Having trouble with Day 4 of Genesis

[DannyM]

One question. Wouldn't it have been required that the clouds were completely removed, and the bodies' appearance on the surface of the earth, for the plant life on day 3?

Why's that? Maybe if there was no sun/sunlight. You might be interested to read http://www.reasons.org/does-old-earth-c ... the_plants

What I was trying to say is that, in order for plant life to flourish, sunlight would had to have got through. However, with the above link, plus your input and Rich's article, things are beginning to become clear. For some reason I've had a mental block with regards to this issue for a long time.

Genesis 1:11-13
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.

This commentary from Greg Moore helps to shed light:

"The narrative of the third "day" tells us God caused the land to produce two types of vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees bearing fruit. The Hebrew word for "plant" (eseb) refers to green grasses and herbs.18 The Hebrew word for "tree" (ets) connotes plants with woody stalks.19 From this, we have a general idea of the vegetation the land was to produce. However, we do not know the specific plants and trees that appeared, nor do the Hebrew word meanings seem to encompass all the plant life on the Earth...However, we need to be careful not to read too much into the narrative of the third "day." The Hebrew phrase at the end of verse 11, "and it was so," is better translated "and it did come to pass." This indicates the command was completed but it does not indicate an immediate completion -- it could have been completed in the future. Thus, it is entirely possible the land continued to produce new plants and trees well into the following "days."

This commentary is profound for me. I want to continue this because I'm very excited.

Genesis 1:14-19
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.

Remember I asked about verse 16?

"Verse 16 tells us God made the Sun, Moon and stars on the fourth "day." Most young-earth creationists focus on the English translation and interpret this verse to mean God created the Sun and Moon that instant. The Hebrew does not support that interpretation. The Hebrew word for "made" (asah) refers to an action completed in the past. Thus, the verse is correctly rendered "God had made" rather than "God made." This indicates God "had made" the Sun, Moon and stars earlier than the fourth "day." [Greg Moore]

I'd heard this from both yourself and Rick. So I looked for (yet another) source. I found plenty. Here's one:

"Many find verses 16-18 particularly difficult. They appear to say that God created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day of creation. The New King James compounds the problem by incorrectly beginning verse 16 with "Then God made," implying continuity of action. The King James, American Standard, the Revised Standard, and Young's Literal translations all start this verse with "And."

Further, the Hebrew asah, translated "made" in verse 16, is in the verb form that denotes completed action. This means that the sun, moon, and stars could have been created that day or any previous time. These heavenly bodies had been created long before the creation week began. Therefore, verses 16 through 18 are parenthetical statements that indicate that the sun, moon, and stars had been made sometime in the past."

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseact ... 4/Asah.htm

So by now my blood is pumping and I'm excited to the point of bursting. (No, my life is not that boring; it's just that a profound moment like this has that affect on me.) It's now beginning to fall into place. I'm going to go and reread over all of this again, and again and again, to get it clear once and for all.

Thank you.

[DannyM]

I I'm confused as to the point you are trying to make, or perhaps that you've confused my point. I don't have a problem in principle with saying that the sun, moon, and stars became visible on the fourth day. Now, I'm not impressed with the "let there be" argument being a strange construction for creation, but I won't go into detail about that here. Perhaps another time in another thread. I'm doing quite a bit of work on Gen 1 as it is, which I will be more than happy to post for your (all) consideration later.

As far as I understand you, if the sun was created on the first day, but didn't become visible until the fourth day, the theological point still stands. The sun is a created thing, not a god. It is not the author of light. The same God that created the sun is the same God that gave the world light. Try to imagine, for a moment, how important light was to an agrarian culture . . . it ranked up there with water! So the Israelites learned that their God was their source of light, blessing, and protection, not the Egyptian sun-god.

What I was trying to say is since you too have seen some merit in the idea that Moses demoted the standing of the sun in rejection of the cosmic gods, how do we square this with the more important role for Moses of trying to give an accurate historical account? I'm not disagreeing with you; was just looking for your thoughts. I''m very ill at the moment, Jac and am struggling to make sense. Even looking at what I've written here it isn't coming out like I want it to. If you still don't undertstand my point then no worries, just leave it.

[Jac3510]

Danny,

I think I see what you are asking. I think my response to Canuckster sums up my thoughts on that pretty well:

It is well known that history in antiquity wasn't meant to be dry and objective. It was intended to teach a specific lesson, and as such, it was presented that way. That does not, however, mean that the presentation was in any way non-historical. I absolutely take Gen 1-2 to be literal history. I simply take it that the history that actually happened was presented in such a way--a truthful way!--as to emphasize a certain theological fact.

My own idea--to which I owe a great debt to such scholars as Keil and Delitzsch, is that Gen 1-2 are a single unit, with the first creation story being designed to teach that God is the supreme authority over all the universe; the Universal King, if you will, and that mankind is His viceregent over this creation. The order of creation is designed to show the level of importance in this kingdom of each part of creation. The second unit is designed to teach that although God reigns supremely over creation, He also reigns covenantally through mankind. Gen 3 demonstrates that mankind broke that covenantal rule, and 3:15 points to God's promise to restore that relationship. I could continue, but I think that gets the basic idea across.

So far from supporting the idea that the days were symbolic, I think the view I take requires them to be actual days (which, I will concede, could, theologically, be taken as eras), for the simple reason that if the history isn't real, then Moses' statements about God aren't grounded in reality--the reality in which Israel lived and breathed. Remember, God wanted them to act based on who He is. That requires the history of His acts to be real history, not a myth in any sense of the word whatsoever.

In short, I don't see a necessary conflict between presenting what actually happened and presenting what actually happened in a way to emphasize some desired truth. Modern historians don't like the latter, but ancient historians would have thought what we try to do today--rightly or wrongly--is ludicrous, in that they would see no point in it. Knowledge wasn't to be had for knowledge's sake; it was sought to be applied to better understand and better live life, and that included knowledge of history.

[Gman]

What I was trying to say is since you too have seen some merit in the idea that Moses demoted the standing of the sun in rejection of the cosmic gods, how do we square this with the more important role for Moses of trying to give an accurate historical account? I'm not disagreeing with you; was just looking for your thoughts. I''m very ill at the moment, Jac and am struggling to make sense. Even looking at what I've written here it isn't coming out like I want it to. If you still don't undertstand my point then no worries, just leave it.

Danny... It's no problem, we don't need to go there, i.e. the idea of Moses demoted the standing of the sun..

The creation account in Genesis, is clearly an account if one were standing on the earth and witnessing creation. So if you look at it from that aspect, Genesis makes perfect sense.

[Kurieuo]

So by now my blood is pumping and I'm excited to the point of bursting. (No, my life is not that boring; it's just that a profound moment like this has that affect on me.) It's now beginning to fall into place. I'm going to go and reread over all of this again, and again and again, to get it clear once and for all.

Thank you.

I know how you feel as I felt this once too. What really disappointed me at the time I was discovering all this, was it was so hard to find others around me to share in my enthusiasm. I would point stuff out, and they would just look at me, "oh yeah", "ah-huh"...

All the best.

[Canuckster1127]

What I was trying to say is since you too have seen some merit in the idea that Moses demoted the standing of the sun in rejection of the cosmic gods, how do we square this with the more important role for Moses of trying to give an accurate historical account? I'm not disagreeing with you; was just looking for your thoughts. I''m very ill at the moment, Jac and am struggling to make sense. Even looking at what I've written here it isn't coming out like I want it to. If you still don't undertstand my point then no worries, just leave it.

Danny... It's no problem, we don't need to go there, i.e. the idea of Moses demoted the standing of the sun..

The creation account in Genesis, is clearly an account if one where standing on the earth and witnessing creation. So if you look at it from that aspect, Genesis makes perfect sense.

It's interesting from my point of view that that sense of perpectival hermeneutics wasn't really understood or introduced into the formal mix until the Galileo affair where it was introduced into formal church thinking to reconcile the error committed by the church in seeing geocentrism as Biblically necessary.

Many YEC's will not appreciate the analogy but I think it's fair to say that that illustrates the precedent that they accuse OECs of "compromising." It's not an entirely fair argument because by the same token the YEC perspective as it is commonly espoused today in the form that is espoused has roots that are more closely paralleled by material produced in the SDA tradition and some of the scientific response a la Henry Morris than anything like it was understood in the early Church and immediate post-apostolic period of the Early Church Fathers. The framework of understanding is appealed to however that the YEC position is somehow more pristine or historic because it was seen as the more "literal" position at the time. The majority of ECF's didn't see the days as literal but because their understanding was more aligned with a symbolic or metaphoric hermeneutic. That disqualifies them in the mind of some. I don't accept that reasoning because the same standard in comparing how YEC was understood then as opposed to how it is understood and argued today is as far, if not further a stretch.

My thoughts on the matter anyway.

bart

[Gman]

Many YEC's will not appreciate the analogy but I think it's fair to say that that illustrates the precedent that they accuse OECs of "compromising." It's not an entirely fair argument because by the same token the YEC perspective as it is commonly espoused today in the form that is espoused has roots that are more closely paralleled by material produced in the SDA tradition and some of the scientific response a la Henry Morris than anything like it was understood in the early Church and immediate post-apostolic period of the Early Church Fathers. The framework of understanding is appealed to however that the YEC position is somehow more pristine or historic because it was seen as the more "literal" position at the time. The majority of ECF's didn't see the days as literal but because their understanding was more aligned with a symbolic or metaphoric hermeneutic. That disqualifies them in the mind of some. I don't accept that reasoning because the same standard in comparing how YEC was understood then as opposed to how it is understood and argued today is as far, if not further a stretch.

My thoughts on the matter anyway.

bart

Yes.. And I believe you hit the hammer on the nail about the ECF's. And if we go back even earlier to the Hebrew scholars, I'm sure will we find more. I believe they understand their language better than we do..

For what it's worth, this is AIG's response...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... n-creation

[Canuckster1127]

That's a common type of response.

If you don't like the implications of evidence then seek to exclude or diminish the importance of the evidence by correlating it to some other factor.

This ties into the common fallacy that correlation is evidence of causation. If you don't like that many, perhaps even a majority of ECF's didn't see the days of creation as literal 24 hour days, then you discount that evidence by tying it to another element and then claim that the reason they can't be taken seriously is because they had a metaphorical hermeneutic and therefore their belief is caused or dependent upon that. The problem with that claim is that the two are not necessarily tied in the matter claimed and further, the same people making that claim that that hermeneutic invalidates the claim are often appealing to those same early church fathers in the tracing of thought and doctrinal development in other areas. in other words, they're selective as to where they reject or accept such correlation chosing instead to accept those elements that support their espoused beliefs and rejecting those that don't so that they can make a broad sweeping statement such as the one that AIG opens in that article claiming that the early church accepts the beliefs they are attempting to promote today. All you have to do is frame the argument so that you can exclude the plethora of ECFs who did not see the days as literal by in effect saying that they don't really count because their position was tied to a different hermeneutic in this instance. Then turn around and cite them as support in other doctrinal areas without applying a consistent standard.

[Jac3510]

That's not a fair assessment of the argument, Bart.

The underlying point YECs are saying and are trying to defend is that that the solar-day view is the view that emerges when one applies a literal hermeneutic. Now, we can quibble about the word "literal" all day long. Call it "plain sense" or "common meaning" or "non-allegorical" or "literal-historical-grammatical" . . . take your pick. The idea is that when you take the words of Scripture to signify the normal referent--as opposed to a abnormal referent, as in the case with allegory--then you come to a solar-day view.

The two most important objection to this are these:

1. The Bible shouldn't be read with a literal hermeneutic. That's the primary argument from all the rest of Christendom. The history of the Church has broadly accepted a more allegorical approach and accepted multiple meanings of Scripture. Reformed theologians went back to the literal method in all but prophecy, where they say Jesus Christ is the means of interpretation rather than the words itself. Only dispensationalists today claim to have a consistently literal hermeneutic, and there are arguments among ourselves about who is actually being consistently literal. As you know, for instance, Scofield held that the seven churches of the Revelation were the seven periods of Church History. That's nonsense under a literal hermeneutic.

So you can perfectly well reject a literal hermeneutic and be well within the stream of Christian tradition. There are a great many people--including many Church Fathers--who interpreted the Bible allegorically.

2. The day-age view does take the Bible literally and comes up with a non-solar-day view, and they have the backing of many Church Fathers and other early interpreters to give them precedence. These two statements have to be evaluated separately:

Concerning the first, we must all agree that the day-age view does attempt to take the text literally insofar as it is looking at one of the many perfectly normal referents for the word yom: namely, an age or era. As such, the day-age view, as classically stated and defended on this site, holds to a literal hermeneutic and rejects an allegorical approach to Gen 1.

Concerning the second, though, there is, unfortunately, absolutely no historical precedence for this position. While many CFs did take the yomim as non-solar-days, two facts are incontrovertible:

a. Not one of them held the yomim to be long-ages or eras;
b. Every one of them who held a non-solar-day view of the yomim adopted an allegorical hermeneutic, which the day-age view supposedly rejects. In fact, those that held to an allegorical hermeneutic believed the creation was instantaneous, since they interpreted the Bible through an Aristotelian framework that did not allow God to act in time.

This is the point AiG is making. When you take the day-age view on its own terms, namely, that one can take the Bible literally and still get a non-solar-day view, and that this approach has historical precedence, you find out it overstates its case. Yes, you can adopt a literal hermeneutic and get the day-age view. You cannot, however, claim historical precedence for the position. In fact, if you insist on historical precedence, then the solar-day-view has the stronger support, for one, because the day-age view is found nowhere in the CFs, and two, those CFs who applied the day-age view's own method of interpretation invariably held to a solar-day view.

This doesn't make the day-age view wrong. Perhaps the the referent of the days is an age, which would be a literal reading. If so, however, you cannot appeal to the CFs or any interpreter prior the the 17th century. Our point is that it is rather convenient that this literal reading was suddenly seen only after geology asserted that the earth is millions upon millions of years old. The question, then, is actually one of hermeneutical motivation. Many in the YEC camp, myself included, see it as scientifically, rather than textually, motivated.

So the bottom line is that if you want to be consistent with the CFs, and if you want to hold to a day-age view, you must reject the argument that the yomim naturally refer to ages and must instead assert that they refer to solar days, but that these solar days are metaphors for ages, which is, of course, to embrace an allegorical hermeneutic. While you still wouldn't be consistent with the conclusion of the CFs, you would at least be consistent with their methods. If you have no desire to be consistent with the CFs, then you can simply jettison them from the discussion, appeal to Galileo, and say that we've just been making bad assumptions about what Moses actually meant for at least two thousand years, if not thirty-five hundred.

[Canuckster1127]

I think what I've said is a fair assessment of the argument but I can see where it falls outside of your approach.

1. The Bible shouldn't be read with a literal hermeneutic. That's the primary argument from all the rest of Christendom. The history of the Church has broadly accepted a more allegorical approach and accepted multiple meanings of Scripture. Reformed theologians went back to the literal method in all but prophecy, where they say Jesus Christ is the means of interpretation rather than the words itself. Only dispensationalists today claim to have a consistently literal hermeneutic, and there are arguments among ourselves about who is actually being consistently literal. As you know, for instance, Scofield held that the seven churches of the Revelation were the seven periods of Church History. That's nonsense under a literal hermeneutic.

This is self-contradictory. You make an absolute appeal to the literal hermeneutic which you qualify yourself for one age (the reformers with regard to prophecy) and do not allow any such qualification for the ECF's. I'd suggest that at best that is inconsistent and reflects an all or nothing approach where exceptions are made selectively based upon whether or not that particular element fits the point attempting to be made.

When you examine the YEC position today it makes many points in forms that are not explicitly spelled out by the ECF's using methods that they did not employ in coming to those conclusions. You can say the same of elements of OEC. I believe then, just as today, that there were differing traditions and approached to the scriptures and that you need to examine what they say for themselves in terms of the beliefs that they espoused and why, and not attempt to score rhetorical points by casting doubt upon one while building a case of inference from the other in an attempt to support one's position to the exclusion of the other.

[Jac3510]

I have no problem employing historical critical methods to better understand the text, context, or deeper theological meaning that may have been intended by the original authors. I would caution anyone who upholds Biblical inerrancy to be careful in how far they go and to not take divine inspiration out of the picture. Let's be clear, historical critical methods examining why the Genesis 1 text was ordered the way it was is how a theory as the one you proposed would have come about. While I find your proposal reasonable, I've seen much more read into texts particularly when applying redaction critical methods.

For example, when I undertook theology and interpreting the scriptures subjects, my lecturers spoke of leaders in Israel using God's name as justification to conquer other nations and take their land. That God may have in fact instructed Israel and given them the promised land, was not an option up for consideration. Noone I know except myself flinched. Even though we were apparently studying theology, the supernatural appeared to have no place when it came to what formed a valid insight or explanation of the text.

Obviously, we cannot take inspiration out of the picture. I'm not intending to appeal to a historical-critical method, nor do I think that is the means by which one would develop the idea I have proposed--namely, because it is not the basis on which I developed it! The point rather, is strictly and totally hermeneutical. If you believe that the books of the Bible are occasional--that is, they were written for a specific purpose occasioned by a specific historical situation; in the case of the Pentateuch, the Exodus generation's soon entrance into Canaan--then it stands to reason that it was written soas to address that purpose. To give a modern analogy, no one would expect to find a recipe for hamburgers in a car manual. Good hermeneutics requires us to interpret the text in accordance with its broader purpose, which is something the vast majority of interprets fail to do, especially in larger books like Genesis.

In short, I'm saying each book has a flow. Each story, paragraph, and verse was arranged in such a way as to drive home the larger point of the book. I'm sure you can see this view takes nothing away from inspiration at all.

Most interpreters rightly see the book as a whole as a book of covenants, with special emphasis on the Abrahamic Covenant. There are others, of course, including the Adamic, Noahic, etc. But on the whole, the book is designed to help Israel understand who they are and where they came from, that they are a special nation, birthed by God. As such, Gen 1-11 is an introductory unit to Gen 12-50, the latter being Moses' real focus.

In light of this, why include the creation account at all? While it may be enough for our 21st century mind to simply see it as an objective explanation of how the world came to be, I'm sure you can see that such a statement is rather weak, in that nowhere in the Bible does God write to merely satisfy our curiosity, and, more to the point, such a view is out of line with the occasion of the book--that is, it contributes nothing. So there is a theological motivation to Gen 1-11, and, in our case, Gen 1 specifically.

Anyway, enough of the theory. I agree with you that we should be careful not to read the Bible so as to ignore its divine inspiration, but we should also be careful to read it in its historical and cultural setting. As such, I see any position that ignores the theological motivation of the creation account and merely looks at it as a "by the way, this is how I created the world" kind of thing to be extremely weak. OECs would do well to consider and develop their position with an eye to original audience.

So I just caution anyone who values Scripture as God's special revelation to remain alert. That said, I personally affirm the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which I believe adequate captures well the principles of Biblical inerrancy. In particular I find Article III, IV, VI, VII, VIII and IX particularly relevant here:
.
.
.
Regarding the theology of Gen 1 thread, and not to cause an indepth discussion here, but I found it quite suspect given I believe in Article III and VI that you would only find interpretations of creation acceptable that were limited to the Pentateuch. I can understand you are trying to get the authors understanding, but at the same time, Article VII also applies.

I agree with every word of the confession, Scott. Further, I don't believe that only "interpretations of creation acceptable that were limited to the Pentateuch." As there are many places creation is discussed, and as I believe in the full inspiration of Scripture, I completely affirm that those other creation accounts are fully inspired. What I do believe is that progressive revelation, while incomplete in any given stage, must be intelligible to its original audience for it to actually be revelation. As such, where a particular passage may allow for multiple meanings in their original context, I am perfectly content to allow future revelation to narrow the scope. I do not, however, admit the possibility of a meaning only being found in a given passage once future revelation is given, as that denies the revelatory nature of the original passage to its original audience.

[Jac3510]

I think what I've said is a fair assessment of the argument but I can see where it falls outside of your approach.

1. The Bible shouldn't be read with a literal hermeneutic. That's the primary argument from all the rest of Christendom. The history of the Church has broadly accepted a more allegorical approach and accepted multiple meanings of Scripture. Reformed theologians went back to the literal method in all but prophecy, where they say Jesus Christ is the means of interpretation rather than the words itself. Only dispensationalists today claim to have a consistently literal hermeneutic, and there are arguments among ourselves about who is actually being consistently literal. As you know, for instance, Scofield held that the seven churches of the Revelation were the seven periods of Church History. That's nonsense under a literal hermeneutic.

This is self-contradictory. You make an absolute appeal to the literal hermeneutic which you qualify yourself for one age (the reformers with regard to prophecy) and do not allow any such qualification for the ECF's. I'd suggest that at best that is inconsistent and reflects an all or nothing approach where exceptions are made selectively based upon whether or not that particulary element fits the point attempting to be made.

When you examine the YEC position today it makes many points in forms that are not explicitly spelled out by the ECF's using methods that they did not employ in coming to those conclusions. You can say the same of elements of OEC. I believe then, just as today, that there were differing traditions and approached to the scriptures and that you need to examine what they say for themselves in terms of the beliefs that they espoused and why, and not attempt to score rhetorical points by casting doubt upon one while building a case of inference from the other in an attempt to support one's position to the exclusion of the other.

I am not seeing how it is self-contradictory. Where the Reformers were literal in their interpretation, their conclusions were mostly correct. Likewise, where the CFs where literal in their interpretation, they were also mostly correct. Where the Reformers and CFs adopted an allegorical method, they were broadly incorrect.

Second, what methods to YEC employ that the CFs who adopted a literal approach did not?

I'm being very consistent, Bart. Where people have taken the Bible literally, they have come to a solar-day view. When they took the Bible allegorically, they came to a non-solar day view. The day-age view attempts to take the Bible literally and come to a non-solar day view, which is fine, but if you are to be intellectually honest you must admit that no one before you has ever come to a day-age view while taking the Bible literally. The solar-day view, however, does a lot of precedence of people holding the view while taking the Bible literally.

[Canuckster1127]

That's circular reasoning Jac.

You're effectively saying, where the ECFs used the same methods that you're advocating they came to the same conclusions you have and they're therefore right there but wrong elsewhere.

As you state, the ECF's were not wholly of one approach to every passage of scripture but instead made assumptions in some basic areas, such as you note the reformers did with regard to prophecy. Where they did so, it is my belief that their approach is more likely than later approaches to have conformed to the general culture and frame of reference of understanding emplyed by the original writers and original audience. What you're suggesting imposes an all or nothing approach for the sake of internal consistency while ignoring the primary evidence of what they actually did and what they actually believed.

[Jac3510]

That's circular reasoning Jac.

You're effectively saying, where the ECFs used the same methods that you're advocating they came to the same conclusions you have and they're therefore right there but wrong elsewhere.

As you state, the ECF's were not wholly of one approach to every passage of scripture but instead made assumptions in some basic areas, such as you note the reformers did with regard to prophecy. Where they did so, it is my belief that their approach is more likely than later approaches to have conformed to the general culture and frame of reference of understanding emplyed by the original writers and original audience. What you're suggesting imposes an all or nothing approach for the sake of internal consistency while ignoring the primary evidence of what they actually did and what they actually believed.

If my reasoning is circular, can you put it in a syllogism so I can see it? Here is an example of circular reasoning:

1. The Bible is God's Word
2. The Bible says God exists
3. Therefore, God exists.

That is circular, because (1) begs the question of God's existence, which is your conclusion. I don't see where my argument has done anything like this. All I've said is that the CFs, when they applied a literal hermeneutic, never came to the day-age view. They always came to a solar view. You cannot, therefore, say that the day-age view has historical precedence by appealing to the CFs. Further, I have pointed out that even among those CFs who came to a non-solar-day view, none of them held to a long-age view, be they interpreting literally or allegorically. They came to an instantaneous creation view.

To help you see what I am saying:

1. ECF use literal interpretation on Gen 1 -> Solar days.
2. Reformed theologians use literal interpretation on Gen 1 -> Solar days.
3. Moderns use literal interpretation on Gen 1 -> Solar days..
4. ECFs use allegorical interpretation on Gen 1 -> Non-solar days
5. Reformed theologians use allegorical interpretation on Gen 1-> Non-solar days
6. Modern theologians use allegorical interpretation on Gen 1 -> Non-Solar days.

Against,

Modern theologians use literal interpretation on Gen 1 -> Non-Solar days.

That is unprecedented, contrary to Day-Age proponents.

I'm simply being consistent, Bart. I'd be more than interested if you can demonstrate in a simple syllogism any circularity on my part.

[Canuckster1127]

Chris,

We've had this conversation I believe before but maybe not as clear.

You're attempting to correlate solar days with a "literal" interpretation on a one to one basis. That goes contrary to what I believe you've stated before that it is possible to arrive at a non-solar day interpretation employing a literal hermeneutic as well. If I understand you correctly, you're now changing that up or modifying it by asserting that you will not find an ECF employing the terms and support for such a position in the same manner that it is now employed. By inference you are then claiming that today's YEC position finds more support among ECFs because those ECFs who presume literal days were present then, and further those ECFs (a majority by many counts, but at least certainly significant and including some key ones) who did not hold to literal days then did not emply a literal hermeneutic.

What I believe you're missing is again something we've discussed in the past, and that is that a literal hermeneutic or historical-grammatical approach if that term is more accurate in your mind, doesn't preclude a symbolic or a metaphoric application if that was the original intent of the passage and it is tied into the understanding that the original audience would have read the passage in question. This can certainly apply to broad types or forms of biblical passages but in the end this must be determined by the immediate context and elements of the passage in question, not just an arbitrary formulaic hermeneutic applied from the outside.

You taking those ECFs who line up with your position and accepting by inference that they musts base that position on the same methods you employ to reach it, while then asking for explicit evidence of those ECFs who don't or writing them off as employing a non-literal hermeneutic. Instead of simply allowing them to speak for themselves and accepting that they could see it one way or the other without necessarily framing their approach to the question using different means than you assume, you set it up as an either-or proposition with different standards of proof applied to each position to arrive at the conclusion you've adopted in the first place.

That seems circlular to me.

I would place the same challenge to you that I believe you have to OECs. Can you provide passages from the ECFs that demonstrate the thought process and heremeneutic that you are claiming was prevelant by the same progression of evidence and thought you used above or are you simply taking evidence where an ECF appears to accept a solar day as proof that they arrived at that conclusion using the same approach that you've used?

You don't see an inconsistency in that claim or a double standard set-up by your projecting the very structure of your hermeneutic back upon them and then claiming it draws it out?

No, to my knowledge there is not an ECF who employs the same progression of to arrive at a non-solar day. To my knowledge there is not an ECF who does the same to reach the conclusion of a solar day. It simply makes sense to me that if the original words and context of the passage could be taken to mean either that there people of any era or christian community (or Jewish for that matter) who took it either way and in the ECF cases I don't see the length of the day garnering any great attention in any of the writings than it being an assumption which they don't see the need to discuss at great length and which they then went on to incorporate usually in some other context anyway.

Attempting to then go back to this situation and ruling out the significance of the position you're inclined to reject as somehow not valid or present because your demand of a clear laying ot of the underlying reasoning is not met, while then turning around and pointing to those ECFs who espouse your view as having been met by inference is applying a double standard and inconsistent.