Scientist claims black holes don't exist....

[abelcainsbrother]

I hear alittle tussle going on between Young earthers and Old earthers but lets not forget God speaks things into existence he is more powerful than we can imagine.Now here is why I think the 6 days of creation are 24 hour days despite "a day is a thousand years to God" stuff because of what it tells us Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day,and the darkness he called Night.And the evening and the morning were the first day." This verse reveals not only was the earth spinning in its orbit but it is a 24 hour day too so this is why I believe they were 24 hour days.As for the black hole link it is too new to say how this may effect science,it will take time to trickle throughout the scientific community but I don't think it hurts Christian apologetics as I have questioned the validity of the BBT myself before so I don't think it is a big deal right now.

[1over137]

Take particular note of the edit at the beginning in this article.

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/new- ... ack-holes/

And here we have a theoretical physicist claiming the paper is nonsense.
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/physi ... -not-exist

[Philip]

here is why I think the 6 days of creation are 24 hour days despite "a day is a thousand years to God" stuff because of what it tells us Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day,and the darkness he called Night.And the evening and the morning were the first day." This verse reveals not only was the earth spinning in its orbit but it is a 24 hour day too so this is why I believe they were 24 hour days.

And so, a literal interpretation derives literal 24-hour days, which requires three days in which the sun supposedly didn't even exist? Where did the daylight come from on those three LITERAL days? Don't ALL literal days require sunlight?

[abelcainsbrother]

here is why I think the 6 days of creation are 24 hour days despite "a day is a thousand years to God" stuff because of what it tells us Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day,and the darkness he called Night.And the evening and the morning were the first day." This verse reveals not only was the earth spinning in its orbit but it is a 24 hour day too so this is why I believe they were 24 hour days.

And so, a literal interpretation derives literal 24-hour days, which requires three days in which the sun supposedly didn't even exist? Where did the daylight come from on those three LITERAL days? Don't ALL literal days require sunlight?

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. When I think of heaven I think of the entire universe this includes stars,planets,the sun,moon,etc.It gets confusing though on day 4 but God simply turns the stars,sun,etc back on as God turning them off would flood the universe with water this is why he made them on day 4 there is a difference in the words create and made in the hebrew.We believe Jeremiah 4:23-28 describes what happened and cannot be a future prophecy based on future bible prophecy.Kinda like Revelation 12:7-9 is a look back in time and not a future prophecy.http://www.livescience.com/8550-star-su ... tists.html

[1over137]

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/09/25/y ... ack-holes/

[Kurieuo]

Jac, below isn't necessarily just directed as you... as I'm sure you'll agree with me on many points.
But your words, just evoked within me a desire to respond to some issues I often see repeated in the YEC/OEC discussion or debate.

All in all, it's just a silly argument (no offense intended). If you are going to critique YEC, you need to be honest with the position and critique it within its own principles. Otherwise, you are just begging the question. When I critique OEC, that's exactly what I try to do. The one thing I find respectable about OEC (in theory) is that it claims to take the Bible literally. It isn't so silly as to attempt an allegorical interpretation, and it at least pretends to take Moses' intentions seriously. But my consistent point is that you can't be a consistent OEC and really hold that Moses intended the interpretational scheme Ross and others promote. Eventually, you have to end up using accommodationist principles and appealing to a distinction between God's meaning and Moses' meaning, and that before we get into clearly eisogetical arguments like using Psalms as an interpretive lens for Genesis 1. My point is that I can take OEC's stated hermeneutical principles and show how on those same principles OEC doesn't pan out. But your arguments don't give YEC that same benefit. You assume an OEC stance and use that stance to critique YEC, which is all but useless for furthering the discussion.

I personally find the word "literal" when discussing correct Scriptural interpretations not that helpful.
Appreciate the half-compliment towards my own position (Day-Age) but really when one uses that term I feel that it needs defining.

For language is not so simple as to say an understanding based upon "literalness" is the correct one.
Especially when talking of translations, for any literalness is already gone the moment a translation occurs.

If by "literal" one means the "author's intended meaning" then what about when authors write poetically, use cultural phrases or literary styles?
A "literal" reading would misunderstand the author's actual intended meaning of his/her words in these instances.

If by "literal" one means the correct meaning, well this is to be debated.
In this instance, no one can claim to have the more "literal" interpretation for the correct interpretation is what's being debated.
Both sides need to put forward their arguments and reasons in order to decide the winner (which not everyone will agree on!).

Furthermore, in a language with only several thousand words versus a language with hundreds and thousands of words, we are going to find some very "compact" words.
This is where a lot of the debate and confusion comes into play -- for a "day" in the English sense is not really yom as the Hebrews would have understood.
The actual language and words used would take growing up in the actual culture to fully understand each in their truly correct sense.

Now if by "literal" one means takes Scripture seriously, then literal should perhaps be avoided.

So I place on the table that using the term "literal" is any sense when talking of Scripture is by no means helpful to discussions over correct interpretations.
Rather, it seems to me that invoking "literal" is often another way of saying "my understanding is the correct meaning of the text" while yours in wrong.
Which is what is being debated in the first place.

Day-Age Clarification: Accomodationist or Compatibilist?

In the instance of YEC and OEC Day-Age, these are two real possible interpretations that take Scripture seriously.
That much can be said, and I'd clearly agree with you if that is what you intended by "literal".

In other words there is no real YEC or Day-Age proponent who would question Scripture as a reliable source of knowledge.
Both value and virtue Scripture believing it to be a part of God's special revelation.

A main misunderstanding I'd like to weigh in on is of the Day-Age interpretation being an "Accomodationist" approach, or reducible to such. Firstly,

The Day-Age position is not based upon reading Scripture in light of Science.
The Day-Age position is not based upon reading Science in the light of Scripture.

Day-Agers cop the accomodationist label from both directions here -- YECs and staunch Science advocates.
When in fact, the Day-Age position is based upon a Compatibilist approach.

There is nothing wrong with this. Thomas Aquinas, for whom many have great respect, embraces both special revelation and natural knowledge gained via reason.
The former often creates the outline (e.g., leads to knowledge of God) the latter fills in the details (e.g., knowledge about God, us, grace, salvation, etc).

On many occasions, Scripture doesn't touch upon Science nor vice-versa Science upon Scripture.
They are after all two very different sources and often have different purposes.

Where they do come together on some truth the true Compatibilist will not forsake one for the other.
Rather, they will consider all possibilities in Scripture and all possibilities in Science to try and determine the best conclusion.

It is foundational to the Compatibilist that both will never clash if each are properly interpreted and understood.
One is not accommodating anything into either side... but rather drawing the most compatible solution based on two assumed reliable sources of knowledge.

The important point here to understand with the Compatibilist is:
There will never be instance where one needs to forsake Scripture, nor forsake reason and experience (natural knowledge including the physical sciences).

So to claim a Compatibilist would forsake Scripture or Science if faced with say some scientific discovery that proves God didn't create the universe or life -- this is just untenable.
In the eyes of the Compatibilist, such has never occurred to date and will never occur.
While greater clarity may be had over time both will always be compatible with a correct understanding.

Does it matter who penned Scripture?

This is a side issue, but I'm personally not at all phased that the author, whether Moses or what-have-you, actually knew the full thrust of the words being used.
This doesn't bother me at all and in fact to think the author must know the full scope of their writing I think downplays God's inspirational role.

God is the ultimate mastermind directing the author like the strong wind forcing a boat in a particular direction (the Greek word for "moved" in 2 Peter 1:21 is the same word found in Acts 27:15-17)
So what really matters is what God, the true author, intended for His revelation.
And I believe God is brilliant enough to write to many audiences through the one pen aka scribe.
Problem solved.

Finally, for us as Christians... as often gets repeated by those on both sides.
What matters in all this is coming to a knowledge of God and believing in Jesus' words.
Believing in Jesus provides ultimate meaning and purpose in life, and obviously means grace rather than judgement.

You know I use to really give a damn about debating the Genesis Creation. But now, it's like I'm not at all phased about who is right.
What I believe and what others believe can be different as long as they truly know what matters.

I often think God often looks down upon Christians, so passionately defending their positions, and smiles in a manner like we'd smile at these kids:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKdDyyanGk[/youtube]

[Jac3510]

Jac, below isn't necessarily just directed as you... as I'm sure you'll agree with me on many points.

Many, yes, but all the same, let me offer some thoughts on your thoughts

I personally find the word "literal" when discussing correct Scriptural interpretations not that helpful.

First point of agreement, but it's used all the same. Charles Ryrie talks about this extensively in his book Dispensationalism Today. One such comment from him: "The word literal is perhaps not as good as either the word normal or plain, but in any case it is an interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation often does." Obviously, he's talking about dispensationalism, but the point holds the same here.

Appreciate the half-compliment towards my own position (Day-Age) but really when one uses that term I feel that it needs defining.

It's a real compliment. I just think that ultimately it fails to do what it claims to do. Let me quote from Rich:

• Even though the Genesis text clearly indicates that the days are longer than 24-hours, some Christians insist that any interpretation of Genesis 1 that deviates from 24-hour days is not literal. The problem is that the Hebrew word yom has three literal definitions - 12 hour daylight period, 24 period of time, or a long, but indefinite period of time. A careful reading of the Genesis creation account reveals that the 24-hour interpretation is ruled out by the actual Genesis text. The first definitive example of a day that is longer than 24-hours can be found in the beginning of the Genesis 2 creation account, which says that the entire six days of creation are one day.

So Rich is on the right track. The Day-Age view purports to be a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, insofar as it takes yom in a plain, non-allegorized sense. The argument is that yom literally refers to an age. In a bit more technical language, on the Day-Age view, the referent of the sign yom is the same referent as the sign of the English word "age". And that is the strength of the position. It claims to be an actual interpretation of the text as it is written. The moment you allow yom to actually refer to a 24-hour day, but then say that this "day" is actually symbolic of or a metaphor for a long period of time, you have moved away from a literal (which is to say, normal) hermeneutic. You are now allegorizing. But more on that below.

For language is not so simple as to say an understanding based upon "literalness" is the correct one.
Especially when talking of translations, for any literalness is already gone the moment a translation occurs.

If by "literal" one means the "author's intended meaning" then what about when authors write poetically, use cultural phrases or literary styles?
A "literal" reading would misunderstand the author's actual intended meaning of his/her words in these instances.

So there is a cliche among translators: "All translators are traitors," or put more politely, "All translations are commentaries." But that doesn't mean that we can't get at the literal (which is to say, normal) meaning of the text. It just means we have to describe in our language what the author was referring to in their own. So, on the Day-Age view, yom is literally referring to an age. And my argument is that you cannot consistently hold to that position for reasons I've already stated.

As such, then, when an author intends on using a metaphor, then the "literal" meaning of the metaphor is translated into the receptor language according to the intended meaning. It's well understood, for instance, that idioms cannot be directly translated. For instance, the Spanish idiom "mandar a paseo" would "literally" be translated "send a ride." Here, "literal" means taking words according to their "normal" meaning, without reference to their context. But, of course, context is king, and in Spanish, those words form a context that creates an idiom. The closest English version of that idiom we have is "take a hike!" But that, of course, is an idiom on its own! "Take a hike" taken "literally" in English would imply possessing a journey, which is just silly. So if I were offering a literal translation, I would either render the phrase, "Take a hike" (so translating idiom for idiom) or else, "Go away" (which is the real idea).

Of course, when you can keep the first and second language closer, then it is fine to do so. "My God is a Rock" can be translated rather directly from most languages into one another. You don't have to translate the meaning, because the languages are such that they usually allow us to translate word for word and still preserve the metaphor.

So that's all well and good, and I know you know all that. My point, with respect to the Day-Age view, is that, again, it's strength is that it claims to follow these basic rules of translation and interpretation. It doesn't take Genesis 1 in a metaphorical sense. It claims to take it forward in a straightforward, normal manner. OEC's problem with YEC is that OEC believes that YEC has the wrong referent for yom. We think yom literally refers to a 24 hour day; OEC thinks that yom literally refers to an age.

If by "literal" one means the correct meaning, well this is to be debated.
In this instance, no one can claim to have the more "literal" interpretation for the correct interpretation is what's being debated.
Both sides need to put forward their arguments and reasons in order to decide the winner (which not everyone will agree on!).

No, literal can't mean "correct." That's just begging the question. Again, "literal" has everything to do with the referent of the sign. Individual words are signs that have referents. Sometimes, individual words do NOT have individual referents, but collections of words do (as in the case of idioms). Yet still in those cases, the sign has a referent, and a literal interpretation points to that referent directly. In cases of metaphor, it is the referents themselves that point beyond themselves to another idea. So "God is my Rock" allows that the sign "Rock" refers to normal rock, but then we look for what is called the salient feature of the rock (it's hardness or firmness) and attribute that to the subject, God. So a literal translation would attempt to preserve the metaphor and bring each individual sign (word) across so that salient feature can be seen in the receptor language as well as it was in the original. For, in the case of metaphor in particular, the depth of the meaning is not merely found in the signs and referents but in the beauty or weight of the comparison.

Furthermore, in a language with only several thousand words versus a language with hundreds and thousands of words, we are going to find some very "compact" words.
This is where a lot of the debate and confusion comes into play -- for a "day" in the English sense is not really yom as the Hebrews would have understood.
The actual language and words used would take growing up in the actual culture to fully understand each in their truly correct sense.

The question is not, never has been, and never will be over whether or not "day" is a 1:1 translation of yom. No one thinks it is. The question is what precisely the referent for yom is and then what is the best word in English that points to that same referent.

One of the first things I learned in translation is that flash cards are terrible things. They wrongly suggest that this word means that word. "'Yom' means 'day'," we say. But that's just false. "Yom" does not mean "day" any more than "Dios" in Spanish means "God" or "Angyong" in Korean means "Hello." Rather, "Yom," "Dios," and "anygong" all have their own referents, and the English words "Day," "God," and "Hello" all point to those same respective referents in some cases.

Again, I know you know all this. But it highlights the linguistic nature of the OEC/YEC debate. If OEC does not want to be labeled as an allegorical interpretation (and Deem and Ross and others take great pains to insist it is not), then it must show that its interpretation of the Hebrew words take those words according to their normal meanings and that they point to their normal referents. I simply think that they fail to do so consistently.

Now if by "literal" one means takes Scripture seriously, then literal should perhaps be avoided.

Thankfully, that's not what "literal" means!

So I place on the table that using the term "literal" is any sense when talking of Scripture is by no means helpful to discussions over correct interpretations.
Rather, it seems to me that invoking "literal" is often another way of saying "my understanding is the correct meaning of the text" while yours in wrong.
Which is what is being debated in the first place.

I don't agree with that assessment. I think that arguing over the word "literal" is a red herring. When we are asking which interpretation is literal, we are not asking which is correct. We are asking which one is allowing the original language to points to its normal referents and which one has the original language pointing to referents completely unrelated to the signs associated with them. When TEs take "Adam" and "Eve" to be symbolic figures, or when some in the ancient church took "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" to refer to sex, they were having those signs refer to concepts they were normally unrelated to. That makes their interpretation allegorical, and that makes their interpretation subjective and completely unreliable, and therefore, such an "interpretation" ought to be rejected.

Day-Age Clarification: Accomodationist or Compatibilist?

In the instance of YEC and OEC Day-Age, these are two real possible interpretations that take Scripture seriously.
That much can be said, and I'd clearly agree with you if that is what you intended by "literal".

In other words there is no real YEC or Day-Age proponent who would question Scripture as a reliable source of knowledge.
Both value and virtue Scripture believing it to be a part of God's special revelation.

A main misunderstanding I'd like to weigh in on is of the Day-Age interpretation being an "Accomodationist" approach, or reducible to such. Firstly,

The Day-Age position is not based upon reading Scripture in light of Science.
The Day-Age position is not based upon reading Science in the light of Scripture.

That's the claim. And it has to be the claim, since it claims to be a literal interpretation. By nature, no literal interpretation can be based on an external influence such as modern science. The moment you permit eisogesis, you have the signs referring to concepts foreign to them, and you are therefore no longer offering a literal interpretation.

I just don't think the claim holds up under scrutiny. That's all!

Day-Agers cop the accomodationist label from both directions here -- YECs and staunch Science advocates.
When in fact, the Day-Age position is based upon a Compatibilist approach.

There is nothing wrong with this. Thomas Aquinas, for whom many have great respect, embraces both special revelation and natural knowledge gained via reason.
The former often creates the outline (e.g., leads to knowledge of God) the latter fills in the details (e.g., knowledge about God, us, grace, salvation, etc).

On many occasions, Scripture doesn't touch upon Science nor vice-versa Science upon Scripture.
They are after all two very different sources and often have different purposes.

Where they do come together on some truth the true Compatibilist will not forsake one for the other.
Rather, they will consider all possibilities in Scripture and all possibilities in Science to try and determine the best conclusion.

It is foundational to the Compatibilist that both will never clash if each are properly interpreted and understood.
One is not accommodating anything into either side... but rather drawing the most compatible solution based on two assumed reliable sources of knowledge.

The important point here to understand with the Compatibilist is:
There will never be instance where one needs to forsake Scripture, nor forsake reason and experience (natural knowledge including the physical sciences).

So to claim a Compatibilist would forsake Scripture or Science if faced with say some scientific discovery that proves God didn't create the universe or life -- this is just untenable.
In the eyes of the Compatibilist, such has never occurred to date and will never occur.
While greater clarity may be had over time both will always be compatible with a correct understanding.

But this is why I am not a compatibilist, because your compatibilism denies literalism.

What your compatibilism does is take a series of possible meanings and then compare those possible meanings with external sources and ask which interpretation best fits that external evidence. In doing so, you permit that external evidence to be the lens by which you select your meaning. That is interpreting Scripture though science.

To claim you have a literal--that is, a normal, non-eisogetical, non-metaphorical--interpretation, you have to show that your interpretation is warranted by the text alone. Now, as a Christian, I take it on faith that what the Scripture says will line up with science. And where there is a mismatch, we have every right to reexamine our interpretations of both sources. But we are not to use science as a lens or siphon whereby we select an interpretation so that it may fit with science. Rather, when we see a problem, we go back to the text and say, "Wait, is my interpretation textually warranted, or have I imported assumptions from outside the text?"

OEC, then, can ask YEC's about imported assumptions (and YECs can do so about OECs, obviously). But OECs cannot use science as an argument that the YEC interpretation is wrong. And if OEC thinks YEC has imported assumptions, OEC must state them and show where at a textual level. And on that point, I think OEC raises some good points. It certainly does appear, for instance, per the OEC argument, that the creation account of Genesis 1 is told from the perspective of earth. And Gen 1:1's use of "the heavens and the earth" seem to constitute a merism that means the whole universe, and thus, it seems that OEC interpreters have a strong case when they say that the sun was actually created on Day 1. So the OEC answer on the Sun "appearing" on Day 4 seems textually warranted. So those are the kinds of places where our assumptions are worth checking out in the text! But the central argument--that yom refers to an age, does not seem to stand up to scrutiny, for reasons I've outlined elsewhere.

Does it matter who penned Scripture?

This is a side issue, but I'm personally not at all phased that the author, whether Moses or what-have-you, actually knew the full thrust of the words being used.
This doesn't bother me at all and in fact to think the author must know the full scope of their writing I think downplays God's inspirational role.

God is the ultimate mastermind directing the author like the strong wind forcing a boat in a particular direction (the Greek word for "moved" in 2 Peter 1:21 is the same word found in Acts 27:15-17)
So what really matters is what God, the true author, intended for His revelation.
And I believe God is brilliant enough to write to many audiences through the one pen aka scribe.
Problem solved.

Finally, for us as Christians... as often gets repeated by those on both sides.
What matters in all this is coming to a knowledge of God and believing in Jesus' words.
Believing in Jesus provides ultimate meaning and purpose in life, and obviously means grace rather than judgement.

You know I use to really give a damn about debating the Genesis Creation. But now, it's like I'm not at all phased about who is right.
What I believe and what others believe can be different as long as they truly know what matters.

I'm with you in that I don't care who is right. But my concern is the hermeneutics. OEC hermeneutics are, in my assessment inconsistent. And I worry about the theological implications. I've argued about Rom 5:12 and Rom 8 for years now on this board. Allowing death before the Fall is a MAJOR problem theologically. And it has very PRACTICAL ramifications. As a hospital chaplain, it goes to the very heart of my pastoral theology. To permit death before the fall is to permit death and suffering to be natural. And that simply does not work . . . not at the hospital bedside. You want to talk about God being the ultimate author of Scripture, and therefore, humans can be ignorant of what they were really writing. I don't buy that, but fine. What I want to talk about is the fact that God wasn't writing to answer our mere curiosities. He was writing to teach us something about ourselves and our place in this world, what it is, what it isn't, and what it should be. When I am ministering to a mother who has just lost her two week old son, it is helpful to know that this suffering is not natural. It is, in fact, unnatural. And it is due completely and entirely to the brokenness of our spirits, and that this brokenness, since it affects the very image of God, affects the creation over which this image rules. And that points to a hope that all will be made right again (1 Thess 4:13). See, for me, a theology of restoration and redemption isn't just rooted in God's decision to do something for us at the Cross. It's rooted in the fact that God is putting things back like they ought to be, and that word "ought" is the one that has full importance. OEC doesn't--it cannot--see redemption as a matter of "ought." It is NOT true that we ought to have a world in which there ought to be no death. To the contrary, we live in a world where death ought to reign! "This is what is supposed to happen," I have to think to myself, when I see death and suffering. The appeal to redemption, then, is actually not an appeal to redemption at all but an appeal to recreation. That's certainly a matter of grace. I would never deny that. But it is missing the redemptive aspect that makes the whole biblical narrative so powerful, and what makes it so pastoral.

I can literally take the suffering by the hand, look them in the eye, and say, "It was not supposed to be this way. You have suffered a great evil, and God will make it right." I can only say that because of my theology of Genesis 1.

So I could not care any less than I do about how old the universe is. What I care about is what kind of world Genesis 1 has God creating. OEC paints a picture of a world that is at odds with the rest of Scripture, so far as I can see it. And, linguistically, I don't see any warrant for holding to it. And so I don't! Obviously, I don't challenge anyone's salvation or piety or love for the Lord or love for Scripture over their interpretation of Genesis 1. But I do think that OEC is a deficient theology and that it fails offer any kind of linguistic warrant for its position.

I often think God often looks down upon Christians, so passionately defending their positions, and smiles in a manner like we'd smile at these kids:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKdDyyanGk[/youtube]

Haha . . . I enjoyed that. Very cute! :lol I hope my words don't poke your heart, K!

[Kurieuo]

Jac, below isn't necessarily just directed as you... as I'm sure you'll agree with me on many points.

Many, yes, but all the same, let me offer some thoughts on your thoughts

I personally find the word "literal" when discussing correct Scriptural interpretations not that helpful.

First point of agreement, but it's used all the same. Charles Ryrie talks about this extensively in his book Dispensationalism Today. One such comment from him: "The word literal is perhaps not as good as either the word normal or plain, but in any case it is an interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation often does." Obviously, he's talking about dispensationalism, but the point holds the same here.

Appreciate the half-compliment towards my own position (Day-Age) but really when one uses that term I feel that it needs defining.

It's a real compliment. I just think that ultimately it fails to do what it claims to do. Let me quote from Rich:

• Even though the Genesis text clearly indicates that the days are longer than 24-hours, some Christians insist that any interpretation of Genesis 1 that deviates from 24-hour days is not literal. The problem is that the Hebrew word yom has three literal definitions - 12 hour daylight period, 24 period of time, or a long, but indefinite period of time. A careful reading of the Genesis creation account reveals that the 24-hour interpretation is ruled out by the actual Genesis text. The first definitive example of a day that is longer than 24-hours can be found in the beginning of the Genesis 2 creation account, which says that the entire six days of creation are one day.

So Rich is on the right track. The Day-Age view purports to be a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, insofar as it takes yom in a plain, non-allegorized sense. The argument is that yom literally refers to an age. In a bit more technical language, on the Day-Age view, the referent of the sign yom is the same referent as the sign of the English word "age". And that is the strength of the position. It claims to be an actual interpretation of the text as it is written. The moment you allow yom to actually refer to a 24-hour day, but then say that this "day" is actually symbolic of or a metaphor for a long period of time, you have moved away from a literal (which is to say, normal) hermeneutic. You are now allegorizing. But more on that below.

For language is not so simple as to say an understanding based upon "literalness" is the correct one.
Especially when talking of translations, for any literalness is already gone the moment a translation occurs.

If by "literal" one means the "author's intended meaning" then what about when authors write poetically, use cultural phrases or literary styles?
A "literal" reading would misunderstand the author's actual intended meaning of his/her words in these instances.

So there is a cliche among translators: "All translators are traitors," or put more politely, "All translations are commentaries." But that doesn't mean that we can't get at the literal (which is to say, normal) meaning of the text. It just means we have to describe in our language what the author was referring to in their own. So, on the Day-Age view, yom is literally referring to an age. And my argument is that you cannot consistently hold to that position for reasons I've already stated.

As such, then, when an author intends on using a metaphor, then the "literal" meaning of the metaphor is translated into the receptor language according to the intended meaning. It's well understood, for instance, that idioms cannot be directly translated. For instance, the Spanish idiom "mandar a paseo" would "literally" be translated "send a ride." Here, "literal" means taking words according to their "normal" meaning, without reference to their context. But, of course, context is king, and in Spanish, those words form a context that creates an idiom. The closest English version of that idiom we have is "take a hike!" But that, of course, is an idiom on its own! "Take a hike" taken "literally" in English would imply possessing a journey, which is just silly. So if I were offering a literal translation, I would either render the phrase, "Take a hike" (so translating idiom for idiom) or else, "Go away" (which is the real idea).

Of course, when you can keep the first and second language closer, then it is fine to do so. "My God is a Rock" can be translated rather directly from most languages into one another. You don't have to translate the meaning, because the languages are such that they usually allow us to translate word for word and still preserve the metaphor.

So that's all well and good, and I know you know all that. My point, with respect to the Day-Age view, is that, again, it's strength is that it claims to follow these basic rules of translation and interpretation. It doesn't take Genesis 1 in a metaphorical sense. It claims to take it forward in a straightforward, normal manner. OEC's problem with YEC is that OEC believes that YEC has the wrong referent for yom. We think yom literally refers to a 24 hour day; OEC thinks that yom literally refers to an age.

If by "literal" one means the correct meaning, well this is to be debated.
In this instance, no one can claim to have the more "literal" interpretation for the correct interpretation is what's being debated.
Both sides need to put forward their arguments and reasons in order to decide the winner (which not everyone will agree on!).

No, literal can't mean "correct." That's just begging the question. Again, "literal" has everything to do with the referent of the sign. Individual words are signs that have referents. Sometimes, individual words do NOT have individual referents, but collections of words do (as in the case of idioms). Yet still in those cases, the sign has a referent, and a literal interpretation points to that referent directly. In cases of metaphor, it is the referents themselves that point beyond themselves to another idea. So "God is my Rock" allows that the sign "Rock" refers to normal rock, but then we look for what is called the salient feature of the rock (it's hardness or firmness) and attribute that to the subject, God. So a literal translation would attempt to preserve the metaphor and bring each individual sign (word) across so that salient feature can be seen in the receptor language as well as it was in the original. For, in the case of metaphor in particular, the depth of the meaning is not merely found in the signs and referents but in the beauty or weight of the comparison.

Furthermore, in a language with only several thousand words versus a language with hundreds and thousands of words, we are going to find some very "compact" words.
This is where a lot of the debate and confusion comes into play -- for a "day" in the English sense is not really yom as the Hebrews would have understood.
The actual language and words used would take growing up in the actual culture to fully understand each in their truly correct sense.

The question is not, never has been, and never will be over whether or not "day" is a 1:1 translation of yom. No one thinks it is. The question is what precisely the referent for yom is and then what is the best word in English that points to that same referent.

One of the first things I learned in translation is that flash cards are terrible things. They wrongly suggest that this word means that word. "'Yom' means 'day'," we say. But that's just false. "Yom" does not mean "day" any more than "Dios" in Spanish means "God" or "Angyong" in Korean means "Hello." Rather, "Yom," "Dios," and "anygong" all have their own referents, and the English words "Day," "God," and "Hello" all point to those same respective referents in some cases.

Again, I know you know all this. But it highlights the linguistic nature of the OEC/YEC debate. If OEC does not want to be labeled as an allegorical interpretation (and Deem and Ross and others take great pains to insist it is not), then it must show that its interpretation of the Hebrew words take those words according to their normal meanings and that they point to their normal referents. I simply think that they fail to do so consistently.

Now if by "literal" one means takes Scripture seriously, then literal should perhaps be avoided.

Thankfully, that's not what "literal" means!

So I place on the table that using the term "literal" is any sense when talking of Scripture is by no means helpful to discussions over correct interpretations.
Rather, it seems to me that invoking "literal" is often another way of saying "my understanding is the correct meaning of the text" while yours in wrong.
Which is what is being debated in the first place.

I don't agree with that assessment. I think that arguing over the word "literal" is a red herring. When we are asking which interpretation is literal, we are not asking which is correct. We are asking which one is allowing the original language to points to its normal referents and which one has the original language pointing to referents completely unrelated to the signs associated with them. When TEs take "Adam" and "Eve" to be symbolic figures, or when some in the ancient church took "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" to refer to sex, they were having those signs refer to concepts they were normally unrelated to. That makes their interpretation allegorical, and that makes their interpretation subjective and completely unreliable, and therefore, such an "interpretation" ought to be rejected.

Jac, thank you for responding.

You've moved me to reclaim a coherent understanding of "literal" again.

Many years ago I debated someone else on this board re: "literal" vs "allegorical". Being Day-Age, I obviously argued for a "literal" reading of Genesis, but then to make a point he absolutely confused me by pushing me to defend what I meant by "literal". This wasn't immediately obvious, but over the course of our exchanges I tripped up many times in my definition of what a "literal understanding" was -- going from "literal reading" to "what the author literally meant" and then back again.

Seeing my equivocation left me confused as to what I really meant. To the point I did not see any benefit to using the term "literal" anymore. I could never unpack it, or perhaps embarrassed by my inconsistent use of it, never thought to attempt to do so as you did here.

So for many years I dropped using the term since I felt it was almost meaningless. While I'd think many who invoke the term "literal" do not truly understand what they mean by it either -- you've done well to convince me that there is a coherent case for reclaiming it.

Will respond to the rest of your post separate, but your words have been fairly relaxed so thanks for not poking my heart.

[Kurieuo]

Day-Age Clarification: Accomodationist or Compatibilist?

In the instance of YEC and OEC Day-Age, these are two real possible interpretations that take Scripture seriously.
That much can be said, and I'd clearly agree with you if that is what you intended by "literal".

In other words there is no real YEC or Day-Age proponent who would question Scripture as a reliable source of knowledge.
Both value and virtue Scripture believing it to be a part of God's special revelation.

A main misunderstanding I'd like to weigh in on is of the Day-Age interpretation being an "Accomodationist" approach, or reducible to such. Firstly,

The Day-Age position is not based upon reading Scripture in light of Science.
The Day-Age position is not based upon reading Science in the light of Scripture.

That's the claim. And it has to be the claim, since it claims to be a literal interpretation. By nature, no literal interpretation can be based on an external influence such as modern science. The moment you permit eisogesis, you have the signs referring to concepts foreign to them, and you are therefore no longer offering a literal interpretation.

Agree.

I just don't think the claim holds up under scrutiny. That's all!

Clearly you don't, but likewise the YEC needs to be careful.

I've seen their own science applied to Scripture which I recall you also don't like YECs doing.

However, more than that, any way you slice it, we are always going apply reason to Scripture. It is unavoidable.
This "reason" often includes many things about reality and how we perceive the world.
Such that, we will be more prone to accept one reading over another, where two or more exist.

Perhaps a not-so-readily obvious eisogesis that I see YECs guilty of pertains to popularised thought circulated during the early 20th century.
That is, the Scofield Reference Bible where many likely first encountered Archbishop James Ussher's calculation of the date of Creation as 4004 BC.
And the spark this lit about the correct interpretation of the Genesis Creation for many churches and Christians.

It is important to know the influencing factors.
Certain theological ideas and thinking (e.g., an acceptance of Ussher's chronology) was a highly influencing factor for a YEC interpretation.
As such, I believe many YECs are guilty of reading into Scripture what is not actually there.

So while YECs may not as evidently draw upon science as a source of knowledge when reading Scripture (I believe they still do), it still has its own modern influences.

Day-Agers cop the accomodationist label from both directions here -- YECs and staunch Science advocates.
When in fact, the Day-Age position is based upon a Compatibilist approach.

There is nothing wrong with this. Thomas Aquinas, for whom many have great respect, embraces both special revelation and natural knowledge gained via reason.
The former often creates the outline (e.g., leads to knowledge of God) the latter fills in the details (e.g., knowledge about God, us, grace, salvation, etc).

On many occasions, Scripture doesn't touch upon Science nor vice-versa Science upon Scripture.
They are after all two very different sources and often have different purposes.

Where they do come together on some truth the true Compatibilist will not forsake one for the other.
Rather, they will consider all possibilities in Scripture and all possibilities in Science to try and determine the best conclusion.

It is foundational to the Compatibilist that both will never clash if each are properly interpreted and understood.
One is not accommodating anything into either side... but rather drawing the most compatible solution based on two assumed reliable sources of knowledge.

The important point here to understand with the Compatibilist is:
There will never be instance where one needs to forsake Scripture, nor forsake reason and experience (natural knowledge including the physical sciences).

So to claim a Compatibilist would forsake Scripture or Science if faced with say some scientific discovery that proves God didn't create the universe or life -- this is just untenable.
In the eyes of the Compatibilist, such has never occurred to date and will never occur.
While greater clarity may be had over time both will always be compatible with a correct understanding.

But this is why I am not a compatibilist, because your compatibilism denies literalism.

What your compatibilism does is take a series of possible meanings and then compare those possible meanings with external sources and ask which interpretation best fits that external evidence. In doing so, you permit that external evidence to be the lens by which you select your meaning. That is interpreting Scripture though science.

Look, the moment a Compatibilist denies "literalism" -- a plain reading of Scripture as you previously defined -- then they stop being a Compatibilist.

However, as long as a particular referent is justified (e.g., yom either sunrise to sunset, or as a symbol of an unspecified length of time), then we still have a "literal" interpretation.

So just because a Day-Age person might read through the lens of their scientific understanding (and we all carry our own lens -- no one is entirely neutral), and opt for one referent over another with a Hebrew word, doesn't mean it is not a literal interpretation.

Rather, there are possible "literal" interpretations of Scripture, and by that I mean ones that remain faithful to Scripture according to the original language -- a plain understanding according to the original language and literary styles.

If your compliment of the OE Day-Age position is a full compliment because it treats Scripture literally, then no amount science brought to the table can render that interpretation non-literal.

It is a rather odd conclusion that a literal reading of Scripture can be denied on the basis of an interpreter's reading lens rather than what Scripture itself actually says.

Consider your argument as:
1) If one reads Scripture through the lens of Science, then the resulting interpretation is not a literal interpretation.
2) Compatibilists read Scripture through the lens of Science.
3) Therefore the Compatibilist has a non-literal interpretation.

While obviously valid, the argument is unsound. It does not follow.
It doesn't follow that a non-literal interpretation will be reached just because one brings to the table a certain lens.
At least, no more than say carrying a lens that includes James Ussher's 4004 BC date of creation would lead to a non-literal interpretation.

We all have our own lens, and in interpreting Scripture everyone has to carry some sort of logic and reason in.
Yet, our reasoning ability is often limited by emotions and outside influences whether it is science, our culture, friends and family or thoughts of others we respect.
Thankfully, it is not the lens that determines what is not a literal interpretation, but rather what the text itself allows.

To claim you have a literal--that is, a normal, non-eisogetical, non-metaphorical--interpretation, you have to show that your interpretation is warranted by the text alone.

As do YECs carry the same burden.
Would we expect anything less than for a warranted reading to by justified by anything other than the text alone?

But to say that we must bring nothing to the table, no lens through which to read the text, such objectivity can be had by none except God.
I'm sure there is some famous saying somewhere I could find that helps. But, I can't be bothered searching for one so will invent one of my own with some irony:
"One who believes they are objective, subjectively believes they are."

I believe Day-Age proponents like Hugh Ross and the likes of the Biblical scholar Gleason Archer when he was alive, go to great lengths to show a valid "literal" interpretation of Scripture.
You may disagree and believe it an incorrect literal interpretation, but you can't fail Hugh Ross' interpretation based upon his influences any more than he can fault you for your own.

Now, as a Christian, I take it on faith that what the Scripture says will line up with science. And where there is a mismatch, we have every right to reexamine our interpretations of both sources. But we are not to use science as a lens or siphon whereby we select an interpretation so that it may fit with science. Rather, when we see a problem, we go back to the text and say, "Wait, is my interpretation textually warranted, or have I imported assumptions from outside the text?"

Again, I'll just say a literal interpretation should remain a literal interpretation regardless of the person who discovered it and/or what methods they applied.

Consider this.

The moment one changes the literal/plain reading of Scripture to fit in with popular scientific thought,
this is the moment they stop being a Compatibilist and start rejecting Scripture as a valid source of knowledge.

OEC, then, can ask YEC's about imported assumptions (and YECs can do so about OECs, obviously). But OECs cannot use science as an argument that the YEC interpretation is wrong.

At the end of the day we want to know the truth. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
I believe the more Truth someone knows, the closer they are to finding the Way and attaining Life.
So, if the YEC interpretation is not true, then any source of truth that can show that is relevant.

However, I would agree that it would be beneficial to treat Scripture in isolation. Truly, none of us can do this. But as much as is possible, yes.
Challenge interpretations of Scripture separate from presuppositions gained via other sources of knowledge as much as possible.

But, there is so much knowledge one needs to do this, such that I don't see neutrality is possible in a Scripture alone approach.
For example, to read the original Hebrew we need to be taught or know how to read it.
We also should carry with us some good hermetical methods. Which ones should we follow and adhere to and why?
Also, what theological beliefs should we start with? Do we accept God as the author of all Scripture that we have?
Can we bring other books in the Bible to bear on earlier books? Or should we just read the current book stand alone.

So, I don't think it is as black and white as to truly not read Scripture devoid of knowledge gained via other sources of truth.
Given Scripture deals with truth, and physical sciences -- an understanding of the world around us -- deals with truth, then both do have a common bond.

Therefore, I think that science should be brought to bear on Scriptural interpretations if one is seeking Truth.
And when I invoke "science" here, I'm not necessarily talking about your scientific peer reviewed theories and the like.
I'm simply talking about our own direct experiences with the world and understanding thereof.
For example, it makes sense that the Earth is round and not flat when navigating in real life whether by sea or air.
We see apples fall from trees and so accept something like gravity must exist.

All that said, I'd be extremely skeptical and suspicious if there were no Scriptural arguments against the YEC position.
And you and I both know that there are many Scriptural arguments made for Day-Age and against YEC.
You have just weighed them as unimportant or mistaken, and see more Scriptural issues with an OEC Day-Age interpretation than a YEC one.

And if OEC thinks YEC has imported assumptions, OEC must state them and show where at a textual level. And on that point, I think OEC raises some good points. It certainly does appear, for instance, per the OEC argument, that the creation account of Genesis 1 is told from the perspective of earth. And Gen 1:1's use of "the heavens and the earth" seem to constitute a merism that means the whole universe, and thus, it seems that OEC interpreters have a strong case when they say that the sun was actually created on Day 1. So the OEC answer on the Sun "appearing" on Day 4 seems textually warranted. So those are the kinds of places where our assumptions are worth checking out in the text! But the central argument--that yom refers to an age, does not seem to stand up to scrutiny, for reasons I've outlined elsewhere.

I perhaps missed any recent exchanges. I was an avid defender here many years ago.
But, in any case, we all judge for ourselves whether or not we accept something.

Does it matter who penned Scripture?

This is a side issue, but I'm personally not at all phased that the author, whether Moses or what-have-you, actually knew the full thrust of the words being used.
This doesn't bother me at all and in fact to think the author must know the full scope of their writing I think downplays God's inspirational role.

God is the ultimate mastermind directing the author like the strong wind forcing a boat in a particular direction (the Greek word for "moved" in 2 Peter 1:21 is the same word found in Acts 27:15-17)
So what really matters is what God, the true author, intended for His revelation.
And I believe God is brilliant enough to write to many audiences through the one pen aka scribe.
Problem solved.

Finally, for us as Christians... as often gets repeated by those on both sides.
What matters in all this is coming to a knowledge of God and believing in Jesus' words.
Believing in Jesus provides ultimate meaning and purpose in life, and obviously means grace rather than judgement.

You know I use to really give a damn about debating the Genesis Creation. But now, it's like I'm not at all phased about who is right.
What I believe and what others believe can be different as long as they truly know what matters.

I'm with you in that I don't care who is right. But my concern is the hermeneutics. OEC hermeneutics are, in my assessment inconsistent. And I worry about the theological implications. I've argued about Rom 5:12 and Rom 8 for years now on this board. Allowing death before the Fall is a MAJOR problem theologically. And it has very PRACTICAL ramifications. As a hospital chaplain, it goes to the very heart of my pastoral theology. To permit death before the fall is to permit death and suffering to be natural. And that simply does not work . . . not at the hospital bedside. You want to talk about God being the ultimate author of Scripture, and therefore, humans can be ignorant of what they were really writing. I don't buy that, but fine. What I want to talk about is the fact that God wasn't writing to answer our mere curiosities. He was writing to teach us something about ourselves and our place in this world, what it is, what it isn't, and what it should be. When I am ministering to a mother who has just lost her two week old son, it is helpful to know that this suffering is not natural. It is, in fact, unnatural. And it is due completely and entirely to the brokenness of our spirits, and that this brokenness, since it affects the very image of God, affects the creation over which this image rules. And that points to a hope that all will be made right again (1 Thess 4:13). See, for me, a theology of restoration and redemption isn't just rooted in God's decision to do something for us at the Cross. It's rooted in the fact that God is putting things back like they ought to be, and that word "ought" is the one that has full importance. OEC doesn't--it cannot--see redemption as a matter of "ought." It is NOT true that we ought to have a world in which there ought to be no death. To the contrary, we live in a world where death ought to reign! "This is what is supposed to happen," I have to think to myself, when I see death and suffering. The appeal to redemption, then, is actually not an appeal to redemption at all but an appeal to recreation. That's certainly a matter of grace. I would never deny that. But it is missing the redemptive aspect that makes the whole biblical narrative so powerful, and what makes it so pastoral.

I can literally take the suffering by the hand, look them in the eye, and say, "It was not supposed to be this way. You have suffered a great evil, and God will make it right." I can only say that because of my theology of Genesis 1.

I get what you are saying.

You know, Day-Age accept that if mankind had not sinned, then death would not have spread to humanity.
So presuming it's not some animal dying that you're talking to, you can still say "It was not suppose to be this way. You have suffered a great evil, and God will make it right."

However, I feel that is too simple an explanation for YEC or OEC. For example, the common push back from skeptics is, "Couldn't God with all his power have stopped sin from destroying his good creation?" mixed with, "Wouldn't God is he truly loved us have stopped sin?" And now you get into other theological complexities.

So I could not care any less than I do about how old the universe is. What I care about is what kind of world Genesis 1 has God creating. OEC paints a picture of a world that is at odds with the rest of Scripture, so far as I can see it. And, linguistically, I don't see any warrant for holding to it. And so I don't! Obviously, I don't challenge anyone's salvation or piety or love for the Lord or love for Scripture over their interpretation of Genesis 1. But I do think that OEC is a deficient theology and that it fails offer any kind of linguistic warrant for its position.

And that my dear friend is where we respectfully part from each other.

I'll just grant what I believe regarding OEC Day-Age is a deficient theology.
BUT, thankfully God can use the deficient for good.

Speaking for myself, sites like ReasonsToBelieve.org and GodandScience.org helped to strengthen and spur me on as a Christian.
While more so in the past, they have both had a very positive influence on my Christianity and walk with God.

I certainly don't believe they're a deceiving tool of Satan like many a YEC would claim.
Not all YECs! But your Ken Ham/Dr Dino/Answers in Genesis variety.
Ahh heck. This is might start an argument huh?
Hopefully I didn't poke any hearts there!

[PaulSacramento]

The more I study the whole YEC VS OEC thing the more I realize that it only truly matters for the YEC side.

That said, I don't think there will be any conversions on either side of the "extremists" and since BOTH sides hold the bible VERY DEAR, this whole thing should be put in the "interesting but not really relevant for salvation" mindset.

It should NOT be a point of contention between Christians.

[RickD]

The more I study the whole YEC VS OEC thing the more I realize that it only truly matters for the YEC side.

That said, I don't think there will be any conversions on either side of the "extremists" and since BOTH sides hold the bible VERY DEAR, this whole thing should be put in the "interesting but not really relevant for salvation" mindset.

It should NOT be a point of contention between Christians.

Whadda you know anyways, you're a theistic evolution compromiser!!!!

[PaulSacramento]

The more I study the whole YEC VS OEC thing the more I realize that it only truly matters for the YEC side.

That said, I don't think there will be any conversions on either side of the "extremists" and since BOTH sides hold the bible VERY DEAR, this whole thing should be put in the "interesting but not really relevant for salvation" mindset.

It should NOT be a point of contention between Christians.

Whadda you know anyways, you're a theistic evolution compromiser!!!!

True, and I would also accept:
Scientific Theistic turncoat
Accomodist nut rider
Biologolist sympathizer !

[Kurieuo]

I don't mind a bit of contention.
It helps push us to clearer understandings, even if we don't end up agreeing.

I don't know what qualified as extremists, several people have actually changed their position on this board (to my surprise).
Thankfully, there was no threat of violence involved (not much anyway).

So people do shift. In fact, it seems so odd to me, but Jac shifted from an OEC slant over to YEC.
Damn you Jac! Don't you know it's rain? You'll be kicking yourself when we replay in the hereafter.

[Philip]

You'll be kicking yourself when we replay in the hereafter.

I've got a feeling we will ALL be kicking oursevlves over our current understandings, once we are in Heaven. I'm sure that God sees all of our back and forth over various theological subjects to be rather amusing. I can see how His illuminations on various topics might well have us all shaking our heads at just how (we are now) clueless we were over many things. Except OEC contentions , of course.

[PaulSacramento]

You'll be kicking yourself when we replay in the hereafter.

I've got a feeling we will ALL be kicking oursevlves over our current understandings, once we are in Heaven. I'm sure that God sees all of our back and forth over various theological subjects to be rather amusing. I can see how His illuminations on various topics might well have us all shaking our heads at just how (we are now) clueless we were over many things. Except OEC contentions , of course.

I think that He "appreciates' our efforts to know Him, much like we would appreciate the efforts of an ant climbing the leg of an elephant and trying to understand the many functions of it's trunk.