriptive grammars. They deal in homonyms and idioms all sorts of subtle plays on words but fail to recognize them as such. (An example is the phrase “cats and dogs” referring to domesticated animals and the fact that they used to fall from the sky during storms.) McCabe and friends are demonstrating the very same types of naive blunder based on arguments from ignorance. For those with science backgrounds, it will be recognized as another case of confusing correlation with causation. I vaguely recall a satirical Latin phrase referring to this but I can’t remember the exact words. It was translated to something like “Description masquerading as mandamus makes fools of us all.”
I would assume the post-apocalyptic space alien scholars should be a familiar story among American evangelical scholars but then I’m from Indonesia. Even though my early education was through American missionaries and I attended universities in the USA, I don’t always have a good idea what is generally shared evangelical cultural knowledge here and what isn’t. Some of my background in Christian academia is typical and some isn’t.
I feel a little self-conscious posting this without footnotes because much of what I just wrote came from seminary professors who deserve the attributions. I’m in their debt. I can personally attest to the basic linguistics concepts because of my polylingual experiences, obviously. But the illustrations and stories are certainly not my own.
I reckon that if the space-alien linguists story is not a familiar one to most of you here I could summarize it. But this group has a lot of knowledgeable people posting so I don’t want to sound presumptuous as the student who tries to lecture the professors who taught him in the first place.
Let me say that I really respect how American Christians here tend to conduct themselves in a debate very differently than what is the normal in the society I come from, even in our churches, I would say. I will not make a tangent of this topic but, believe me, this is far more civil. The professors on this board state their assessment of the arguments, settle the question, and they move on as you say. They don’t kick-the-dead-donkey until someone asks for mercy. I like your American way better! Much better than the Sulawesi way!
Nineteenth and early twentieth century atheists would have loved to have a “yom with a number” rule, as it would only have strengthened their claim that the Bible and scientific evidence about the age of the earth are incompatible. They would have been rubbing our noses in it all that time. It would have been a massive embarrassment to us as evangelical Christians.
What do we see instead? The first appearance of this rule was in literature as recent as the 1970s from an organisation whose highly profitable business model depends on convincing Bible-believing Christians such as myself that the Bible demands a young earth.
I’ve asked this question before and I’ll ask it again. Are there any sources out there for this rule which can be shown to be independent of, and not influenced by, the young earth movement? Because until and unless I see such sources, I can only assume that this “rule” is a fabrication to make the Bible out to say things that it doesn’t.
[quote=“gbrooks9, post:102, topic:4219”]
LT, you are a most stubborn zealot…
Gen 8:22"While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."
[/quote]Not really a zealot. I just prefer to discussion facts and evidence. But to your point, Gen 8:22 is a different construction.
@Saito, Thanks for responding. It sounds your entire response is essentially a sort of an appeal to authority, as in “McCabe doesn’t have authority that I recognize and therefore we can reject his hypothesis without even considering it.”
I don’t find that to be convincing. Why not interact based on what he actually says? Why not consider the data and see if it is falsifiable? Isn’t that part of the scientific method?
The reference to “rules of language” is a bit misleading. Everyone agrees that language is descriptive not prescriptive. There are no “rules” per se. There are, however, patterns that develop that do make language intelligible. There are always exceptions, particularly in English it seems. Furthermore, the work of exegeting ancient languages is a good deal different than speaking those languages. Even today, people who are fluent in Hebrew cannot easily exegete ancient Hebrew texts. So appealing to multi-lingualism as some sort of authority on exegeting ancient texts is not convincing. Even today, most people fluent in their own language could not exegete it, but they can use it with ease. It’s just the way language works.
[quote=“Saito, post:103, topic:4219”]
Even if EVERY other parallel construction in the HMT happened to point to a particular meaning, it simply would NOT establish the silly “always rule” that McCabe and others are wishing so very hard would help salvage their arguments.
[/quote]Again you seem to misunderstand how language, and particularly ancient language works. Language study is descriptive not prescriptive. This is the way science works (and language). You present a hypothesis. You test it against the evidence and see if it stands up. If it does, you give it more weight.
In these case, McCabe examined every occurrence of a particular construction and found that it always means the same thing. There are no apparent exceptions.
I think the example of cats and dogs (a familiar and helpful one for understanding language) is a good one. When you see “raining cats and dogs” it always has a particular meaning. When you see “raining” it can mean a number of different things. When you see “cats and dogs” it can refer to several different things depending on the context. But when they are together–“raining cats and dogs”–it always means one thing and, to my knowledge, no one has ever come up with an exception to that. Yes, we have to explain that to people who come from another culture and language. But that doesn’t change what it means.
That is essentially the argument here: When you see a certain phrase in Hebrew it appears to always mean one thing and no one has ever come up with an exception to that. Even here, people (like George) tried, and in those cases you notice it is not the same construction. Yes, that has to be explained to people who don’t know Hebrew, but that doesn’t change what it means.
So this would be pretty easy to falsify, I would think. A hypothesis was presented and tested. What linguistic evidence is there that it is incorrect? Can you tell us any evidence that disproves or calls into question the hypothesis? Is it your contention that there are occurrences McCabe and Hasel missed? Or is it your contention that the others exist but Gen 1 is an exception?
[quote=“Saito, post:103, topic:4219”]
Does it seem at all surprising that this alleged rule-of-grammar never existed before a bunch of young earth creationists from the creation science movement invented it a very few years ago?
[/quote]No, not to me. Imagine if you held science or math or medicine to this standard: “It can’t be true because no one ever said it before.” Well, that simply won’t work.
But to the point, the idea that the days of Gen 1 are 24 hours is not new at all, nor is it only the view of conservatives. Others have held this for a long time.
[quote=“Saito, post:103, topic:4219”]
Of course until McCabe’s paper gets beyond such an obvious linguistic fallacy of “Holy Spirit Hebrew”,
[/quote]I don’t think McCabe believes in Holy Spirit Hebrew. There is no reason to think that he does, and the evidence is that he isn’t appealing to the Holy Spirit for this meaning and he isn’t appealing to some unique situation. He is appealing to exegesis that can be reviewed and studied by anyone interested. This is a simple matter of exegesis.
Why don’t you give us your explanation of the data he presents and explain from the text why these mean something else?