Do YECs accept "ordinary days"?

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm really not trying to give ya'll a hard time but based on what I've read so far there is some confusion somewhere.I'm not so sure YEC's and OEC's really believe "the heavens and earth" in Genesis 1:1 means the entire Universe and the earth,because once we get past verse 1,it suddenly seems to be forgotten and then we hear explanations of how it was not the entire Universe after all because God then works on it and finally completes an imperfect earth and universe in Genesis 1. Meanwhile I really believe what it says" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I truly believe in its entirety,a perfect creation in the beginning of the entire universe and earth.However I also believe something happened to the entire Cosmos and the earth that caused it to be in the state it is in,in verse 2

Read my previous post ACB.

Re: the universe being destroyed by angelic beings between verses 1 and 2,
this is a separate discussion (please open up a new thread if you do want to discuss),
but where are the missing verses for something happening in between verses 1 and 2?

As I see it, such is introducing a fabricated idea into the text, similar to those who say God was a supernatural light in the sky replacing the Sun to give a extraordinary day on the first three days (to be clear AiG's YEC interpretation, and not Jac's).
Both ideas are nowhere to be found in the actual text.

That is a good point however there are gaps althroughout scripture and no one has a problem until it comes to a gap between verse 1 and 2.I could give examples but I won't for now.also it was not angelic beings it was God who poured out judgment that caused the universe and earth to be effected.Those who reject a gap are just not going to change their mind and I'm OK with that,this is just another take and interpretation.I have made my point in Genesis 1:1 it includes the entire cosmos and the earth and it is perfect.I feel like I'm being censored kinda.I was directly responding to other posts and disagreement is allowed.

[Kurieuo]

I'm really not trying to give ya'll a hard time but based on what I've read so far there is some confusion somewhere.I'm not so sure YEC's and OEC's really believe "the heavens and earth" in Genesis 1:1 means the entire Universe and the earth,because once we get past verse 1,it suddenly seems to be forgotten and then we hear explanations of how it was not the entire Universe after all because God then works on it and finally completes an imperfect earth and universe in Genesis 1. Meanwhile I really believe what it says" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I truly believe in its entirety,a perfect creation in the beginning of the entire universe and earth.However I also believe something happened to the entire Cosmos and the earth that caused it to be in the state it is in,in verse 2

Read my previous post ACB.

Re: the universe being destroyed by angelic beings between verses 1 and 2,
this is a separate discussion (please open up a new thread if you do want to discuss),
but where are the missing verses for something happening in between verses 1 and 2?

As I see it, such is introducing a fabricated idea into the text, similar to those who say God was a supernatural light in the sky replacing the Sun to give a extraordinary day on the first three days (to be clear AiG's YEC interpretation, and not Jac's).
Both ideas are nowhere to be found in the actual text.

That is a good point however there are gaps althroughout scripture and no one has a problem until it comes to a gap between verse 1 and 2.I could give examples but I won't for now.also it was not angelic beings it was God who poured out judgment that caused the universe and earth to be effected.Those who reject a gap are just not going to change their mind and I'm OK with that,this is just another take and interpretation.I have made my point in Genesis 1:1 it includes the entire cosmos and the earth and it is perfect.I feel like I'm being censored kinda.I was directly responding to other posts and disagreement is allowed.

Two or more wrongs, doesn't make one right.
If other positions read stuff into the text too, then they ought to (and probably are) questioned.

Have you written out your interpretation somewhere?
Then you could draw upon all evidence to support your interpretation.
Especially any evidence for this "missing story" in between verses 1 and 2.

I don't see any censoring going on, but people here have often dignified your position by responding, as I am here.
BUT, this thread is more to do with YECs accepting ordinary days. Just because creation is being discussed, doesn't mean you can always turn it towards a discussion of Gap Theory. I'm just respectfully asking for a dedicated thread to be opened if you wish to discuss that.

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm really not trying to give ya'll a hard time but based on what I've read so far there is some confusion somewhere.I'm not so sure YEC's and OEC's really believe "the heavens and earth" in Genesis 1:1 means the entire Universe and the earth,because once we get past verse 1,it suddenly seems to be forgotten and then we hear explanations of how it was not the entire Universe after all because God then works on it and finally completes an imperfect earth and universe in Genesis 1. Meanwhile I really believe what it says" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I truly believe in its entirety,a perfect creation in the beginning of the entire universe and earth.However I also believe something happened to the entire Cosmos and the earth that caused it to be in the state it is in,in verse 2

Read my previous post ACB.

Re: the universe being destroyed by angelic beings between verses 1 and 2,
this is a separate discussion (please open up a new thread if you do want to discuss),
but where are the missing verses for something happening in between verses 1 and 2?

As I see it, such is introducing a fabricated idea into the text, similar to those who say God was a supernatural light in the sky replacing the Sun to give a extraordinary day on the first three days (to be clear AiG's YEC interpretation, and not Jac's).
Both ideas are nowhere to be found in the actual text.

That is a good point however there are gaps althroughout scripture and no one has a problem until it comes to a gap between verse 1 and 2.I could give examples but I won't for now.also it was not angelic beings it was God who poured out judgment that caused the universe and earth to be effected.Those who reject a gap are just not going to change their mind and I'm OK with that,this is just another take and interpretation.I have made my point in Genesis 1:1 it includes the entire cosmos and the earth and it is perfect.I feel like I'm being censored kinda.I was directly responding to other posts and disagreement is allowed.

Two or more wrongs, doesn't make one right.
If other positions read stuff into the text too, then they ought to (and probably are) questioned.

Have you written out your interpretation somewhere?
Then you could draw upon all evidence to support your interpretation.
Especially any evidence for this "missing story" in between verses 1 and 2.

I don't see any censoring going on, but people here have often dignified your position by responding, as I am here.
BUT, this thread is more to do with YECs accepting ordinary days. Just because creation is being discussed, doesn't mean you can always turn it towards a discussion of Gap Theory. I'm just respectfully asking for a dedicated thread to be opened if you wish to discuss that.

I think you've misunderstood my intention.I was just questioning whether YEC's and OEC's really believe what they claim to believe about Genesis 1:1.It was not my intention to turn this into a Gap theory thread,just to be clear but Gap theorists really believe it about Genesis 1:1.Here is a link about it.
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/pu/pro ... e148c.html

[neo-x]

If you combine the words "dragon" and "fly" together, should they be understood separately or together?
Together of course, and when combined the phrase "dragonfly" carries a distinct meaning.

@Neo, I see you're making a similar mistake with the phrase hashamayim we ha'erets (which word-by-word is rendered "the [ha] heavens pl. [shamayim] and [we] the [ha] earth [erets]"). Shamayim with its "im" indicates plurality—"heavens".

I mentioned earlier that the phrase hashamayim we ha'erets carries a distinct meaning. This is not questioned by either side, and so if you do not possess a deeper understanding of the Hebrew language then it seems you are actually reading your own perceptions of ancient people into Scripture -- that they were entirely scientifically ignoramus. Furthermore, the idea that everyone in the ancient world believed the world was flat until more modern times appears to be more of a perpetrated popular myth than reality.

In any case, this entire phrase when these words are used together consistently refers to the totality of the universe. This means in Genesis 1, all the materials of the universe (i.e., matter, energy and whatever else it contains) were created. But, to what extent were they created?

Well, verse 1 quickly continues into verse 2 where we are given a reference point — Earth is formless and empty. So we can assume everything prior to Earth being formless and empty was in place and is included the hashamayim we ha'erets of verse 1. At verse 2, the required conditions for a primitive Earth to be existent were already there. Textually, it is silent scientifically about what these conditions were for a primitive Earth to be in existence, except that we can read the hashamayim we ha'erets were in place prior which is scientifically neutral.

K thanks for your reply, you made good points. However I am quite aware of what its taken to mean but I also think that this is being overseen that to the Hebrew author writing it down, this phrase meant practically, what I already said it did, heaven, the dome that is, the plane on which humans are and the underworld beneath. No matter how scientifically accurate they may have been, they certainly did not know many things, including that the earth was spherical and that it revolved around the sun and that the universe was far and wide and quite big, much big than what they knew it off. That is one of the reasons why the author mentions the creation of lights in the firmament, sun, moon, stars on day 4, rather than day 1. As it shows that the author does not view the two to be the same.

My point was that the idea of all universe or all creation was quite different for the author. Today you can read into it 13 billion years of universe but that is not what the author meant when he wrote it down. You can say its neutral, that it allows for whatever was created was included, regardless of the acknowledgement of the author, but I think it makes the writing vague.

As a teenager for the longest time I struggled with the tower of Babel story, I could not wrap my head around the idea that these people did not know that no one can reach heaven by building a tower/staircase, its so idiotic, I mean it is pretty much religion 101. But I understood it later and I think it explains pretty much why they thought they could do that. To them it was a plain of existence, somewhere where God was and that is why worship on high places was thought of such importance throughout the early biblical times. Even God descended on a mount Sinai, a high place. A place of power and authority.

I am not trying to negate your argument, just discussing my views and the reasons for it.

[Kurieuo]

Thanks neo-x.

You bring some interesting ideas with spiritual plains and what not. Sounds a bit eastern mysticism like.
These spiritual plains are normally tied into gods and the like right? So as a Scriptural apologetic, perhaps more shows how far wrong people in the tower of Babel story were, that they thought God was like gods they could reach on some other spiritual plain -- if only they built their tower high enough. Nonetheless, that story too did always sound odd to me. So your idea does sound true, although we probably really have no idea about what they thought. It doesn't take modern science to realise that such is a tad strange, so it sounds very plausible that they must have had some odd spiritual beliefs.

Here I'm also detecting a danger with the Historical-Grammatical method which tries to get at the author intentions and audience at the time. The issue is how far do we read their beliefs into their intentions. ,

For example, in Genesis 1 do we accept their words at face value? Such that no matter how scientifically incorrect their beliefs may have been about how a "day" works, nonetheless they experienced "day" and so that is what we accept as intended without their wrong beliefs?

Or for a better example perhaps with "the heavens and the earth" in Gen 1:1. Should we take this as a phrase for the whole universe (regardless of the fact they may have been entirely incorrect about how the universe worked); or should we also read into the intent of language their wrong and archaic beliefs? (mind you note Isaiah 40:22 says the "circle of Earth" so it seems to me that they did have some idea, and stretches out the heavens like a canopy and spreads them out like a tent to live within -- a bit more ambiguous and could be read archaic-like or neutral to modern science like RTB read it).

So the question is: How far do we read in the author's beliefs into their intent for a given text?

Really, unless they specifically touch upon it, I don't think it should be read into the text at all.
Here's a thought, maybe rather than just accepting one understanding, we should pay attention to three different understandings?

• 1) Man's beliefs at the time (as we understand them) - including what the human author believed with their intent,
  2) Neutral understanding - where we accept text at face value without injecting modern science or achaic beliefs into the text
  3) Modern understanding - whether what we know is true via modern science an the like can be supported by the text (for example, Day-Age proponents, and RTB in particular really love pulling out Scripture that they apply scientific understanding to).

Given we accept there is also a divine author at play (I know you likely don't believe this), but then we would have God working with fallible man.
Therefore, while the authors would have had a wrong knowledge about this and that on deeper levels, Scripture must not incorporate those wrong ideas specifically. That said, Scripture can work with those ideas so long as it doesn't specifically endorse those ideas as correct.

For example, with the Tower of Babel. Does Scripture specifically affirm that the people could reach God if they built the tower high enough? Or is it just talking about the people building such a tower and what they thought such would do? Certainly there are perhaps miraculous elements involved in confusing their language, and God speaks of himself in plural (Gen 11:7 confer with Isaiah 6:8 where "I" is identified as "us"), but besides an archaic feel, nothing says their views were correct that they could reach some spiritual heavenly plain where God sat on a throne of clouds or something the like.

Or, with "the heavens and the earth", if accept that God is dual authoring Scripture, then is Scripture really injecting all you're saying of what they human author would have believed? Or is it just more an understanding of we all experience (i.e., people at all times looked up into the sky and saw the heavens, saw stars at night, the Sun, Moon, etc). Again, it might be the case that the author and people at the time had wrong perceptions, but there is nothing specifically injected in Scripture regarding such. Just compare Genesis 1 to many other creation stories found in different ancient civilisations and you'll see a vast difference, right?

All that said, you make a valid point.
I see it as an issue that many who take up the Historical-Grammatical method can make.
What I see you doing is pushing this method to an extremity, incorporating human knowledge of the day in with the intent of the author in Scripture. And why not? I even think it was very clever that you did such, whether you were intending to be clever or not.

It highlights an issue with HG where one can place too much priority on understanding what the human author intended and people of the time would have understood, such that the divine author is nowhere to be seen keeping things in check.

[neo-x]

Thanks neo-x.

So the question is: How far do we read in the author's beliefs into their intent for a given text?

Really, unless they specifically touch upon it, I don't think it should be read into the text at all.
Here's a thought, maybe rather than just accepting one understanding, we should pay attention to three different understandings?

• 1) Man's beliefs at the time (as we understand them) - including what the human author believed with their intent,
  2) Neutral understanding - where we accept text at face value without injecting modern science or achaic beliefs into the text
  3) Modern understanding - whether what we know is true via modern science an the like can be supported by the text (for example, Day-Age proponents, and RTB in particular really love pulling out Scripture that they apply scientific understanding to).

Given we accept there is also a divine author at play (I know you likely don't believe this), but then we would have God working with fallible man.
Therefore, while the authors would have had a wrong knowledge about this and that on deeper levels, Scripture must not incorporate those wrong ideas specifically. That said, Scripture can work with those ideas so long as it doesn't specifically endorse those ideas as correct.

For example, with the Tower of Babel. Does Scripture specifically affirm that the people could reach God if they built the tower high enough? Or is it just talking about the people building such a tower and what they thought such would do? Certainly there are perhaps miraculous elements involved in confusing their language, and God speaks of himself in plural (Gen 11:7 confer with Isaiah 6:8 where "I" is identified as "us"), but besides an archaic feel, nothing says their views were correct that they could reach some spiritual heavenly plain where God sat on a throne of clouds or something the like.

Or, with "the heavens and the earth", if accept that God is dual authoring Scripture, then is Scripture really injecting all you're saying of what they human author would have believed? Or is it just more an understanding of we all experience (i.e., people at all times looked up into the sky and saw the heavens, saw stars at night, the Sun, Moon, etc). Again, it might be the case that the author and people at the time had wrong perceptions, but there is nothing specifically injected in Scripture regarding such. Just compare Genesis 1 to many other creation stories found in different ancient civilisations and you'll see a vast difference, right?

All that said, you make a valid point.
I see it as an issue that many who take up the Historical-Grammatical method can make.
What I see you doing is pushing this method to an extremity, incorporating human knowledge of the day in with the intent of the author in Scripture. And why not? I even think it was very clever that you did such, whether you were intending to be clever or not.

It highlights an issue with HG where one can place too much priority on understanding what the human author intended and people of the time would have understood, such that the divine author is nowhere to be seen keeping things in check.

My issue with it is not so much that the authors beliefs should always supersede the scripture's divine meanings, rather to me it explains some parts of the bible making more sense, like TOB story. And that only comes when we realize that those people had different beliefs and that they read scriptures somewhat differently than us, atleast at some points in the Genesis story. That even makes it easy for me to understand why water is never mentioned, specifically, being created in Genesis, why the lights in the sky appear on day 4 rather than day 1 and so on and so forth.

Do I think that is what the message is being conveyed? not at all. But I do think its a rich background of beliefs which perhaps explain many of the choice of words incorporated by the authors.

Today we know better and as ACB put it why not include everything that was exists be read in Gen1:1? but my point again would be, even if you did so, that was not a concern of the author, I mean this was the least of his worries. And his account of creation and its emphasis was different than what we use it today for, as in debating creation models and theories and all that.

My personal opinion is that there are clearly truths in the story and a few problems as well, whether it was the author's ignorance of the matter or their simple understanding or whether the oral traditions and legends spoke of things as such. It doesn't make it anymore less important to me.

Anyway, now can we say we can ignore the author's idea of things and read it at neutral way? I believe such a thing is impossible. At the end of the day, the author's ideas of the things he penned down must weigh at least somewhat on the text, wouldn't they? Its only natural in my opinion. But now we come to the important point you raised and that is there is a dual author, a divine one as well, so it really boils down to what he wants to say? There are a few choices:

1. We can say, God used fallible men to write his word, somethings they got right and some they got wrong. Their sources were part human part divine. The bible do shows at times this to be true.
2. They got it all correct, but they had some believes quite in contrast to our understanding and which we know now are false. How much does this affect their writings? I believe its a genuine concern even if its a trivial one compared to the intent of the divine author.
3. They got it all correct and they understood it the same as we do today.

What do you think?

[Philip]

Neo: 1. We can say, God used fallible men to write his word, somethings they got right and some they got wrong. Their sources were part human part divine. The bible do shows at times this to be true.

Where in Scripture (that which most conservative scholars believe is in the oldest available manuscripts and considered Scripture) did ANY Scriptures get wrong, that is PROVEN? And WHO initiated, inspired and controlled the end results? God! He had Scripture preserved – ALL that He saw fit was included and written EXACTLY as He desired! To believe otherwise is to have a weak view of God's power, love and sovereignty! This is a view of one who believes God came to earth to die to fulfill His Word, which Jesus claimed was God-given and would never go away, and yet also believes God didn't truly control and protect His Word's integrity. GOD is the one who decided to use “fallible” men to record His Word and to spread it. Was this somehow a huge mistake? Does God not know ALL future things, have unlimited power, controls all parameters and ending results? Was GOD'S plan limited by humans? Could He not control His Word? Would He not have the ABILITY to do so? Would He not have the INTEGRITY to do so? Would He not care what fictional bits got blended in with His Word? All of that is absurd, IF one believes in the God of Scripture!

Neo: 2. They got it all correct, but they had some believes quite in contrast to our understanding and which we know now are false. How much does this affect their writings? I believe its a genuine concern even if its a trivial one compared to the intent of the divine author.

If this option means that the authors of Scripture didn't understand ALL they wrote down (from God's perspective), then, ABSOLUTELY. Go no further than prophetic passages to know this. Did ancient authors not have modern understandings of the things science reveals – no question! It should only be a “concern” as to acknowledging that some things in Scripture mysteries; some are understandings shrouded in culture and time. It's only a concern if you believe that what they wrote took away from, contradicted, or was an outright fabrication, or that was not within the Divine Author's intentions in its recording. Did the writers/recorders/those so inspired by God's Holy Spirit always understand God's intentions – or even that they always knew (at the time) what they were writing was Scripture.

Neo: 3. They got it all correct and they understood it the same as we do today.

Of course not! But SOME of it they understood BETTER – especially those things immersed in the culture and events of the day. And much of Scripture builds upon God's gradual and ever deeper revealing of Himself and His desires for man.

ANY view of Scripture that postulates that God allowed pure myth, fiction, even outright lies to be blended in with His Holy Word is one that does not believe in God's attributes as recorded in Scripture, or its affirmation from the Prophets, Apostles and Jesus. In other words, they have a distorted view of God. Again, why believe God requires faith in Jesus, as our knowledge of that comes from Scripture, if you also don't also believe what it is recorded that He says about the integrity of the OT and God's Word? If God's Word, as originally given, does not have absolute integrity, then this would mean we need to be skeptical about ALL Of it, as, again, how would your ever know which parts are true and which parts might be problematic - even dangerous to believe?

[abelcainsbrother]

Thanks neo-x.

So the question is: How far do we read in the author's beliefs into their intent for a given text?

Really, unless they specifically touch upon it, I don't think it should be read into the text at all.
Here's a thought, maybe rather than just accepting one understanding, we should pay attention to three different understandings?

• 1) Man's beliefs at the time (as we understand them) - including what the human author believed with their intent,
  2) Neutral understanding - where we accept text at face value without injecting modern science or achaic beliefs into the text
  3) Modern understanding - whether what we know is true via modern science an the like can be supported by the text (for example, Day-Age proponents, and RTB in particular really love pulling out Scripture that they apply scientific understanding to).

Given we accept there is also a divine author at play (I know you likely don't believe this), but then we would have God working with fallible man.
Therefore, while the authors would have had a wrong knowledge about this and that on deeper levels, Scripture must not incorporate those wrong ideas specifically. That said, Scripture can work with those ideas so long as it doesn't specifically endorse those ideas as correct.

For example, with the Tower of Babel. Does Scripture specifically affirm that the people could reach God if they built the tower high enough? Or is it just talking about the people building such a tower and what they thought such would do? Certainly there are perhaps miraculous elements involved in confusing their language, and God speaks of himself in plural (Gen 11:7 confer with Isaiah 6:8 where "I" is identified as "us"), but besides an archaic feel, nothing says their views were correct that they could reach some spiritual heavenly plain where God sat on a throne of clouds or something the like.

Or, with "the heavens and the earth", if accept that God is dual authoring Scripture, then is Scripture really injecting all you're saying of what they human author would have believed? Or is it just more an understanding of we all experience (i.e., people at all times looked up into the sky and saw the heavens, saw stars at night, the Sun, Moon, etc). Again, it might be the case that the author and people at the time had wrong perceptions, but there is nothing specifically injected in Scripture regarding such. Just compare Genesis 1 to many other creation stories found in different ancient civilisations and you'll see a vast difference, right?

All that said, you make a valid point.
I see it as an issue that many who take up the Historical-Grammatical method can make.
What I see you doing is pushing this method to an extremity, incorporating human knowledge of the day in with the intent of the author in Scripture. And why not? I even think it was very clever that you did such, whether you were intending to be clever or not.

It highlights an issue with HG where one can place too much priority on understanding what the human author intended and people of the time would have understood, such that the divine author is nowhere to be seen keeping things in check.

My issue with it is not so much that the authors beliefs should always supersede the scripture's divine meanings, rather to me it explains some parts of the bible making more sense, like TOB story. And that only comes when we realize that those people had different beliefs and that they read scriptures somewhat differently than us, atleast at some points in the Genesis story. That even makes it easy for me to understand why water is never mentioned, specifically, being created in Genesis, why the lights in the sky appear on day 4 rather than day 1 and so on and so forth.

Do I think that is what the message is being conveyed? not at all. But I do think its a rich background of beliefs which perhaps explain many of the choice of words incorporated by the authors.

Today we know better and as ACB put it why not include everything that was exists be read in Gen1:1? but my point again would be, even if you did so, that was not a concern of the author, I mean this was the least of his worries. And his account of creation and its emphasis was different than what we use it today for, as in debating creation models and theories and all that.

My personal opinion is that there are clearly truths in the story and a few problems as well, whether it was the author's ignorance of the matter or their simple understanding or whether the oral traditions and legends spoke of things as such. It doesn't make it anymore less important to me.

Anyway, now can we say we can ignore the author's idea of things and read it at neutral way? I believe such a thing is impossible. At the end of the day, the author's ideas of the things he penned down must weigh at least somewhat on the text, wouldn't they? Its only natural in my opinion. But now we come to the important point you raised and that is there is a dual author, a divine one as well, so it really boils down to what he wants to say? There are a few choices:

1. We can say, God used fallible men to write his word, somethings they got right and some they got wrong. Their sources were part human part divine. The bible do shows at times this to be true.
2. They got it all correct, but they had some believes quite in contrast to our understanding and which we know now are false. How much does this affect their writings? I believe its a genuine concern even if its a trivial one compared to the intent of the divine author.
3. They got it all correct and they understood it the same as we do today.

What do you think?

neo I respectfully diagree all a person has to do is be honest with theirself that the Hebrew words "bara" and "asah" are two different Hebrew words that have two different meanings,until a person does this,they will continue to think the two words mean the same thing and it will cause them to not interpret Genesis correctly because I couls say this even if day agers are right that the 6 days of creation can be long periods of time,longer than ordinary days I can still see a gap because of "bara" created and "asah made. and when you read Genesis 2:4 it still shows a gap even if we extend yom out to be long period of time,there is still a gap.These are the Generations of the heavens and earth when they were created(bara),in the day(yom)that the Lord God MADE (asah) the earth and heavens.Even if you make yom a long time a gap is still there.

[Kurieuo]

Thanks neo-x.

So the question is: How far do we read in the author's beliefs into their intent for a given text?

Really, unless they specifically touch upon it, I don't think it should be read into the text at all.
Here's a thought, maybe rather than just accepting one understanding, we should pay attention to three different understandings?

• 1) Man's beliefs at the time (as we understand them) - including what the human author believed with their intent,
  2) Neutral understanding - where we accept text at face value without injecting modern science or achaic beliefs into the text
  3) Modern understanding - whether what we know is true via modern science an the like can be supported by the text (for example, Day-Age proponents, and RTB in particular really love pulling out Scripture that they apply scientific understanding to).

Given we accept there is also a divine author at play (I know you likely don't believe this), but then we would have God working with fallible man.
Therefore, while the authors would have had a wrong knowledge about this and that on deeper levels, Scripture must not incorporate those wrong ideas specifically. That said, Scripture can work with those ideas so long as it doesn't specifically endorse those ideas as correct.

For example, with the Tower of Babel. Does Scripture specifically affirm that the people could reach God if they built the tower high enough? Or is it just talking about the people building such a tower and what they thought such would do? Certainly there are perhaps miraculous elements involved in confusing their language, and God speaks of himself in plural (Gen 11:7 confer with Isaiah 6:8 where "I" is identified as "us"), but besides an archaic feel, nothing says their views were correct that they could reach some spiritual heavenly plain where God sat on a throne of clouds or something the like.

Or, with "the heavens and the earth", if accept that God is dual authoring Scripture, then is Scripture really injecting all you're saying of what they human author would have believed? Or is it just more an understanding of we all experience (i.e., people at all times looked up into the sky and saw the heavens, saw stars at night, the Sun, Moon, etc). Again, it might be the case that the author and people at the time had wrong perceptions, but there is nothing specifically injected in Scripture regarding such. Just compare Genesis 1 to many other creation stories found in different ancient civilisations and you'll see a vast difference, right?

All that said, you make a valid point.
I see it as an issue that many who take up the Historical-Grammatical method can make.
What I see you doing is pushing this method to an extremity, incorporating human knowledge of the day in with the intent of the author in Scripture. And why not? I even think it was very clever that you did such, whether you were intending to be clever or not.

It highlights an issue with HG where one can place too much priority on understanding what the human author intended and people of the time would have understood, such that the divine author is nowhere to be seen keeping things in check.

My issue with it is not so much that the authors beliefs should always supersede the scripture's divine meanings, rather to me it explains some parts of the bible making more sense, like TOB story. And that only comes when we realize that those people had different beliefs and that they read scriptures somewhat differently than us, atleast at some points in the Genesis story. That even makes it easy for me to understand why water is never mentioned, specifically, being created in Genesis, why the lights in the sky appear on day 4 rather than day 1 and so on and so forth.

Do I think that is what the message is being conveyed? not at all. But I do think its a rich background of beliefs which perhaps explain many of the choice of words incorporated by the authors.

Today we know better and as ACB put it why not include everything that was exists be read in Gen1:1? but my point again would be, even if you did so, that was not a concern of the author, I mean this was the least of his worries. And his account of creation and its emphasis was different than what we use it today for, as in debating creation models and theories and all that.

I think we've equally got to be careful not to read in what we think they thought.

Water is not created, because it is part of the formless and void Earth in Gen 1:2 which the Spirit of God is brooding over.
With Genesis 1:1, unless you perform some reading into the text about what we believe the authors believed, then a straight forward reading is what YEC and OECs (Day-Age/Progressive Creationists) generally accept this to mean which is the entire universe. The only of difference, is whether this is an introductory verse that includes all six days of creation (YECs), or whether verse 1 forms part of God's creation act (OECs).

There are no cues I see that warrant a more archaic interpretation, indeed the language seems very straight forward to me here.
And if we should we include an archaic understanding of the author, then do we really know what they thought?

Keep in mind this. And it's something I cover a lot in that hermeneutics thread.
If God made a covenant with Moses, and directly gave him the 10 Commandments,
it isn't far-fetched to think that Moses or priestly people could have dreamt dreams of how it was.
Consider that I think is more the case we have a strong oral passing down of stories.
Moses was responsible for pulling it all together, shaping and filling in blanks.
Possibly, any awkwardness you see is due to a compilation of such.
You know, I wasn't convinced by JPED, but I do notice difference styles throughout.
So something seems to be going on, and I think something like I mention here re: oral traditions is probably likely.

But anyway, I think I'm becoming sidetracked now...

My personal opinion is that there are clearly truths in the story and a few problems as well, whether it was the author's ignorance of the matter or their simple understanding or whether the oral traditions and legends spoke of things as such. It doesn't make it anymore less important to me.

Anyway, now can we say we can ignore the author's idea of things and read it at neutral way? I believe such a thing is impossible. At the end of the day, the author's ideas of the things he penned down must weigh at least somewhat on the text, wouldn't they?

Yes, that aligns with what is called "single meaning" and is definitely what the Historical-Grammatical method seeks to do.

However, for example with Gen 1:1 where you read in:
1) an archaic understanding of heavenly plains or something, which you believe the author would have believed them to be, compared with

2) a very modern understanding where someone might say there is an understanding of the heavens, solar system, planetary rotations and the like all encapsulated in "the heavens and the earth" phrase (though I don't know any who say this but its possible some might get carried away).

3) A neutral understanding would just say we look up in the sky and see the heavens. We see stars, we see a sun. So by heavens and the earth, the intention is just that everything above (heavens) and below (earth).

So that is what I mean by neutral (maybe there's a better word?) -- speaking to a shared common experience. It matters not whether the author understood that an Earth day requires Earth to rotate, because they actually experience days like everyone has at all times. It is to the experience they're speaking to, and not an understanding of what it is.

In a way it is similar to the moral argument. It is an ontological argument that accepts the reality of morality, that some things really are morally good and bad. We all live by such. Even if we say otherwise, we'll be inconsistent and still act and behave like something things really are good and bad. So we all accept morality exists. Right? But epistemological concerns of how this understanding of morality formed and came to be -- well, such isn't so clear.

Similarly, a neutral understanding like I'm putting forward would just accept what is being said in the text, without worrying about what the people of the time actually believed on deeper levels. It's not that such isn't important, and indeed it can influence how we correctly interpret this or that word, but I'm not personally concerned about the thought of some heavenly mythical plain in Tower of Babel. Therefore, when we read Scripture if it can be read in a neutrally consistent manner, then that should be the interpretation one takes. Especially if, as you get into, God is involved also as a dual author.

Its only natural in my opinion. But now we come to the important point you raised and that is there is a dual author, a divine one as well, so it really boils down to what he wants to say?

I really didn't think you accepted this, but I am delighted to hear you do see God's hand somewhere in it all.

There are a few choices:
1. We can say, God used fallible men to write his word, somethings they got right and some they got wrong. Their sources were part human part divine. The bible do shows at times this to be true.
2. They got it all correct, but they had some believes quite in contrast to our understanding and which we know now are false. How much does this affect their writings? I believe its a genuine concern even if its a trivial one compared to the intent of the divine author.
3. They got it all correct and they understood it the same as we do today.

What do you think?

There is no reason to maintain inspiration outside of Scripture
-- that the authors must have been inerrant in their full understanding of matters.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 says:

• All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

This obviously doesn't cover the New Testament, but would Genesis.

Finally, we get a sense of how God may have worked in 2 Peter 1:21 which says:

• For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

The word "moved" is the same as "driven" found in Acts 27:15-17:

• The ship was caught by the storm and could not head into the wind; so we gave way to it and were driven along. 16 As we passed to the lee of a small island called Cauda, we were hardly able to make the lifeboat secure, 17 so the men hoisted it aboard. Then they passed ropes under the ship itself to hold it together. Because they were afraid they would run aground on the sandbars of Syrtis, they lowered the sea anchor and let the ship be driven along.

Here we have a great analogy for what is going on regarding the Holy Spirit's role in Scripture.
While sailors were active on the ship, they were ultimately at the mercy of the storm and wind as to what finally results.
Similar reasoning would say the human authors were active, but driven to write as the Spirit directed. Such activeness might be voice and words used, but ultimately if you believe in inspiration, then not a thing that was penned wasn't intended by the Holy Spirit.

So then, given God does not lie and didn't err Himself, your option #2 above is the only valid option with respect to divine inspiration of Scripture. And I believe these passages I just present may help answer some of the questions you raise in #2.


NOW, finally, what if someone decides to discard that God was involved in authoring Scripture?
One thing I want to note, is that the reason I accept divine inspiration and inerrancy isn't because I've proved Scripture is 100% accurate.
I've been shown many "contradictions", literally 100s, many of which were easily resolved. There is one that has stuck as troublesome that I came across many years ago, and I haven't looked into again since. But, I give benefit of doubt because by and large most challenges are quite plainly idiotic.
BUT, because Scripture can't be proven to be true, then many think that means we must reject it.
I disagree with that logic.

If one does decide to reject Scripture as inerrant because it just seems too fantastic a claim (which I think is the main reason people balk), then I still think the message comes through loud and clear about God and his relationship with us.
Israel's story is one of history mixed in with their relationship, and rebellion against, God.
It shows humanities utter failure to remain faithful to God, and yet God's loyalty in remaining faithful to us and desire to have us with him.
God did not desire sacrifice for our sin, but much preferred that we just desired what He desires and love each other and God.
Christ on the cross is where we finally find God getting his way with us, the relationship God always desired from before creation.
Any Christian who reads the Bible from start to finish can easily pick up on this story.
You don't need to believe in inerrancy to see it.

So what I'm saying here as final words, is that for me, Scriptural inerrancy is something I accept even if it hasn't been proven.
And while I see it as very important, it is definitely secondary to fuller story of what is being said about us and God, and indeed Christ Himself.

[neo-x]

Thank you K, it was a very good response, I will respond later in detail, perhaps tomorrow, but just wanted to say that we agree a lot on what you have said above.

[zacchaeus]

So, let me be the dummy in a room full of scholars...

When God was creating, creation, it was in perfect form- and, it was good!

Question: Could the day simply be sooo perfect it didn't require a sun?

Is 'sun' mentioned in Genesis account of have any bearing?

How do OEC reconcile the usage of terms, day, light, dark, evening, morning- and how does Moses know all this, or why would God want to convey all these descriptive words if we couldn't understand them? Plus, why specifically number each day (billions of years)?

If you cannot define the day, on what basis can you say billions of years when considering the numeric values of each said day- you would have to be congruent or consistent (considering whatever the day to be is still... 1 day, 2 day, 3 day, evening and then morning)?

Also consider parts of the world where darkness lasts what (6 months or more at a time)? Does this non-seperation of 'light' and 'dark' then change the defining meaning of what we consider to be 'a day'? Or is time still time, and days (24 hr periods) still go on?

How does OEC reconcile the very words of days, months, years, which are periods of times that can be contrasted?

Anyways, these are a few thoughts I've pondered in my studies just to start. Thanks.

[abelcainsbrother]

So, let me be the dummy in a room full of scholars...

When God was creating, creation, it was in perfect form- and, it was good!

Question: Could the day simply be sooo perfect it didn't require a sun?

Is 'sun' mentioned in Genesis account of have any bearing?

How do OEC reconcile the usage of terms, day, light, dark, evening, morning- and how does Moses know all this, or why would God want to convey all these descriptive words if we couldn't understand them? Plus, why specifically number each day (billions of years)?

If you cannot define the day, on what basis can you say billions of years when considering the numeric values of each said day- you would have to be congruent or consistent (considering whatever the day to be is still... 1 day, 2 day, 3 day, evening and then morning)?

Also consider parts of the world where darkness lasts what (6 months or more at a time)? Does this non-seperation of 'light' and 'dark' then change the defining meaning of what we consider to be 'a day'? Or is time still time, and days (24 hr periods) still go on?

How does OEC reconcile the very words of days, months, years, which are periods of times that can be contrasted?

Anyways, these are a few thoughts I've pondered in my studies just to start. Thanks.

Hello zacchaeus. Although I'm not a Day Ager I can answer your question. Basically they stretch the 6 days of creation out to be long periods of time based on the Hebrew word "yom" and there are enough of todays bible scholars that make a case for it to where it makes it acceptable.Now because I'm a Gap Theorist I know that there is no reason to stretch the days out to be long periods of time to get an old earth,it is unnecessary,still enough of todays bible scholars make a case for why it can be long periods of time. I'm an old earth creationists too but there is no reason to stretch the days out to have an old earth,the bible already reveals it,especially if you read a KJV bible.Moses taught and knew the earth was old this is one reason that Christians who started modern science had no problems accepting an old earth,they were reading the KJV bible which was translated about 400 years ago long before Evolution became a scientific Theory.

I too think day agers have a problem between day three and four because on day three plants were created and yet if we stretch it out to be a long period of time there is no sunlight and so the plants would die,however day agers have a point about all the things happened on day 6 and they make a convincing case that for Adam to name all the beasts of the field,etc it had to be longer than just a day.Still personally for me it is hard for me to ignore "and the evening and the morning" perhaps God just got Adam started naming the animals,etc.

Another point about an old earth is the fact that God is eternal,so what was God doing before just 6000 years ago? I actually believe based on this that the universe could really be even older than science claims about 13 billion years old.I think the Gap Theory has the best answer.Hebrews 11:3 KJV'Through faith we understand that the WORLDS were framed by the word of God,so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

[zacchaeus]

Time doesn't prove anything if one can't define it, which is seems the OEC position that, but it could be...

And i don't see using science to define scripture, instead of scripture to compliment science as useful tactic.

Time doesn't exist outside of our realm, in heaven there is no time. Time is a gift, commodity, specific for us and to us.

And the proof text 2 Peter 3:8 isn't a measure for time, & has nothing in context to do with creation 'days'. Nor is using one word, in one verse, in one chapter of scripture, out of a passage, and context a valid way to present a case, when OEC used the word 'replenish' which lets debunk now... 'Replete' singular is full- and the usage rendered replenish means simply to 'fill'. And then dinosaurs- hmmm, and/or dragons right. All too easy.

For me, realizing death entered through adam- how does OEC reconcile death that predates death?

OEC IMO absolutely has the possibility to exist- outside of scripture!

[RickD]

Time doesn't prove anything if one can't define it, which is seems the OEC position that, but it could be...

And i don't see using science to define scripture, instead of scripture to compliment science as useful tactic.

Time doesn't exist outside of our realm, in heaven there is no time. Time is a gift, commodity, specific for us and to us.

And the proof text 2 Peter 3:8 isn't a measure for time, & has nothing in context to do with creation 'days'. Nor is using one word, in one verse, in one chapter of scripture, out of a passage, and context a valid way to present a case, when OEC used the word 'replenish' which lets debunk now... 'Replete' singular is full- and the usage rendered replenish means simply to 'fill'. And then dinosaurs- hmmm, and/or dragons right. All too easy.

For me, realizing death entered through adam- how does OEC reconcile death that predates death?

OEC IMO absolutely has the possibility to exist- outside of scripture!

Zacchaeus,

I'm not sure if I'm misreading you, but if I understand you, you're asking one of the most basic questions about OEC. The question about how OECs view death before Adam's sin, is easily understood by anyone who understands the basics about OEC.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html

[abelcainsbrother]

Time doesn't prove anything if one can't define it, which is seems the OEC position that, but it could be...

And i don't see using science to define scripture, instead of scripture to compliment science as useful tactic.

Time doesn't exist outside of our realm, in heaven there is no time. Time is a gift, commodity, specific for us and to us.

And the proof text 2 Peter 3:8 isn't a measure for time, & has nothing in context to do with creation 'days'. Nor is using one word, in one verse, in one chapter of scripture, out of a passage, and context a valid way to present a case, when OEC used the word 'replenish' which lets debunk now... 'Replete' singular is full- and the usage rendered replenish means simply to 'fill'. And then dinosaurs- hmmm, and/or dragons right. All too easy.

For me, realizing death entered through adam- how does OEC reconcile death that predates death?

OEC IMO absolutely has the possibility to exist- outside of scripture!

Hi but I don't understand why you accept it when God tells Noah and his family to replenish the earth but not when he tells Adam and Eve the same thing. Should we change it to fill with Noah and his family too? There is a reason they used replenish for both,also there was no man in the former world,only hominids,so it does not effect the Gap Theory about death before Adam and Eve and the earth screams out there was death long before God created the first man and woman Adam and Eve an when they sinned death came to this world,but what happened in the former world had no bearing on this world we now live in.There is no problem biblically at all but since there was death long before Adam and Eve that the earth testifies to,perhaps you should question your interpretation.