Jac wrote:
I had to put it in a syllogism for you to see that you didn't agree with the second premise?
No Jac. I said:
Jac, thanks for putting your argument in a syllogism. That way I can show you that I do understand the argument. I just disagree with the second premise.
Your putting it is a syllogism makes it easier for me to show you where I disagree. That's all. I'm not a seasoned debater like you are. It takes me a little longer to catch on. And I appreciate you bearing with me. I know how frustrating it can be when it seems someone doesn't understand what we're saying.
Jac wrote:
In any case, I appreciate your attempt to offer a scriptural rebuttal, since that's the only thing that will do. I simply don't find your rebuttal compelling. You point out that on day four the sun is "to separate the day from the night." I've not contested that at all, now have I?
You haven't contested it specifically on day 4. But you said:
The morning/evening cycle is defined by the presence and absence of the light, which God separated from the darkness on day 1. The sun and the rotation of the earth have nothing to do with it, and the text explicitly tells us the purpose of the sun: not to define morning and evening but to govern the day and to serve as a sign of the day.
So, I showed you from scripture, that the text specifically refutes what you said about the sun not having anything to do with separating light from darkness. You said the text was explicit in telling us the purpose of the sun, which was not to define morning and evening.
Jac wrote:
Your problem is that two verses later, the text says, "God made [the sun].
Or it could be translated as, "God
had made the sun." Which means He simply made the sun sometime in the past.
Jac wrote:
The simple fact is that the sun comes after the creation of light. That is completely impossible to get away from. That's been my point the entire time.
And I disagree. It's not a simple fact. It's your interpretation. The sun existed on the first day. The sun is the source of light.
Jac wrote:
So what new thing came about on the fourth day? It wasn't light. The light was already there (and therefore, morning and evening and thus ordinary days were already there). It was the heavenly bodies to govern, to mark the days and the night.
The new thing that came about on the 4th day, was the visibility of the light, from the perspective of the earth's surface. The sun was already there, and so were the stars. They just became visible, which then allowed them to be able to be markers of seasons, days, and years.
Jac wrote:
Again, I've no debate that the sun governs the day, that it separates it from the night. That's never been the question.
Then I completely misread you when you said:
The morning/evening cycle is defined by the presence and absence of the light, which God separated from the darkness on day 1. The sun and the rotation of the earth have nothing to do with it,
You said the sun has nothing to do with God separating light from darkness. And Genesis 1:17-18 seems to show from the text, that you are wrong:
17 God placed them in the [ab]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and [ac]to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Jac wrote:
But it doesn't follow that where there is no sun that there is no light, that there is no morning/evening. All you are doing is the same thing you are doing with the meaning of yom. You are just reading science back into the text. It's eisogesis, Rick. It's bad hermeneutics. And when used against YEC, it's a poor attempt at a cheap shot.
You are the one practicing eisogesis, by saying that there was light other than the sun which existed on day 1. The text does not say that the light was something other than the sun. You just assume it was, because you wrongly believe the sun didn't exist until the 4th day.
Jac wrote:
Frankly, I'm surprised at you and K for being willing to defend this foolishness. It makes you look desperate, as if you have to find SOME SORT of weakness in YEC. Y'all, that isn't hard to do. There are plenty of weaknesses in YEC. That's why this board and the main site exists! And some of the pseudoscientific arguments that AiG and others make are, frankly, embarrassing . . . double and triple face palm kind of stuff. I don't want to see you guys sink to that level.
I guess that's a backhanded complement disguised as an insult?
You can argue--on sound HGM grounds!!!!--that the sun came into existence on day 1. I've alluded to that already in this thread. The biggest problem there is with the force of asah in describing what amounts to the appearance of the sun on day 4. But I think, while that is a problem, it is not unsolvable. You can have a (more) scientific comfort with the idea of evening and morning being rooted in the rotation of the earth on its axis and the revolution of the earth around the sun. But you must recognize, even from that perspective, that the rotation of the earth on its axis is not relevant to the text. All that is, is an attempt to explain phenomenon Moses was unaware of. Such a view is pretty unrelated to exegesis. It's completely and totally a matter of defensive apologetics.
I'm not saying the earth rotating on its axis is relevant. I thought I made that clear in my wonderful Mr. YEC/Mr. OEC dialogue.
Jac wrote:
AGAIN, I don't think that view is impossible or even improbable. But what you cannot do is what is being attempted in this thread. You can't say that if the sun didn't exist on day 1, then ordinary days didn't exist. And you can't say that because the text does not define an ordinary day as a sunrise and sunset.
Yes I can. And I can say that ordinary days didn't exist if there was no sun, for the same reason we can't use the earth spinning on its axis as an argument. Because we are going with what Moses would've understood, right? An ordinary day to Moses, would be what he saw every day. The sun rises, and the sun sets. That's what he sees. He doesn't see the earth rotating on its axis. and the only way he would know that would be if it came as a direct revelation from God. And the text doesn't mention that. Just like Moses would have no idea about some other light that existed besides light from the sun. So, Moses would have no idea about the kind of light that you say was created on day 1.
Jac wrote:
THE TEXT DOES NOT DEFINE AN ORDINARY DAY AS A SUNRISE AND SUNSET
The text DOES define an ordinary day as an evening/morning cycle.
The text defines an evening/morning cycle as the absence and then presence of light, of daytime to nighttime to daytime.
Yes Jac. I know that. But when we look to the hebrew words that are translated as evening and morning, `ereb and boqer respectively, we see that those words mean sunset and sunrise. The word translated as evening, is
`ereb. Which means sunset.
And the word translated as morning, is
boqer, which means sunrise.
Jac wrote:
The text EXPLICITLY separates and distinguishes the evening/morning cycle from the sun.
No it doesn't, as I've shown you from the meanings of ereb and boqer.
Jac wrote:
(That which does not exist cannot produce that which does exist;
Evening/morning is depicted as existing before the sun, which is to say, evening/morning are depicted as having existed at one point in which the sun did not)
Therefore, the evening/morning cycle is not produced by the sun;
Side note: so produces the evening/morning cycle? Answer: the light, created on day 1)
THEREFORE, arguments against the definition of an ordinary day based on the necessary link between the evening/morning cycle and the sun are eisogetical arguments. They come from science. NOT FROM SCRIPTURE.
No. Just because you disagree with my interpretation, that doesn't make it eisogesis. The sun existed on day one. You yourself said an HGM argument can be made for the sun existing on day one. If that HGM argument can be made, then the argument is from scripture. It's not eisogesis.
Jac wrote:
So, yes, YEC believes in ordinary days.
Not as Moses would've had knowledge of, without direct revelation from God, which isn't shown in the text.
Jac wrote:
You can disagree with YEC on how it gets there. And that's fine. That's just another disagreement between YEC and OEC. I don't care how many of those differences pile up. But you don't get to say that YEC doesn't believe in ordinary days because you read science back into the text. That is starting with an OEC assumption and reading YEC in light of that. And that, frankly, is dishonest. You're better than that.
Jac, I hope you will retract your claim of dishonesty on my part. As you can see, I explained how Moses would not be able to know an ordinary day if the sun didn't exist. And, I did not use science.
![y/:]](./images/smilies/yahoo/20.gif "Raised eyebrow"){kind=small}
carry on...
Er, whaa, um 
, uh, okay, I'm awake again. But remind me to not take a Benedryl before reading any lengthy posts about the YEC-OEC stufffffffffffffff..............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. 
I do know this: I can sleep with or without the sun - and quite soundly, I might add. 
