Having trouble with Day 4 of Genesis

[Jac3510]

Precisely, Jac. That's why asking for a ECF who held to a day-age is both fruitless and worthless; it does not strengthen the YEC point of view one iota. The point IS that many an ECF held to SOMETHING OTHER than the 24hour yom.

Only because you are misunderstanding the argument, my friend. I am not arguing that appeals to the CFs strengthen, in and of themselves, YEC claims. All I say about that is that we can see clear precedent for the solar-day view--in fact, in a earth much younger than 10,000 years and the taking of the genaeologies in Gen 5 as complete and going back to the beginning of time--in the CFs.

Listen to me very carefuly here, because I don't know how to be any clearer:

The issue is one of precedence. YECs argue that they have precedence in the CFs as it relates to both their methodology and their conclusions. YECs argue that the day-age view has no such precedence.

Since we know that no CF held to the day-age view, it makes sense to ask where it came from. What prompted people to suddenly come up with that view after seventeen centuries?

I disagree. When I read, for example, Origen's Contra Celsus where, among other charges, he counters Celsus' claims on creation, I see no underlying philosophy determining Origen's views and only a theological summary. That's why I mentioned straw men, Jac. All you and I need look at is the Early Church Father's interpretation of scripture; anything else just borders on conjecture.

Are you not aware that Origen believed the entire universe was created instantaneously and less than 10,000 years ago? Are you not aware that Origen is the "greatest" allegorical interpreter of all time, that he took the method to extremes never before practiced in the church?

Anyway, all I am doing is looking at the CFs interpretation. Nothing more. Where they take the word yom to refer to a solar day, I label the interpretation 'literal,' because it is by definition. If you can show me a CF who takes the word yom to refer to an era in Gen 1, then I'll label it as 'literal' as well and concede immediately that my entire argument is wrong. Everywhere they take the word yom as something other than a day or age, I label as 'allegorical' or 'figurative,' because it is by definition.

On the contrary, Mr. Ham in his debate with Ross and Kaiser argues EXACTLY THAT. He repeatedly falls back on the myth of the ECFs holding to a 24 hour yom. It is untrue and it is unbecoming for anyone to claim such a falsehood. Your argument that "...the solar-day view had a monopoly among the CFs who took the words of Genesis literally" again is just unfounded, and an irrelevent play on words. It means nothing, Jac. All we need to look at is two things:

1. 24-hour days
2. Other

Now it is clear that the 24-hour day believers had no monopoly whatsoever. This is a myth. And it's a myth which if were true would still mean precisely NOTHING.

Tell you what. Give me a link to the debate and a timestamp that has Ham saying that ALL THE CHURCH FATHERS HELD TO YEC.

Second, you don't have to only show that people took the the days of Gen 1 in a non-solar-day manner. The day-age claim is that the word yom literally refers to an age. That is a MAJOR point of the DA view. Heck, one of the main articles on this site is called The Literal Interpretation of the Genesis One Creation Account. Not just 'A' literal, mind you, but 'THE' literal! Or consider this statement on the main site:

• Indeed, a literal reading of the Hebrew text provides compelling exegetical clues pointing to prolonged creation days.

No, DA advocates are making a very bold claim. They aren't merely claiming that the days of Gen 1 can be taken to refer to ages, but that the text can be read so that it literally refers to ages, just like YECs claim that they days literally refer to solar-days. This is a major claim!

I agree with DA advocates in principle. Where I disagree, which is what I've been arguing in this thread, is when they go on and say that not only can you take the word for day to literally refer to an age, but that they have precedence for such a reading in the CFs. On that, they are factually wrong. No such precedence is found anywhere before the seventeenth century that I am aware of.

Again, your question is based on a false premise. How do you know that no-one ever thought to take the Genesis one yom as ages? Surely you are not making an argument from silence, Jac? Your question just holds no water for me because, and as Bart has mentioned, this wasn't an issue. The FACT of the matter is that plenty of ECFs held to the yom as meaning something OTHER than the 24-hour yom. Hence the 24-hour yom was NOT monopolised, in any way, shape or form by any mythical majority of ECFs.

Jac, I'm not interested in anything other than the ECFs theological interpretation of the early genesis yom. And, when one takes a close look, one finds that, actually, some of the most influential ECFs DID NOT hold the the 24-hour, six day creation. I think that THIS is the most intriguing factor.

The issue, AGAIN, Danny, is of precedence. You can't base precedence on what someone MIGHT have believed. Precedence requires what was actually said or done. There is no precedence in the CFs for taking the days of Gen 1 to literally refer to ages. Likewise, there is no precedence in the CFs for taking the days of Gen 1 to refer to ages at all..

You CAN argue that you can take yom literally as ages. You CAN the word doesn't have to refer to solar-days. You CAN argue that many CFs took the word in an allegorical sense and rejected the solar-day view. You CANNOT argue, however, that any CFs took the word literally to refer to ages. That's just not an option.

[Gman]

Tell you what. Give me a link to the debate and a timestamp that has Ham saying that ALL THE CHURCH FATHERS HELD TO YEC.

Sure.. Here is one in 2003 by AIG...

"Prior to the 19th century the dominant view in the Christian world of Eastern and Western Europe and North America was that God created the world in six 24-hour days about 4000 BC and that about 1600 years later the earth had been judged with a global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah.3 In the late 18th century different histories of the earth began to be developed and popularized which were evolutionary and naturalistic in character. By this I mean that these theories sought to explain the origin and history of physical reality by appealing only to time, chance and the laws of nature working on matter. God was denied or at least left out of the picture in constructing a history of the earth."

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... th-geology

Or this one...

"Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306—373) and Basil of Caesarea (329—379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330—397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old. "

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

[Gman]

Also... What exactly do we mean when we say the ECF's? The ECF's of European dissent or Hebrew dissent...??

Why are we leaving out the Hebrew culture from this view? Don't you think they understand their language better than the Europeans? Of course the Europeans are going to interject their views into Hebrew understandings... As evidenced...

"Young Earth creationists have claimed that this view has its earliest roots in Judaism, citing, for example, the commentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089—1164).[4] However, Shai Cherry of Vanderbilt University notes that Jewish theologians have generally rejected such literal interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who oppose some aspects of Darwinian thought generally accept scientific evidence that the Earth is much older.[13] Similar claims are made of Christian commentators, but a number of prominent early Christian Church Fathers including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine, did not believe the Genesis myth depicted ordinary solar days and read creation history as an allegory as well as being theologically true (however, all of these men believed in a young earth[14]). The Protestant reformation hermeneutic inclined some of the Reformers and later Protestants toward a literal reading of the Bible as translated, believing in an ordinary day, and maintaining this younger-Earth view."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth_creationism

[Canuckster1127]

Jac, you're not applying the same standard to your claim of "YEC" church fathers that you are to those who did not evidence belief in 24 hour days.

You're asserting that the day age position was not present in ECFs. Frankly, you don't know how these ECFs arrived at their position. Further, you don't know how the other ECFs arrived at the 24 hour day. You're assuming they simply are taking the words at literal value. However there is nothing that I'm aware of in terms of evidenc of and ECF exegeting the word yom in Hebrew to arrive at either position.

So on the one hand, you have those who accepted a literal 24 hour day or presented it in their writings, but don't give their underlying exegesis or progression to that position, but you're claiming that this is evidence of a similar position to today's YEC.

On the other hand, you have those who accept the days as non-solar and you claim they are using a metaphorical approach and therefore non-literal and therefore not rightly claimed as progenitors for OEC. It looks to me too that you take the non-literal day as evidence in and of themselves they are not using a literal hermeneutic. Unless you have other evidence you wish to posit, that's evidence to me of a double standard.

1. There are Church Father's who accept a literal 24 hour day in Genesis.
2. A literal 24 hour day interpretation is evidence of a literal hermeneutic.
3. Therefore those Church father's used a literal hermeneutic to arrive at their position.

You assume this without the hermeneutic itself having been displayed in terms of how that conclusion was reached.

As opposed to what you do for the ECFs whose position you wish to discount.

1. There are Church Father's who accept a non-literal 24 hour day in Genesis.
2. A non-solar day interpretation is evidence of a metaphoric or allegorical hermeneutic.
3. Therefore those Church Father's used a metaphic or allegorical hermeneutic to arrive at their position.

Neither position displays the underlying means of arriving at the position. Yet you accept the one by inference and reject the other claiming, as has been pointed out by means of an argument from silence, that a particular understanding could not be behind the espoused position.

When challenged on this you state my claim is "absurd" but do not offer any direct evidence of a literal hermeneutic.

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to accept the possibility or the probability of a literal hermeneutic in one instance without it being stated clearly on the basis of inference, but then turn around and deny the possibility of a literal hermeneutic in the other instance by disallowing the inference, then you're not being consistent. The fact remains that there are ECFs holding to both positions, neither of which provide, nor could be expected to provide a historical-grammatical literal hermeneutic in the form that either YEC or OEC is expressed today.

No doubt I'm being absurd again from your point of view.

That's how I see it. Be consistent of the standards for both. Don't apply different standards to the basis of inference in each situation.

You apply a loose standard to the YEC claim and a tight standard to the OEC claim.

[Byblos]

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to accept the possibility or the probability of a literal hermeneutic in one instance without it being stated clearly on the basis of inference, but then turn around and deny the possibility of a literal hermeneutic in the other instance by disallowing the inference, then you're not being consistent. The fact remains that there are ECFs holding to both positions, neither of which provide, nor could be expected to provide a historical-grammatical literal hermeneutic in the form that either YEC or OEC is expressed today.

This sums it up very nicely.

Jac, as I stated a few pages back (or was it in a different thread?), we do not have to show that the ECFs believed in OEC per se, no more than we would have to show they believed in some other idea yet to be discovered. All we have to show is that some ECFs did not hold to a literal 24 hr days to make our point.

[DannyM]

Only because you are misunderstanding the argument, my friend. I am not arguing that appeals to the CFs strengthen, in and of themselves, YEC claims. All I say about that is that we can see clear precedent for the solar-day view--in fact, in a earth much younger than 10,000 years and the taking of the genaeologies in Gen 5 as complete and going back to the beginning of time--in the CFs.

But this is the point I'm making: there is NO clear precedent for the 24-hour yom. Many CFs DID hold to a 24-hour yom; many DID NOT hold to a 24-hour yom. This FACT alone should end all this talk of a "clear precedent". It's a bogus point, Jac. I'm even willing to concede that, of the CFs who expressed a view on creation, those that held to a 24-hour yom might JUST have been in the majority; but this doesn't equate to a clear precedent in terms of it meaning something overwhelmingly for the argument for the 24-hour yom. It's just a moot point.

The issue is one of precedence. YECs argue that they have precedence in the CFs as it relates to both their methodology and their conclusions. YECs argue that the day-age view has no such precedence.

I'm hearing you brother. What the YEC is doing is taking an argument from silence, along with the fact that a handful of CFs held to the 24-hour yom, and taking it as some sort of precedcent; while completely ignoring the fact that MANY CFs held to what we might term a non-24-hour yom. The argument from silence, i.e. no noticable CFs holding to long ages of time for the creation yom, tied in with a handful of CFs holding to the 24-hour yom, is merely an ineffectual argument for the position of YEC. Now I understand this is not exactly what you are arguing, Jac, but the implication that this somehow strengthens the YEC position is there nonetheless.

Since we know that no CF held to the day-age view, it makes sense to ask where it came from. What prompted people to suddenly come up with that view after seventeen centuries?

Again, all we can do is speculate. How do we know what Origen, Martyr, Augustine etc would have thought given the scientific and geological data we have today? We clearly see that they already disregarded the 24-hour yom; how far would they have gone today? This is why I say such reasoning is futile and we must deal with what we have concerning to CFs reading of scripture AT THAT TIME. And AT THAT TIME there was NO overwhelming lean towards the 24-hour yom.

Are you not aware that Origen believed the entire universe was created instantaneously and less than 10,000 years ago? Are you not aware that Origen is the "greatest" allegorical interpreter of all time, that he took the method to extremes never before practiced in the church?

Of course I am; and what of it Jac? Are you questioning Origen's theology derived from his spirituality? This is from his Contra Celsus, book 6 chapter 60:

"... We answered to the best of our ability this objection to God's commanding this first, second, and third thing to be created, when we quoted the words, He said, and it was done; He commanded, and all things stood fast; remarking that the immediate Creator, and, as it were, very Maker of the world was the Word, the Son of God; while the Father of the Word, by commanding His own Son— the Word— to create the world, is primarily Creator. And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone ), and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."

Anyway, all I am doing is looking at the CFs interpretation. Nothing more. Where they take the word yom to refer to a solar day, I label the interpretation 'literal,' because it is by definition. If you can show me a CF who takes the word yom to refer to an era in Gen 1, then I'll label it as 'literal' as well and concede immediately that my entire argument is wrong. Everywhere they take the word yom as something other than a day or age, I label as 'allegorical' or 'figurative,' because it is by definition.

"For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject."

St. Justin Martyr. Here he is talking about the word day in Genesis meaning a period of a thousand years. He's not alone in considering this...

"And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin."

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5:23.

Many CFs were clearly open to the yom meaning a period of time. Why no evidence of day-age (as we would call it now)? I don't know. But like I said, with the prevailing model of the earth back then being Ptolemy's, then who knows even if the CFs were open to an old earth? Like I say, we can only speculate.

Tell you what. Give me a link to the debate and a timestamp that has Ham saying that ALL THE CHURCH FATHERS HELD TO YEC.

Absolutely. Here's just one video of a long debate in which Mr. Ham REPEATEDLY claims scholars and CFs held to six-day 24-hour creationism, even citing Irenaeus, which I find quite amusing. Start from 2:50 and then watch Mr. Ham as he arrogantly claims, first that scholarship, then history is on the side of the six-day 24-hour creationism; then watch him backtrack as Newton is quoted by Ross, so he forgets the earlier scholarship he quoted and sticks with the CFs... This man just epitomises sheer arrogance. I'm glad he's on your side, Jac and not mine. I'd hate to have to defend this guy's conduct, I really would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz1pC4Iu ... re=related

There are many parts to this debate with Mr. Ham repeating more of the same.

God bless

[Jac3510]

Sure.. Here is one in 2003 by AIG...

"Prior to the 19th century the dominant view in the Christian world of Eastern and Western Europe and North America was that God created the world in six 24-hour days about 4000 BC and that about 1600 years later the earth had been judged with a global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah.3 In the late 18th century different histories of the earth began to be developed and popularized which were evolutionary and naturalistic in character. By this I mean that these theories sought to explain the origin and history of physical reality by appealing only to time, chance and the laws of nature working on matter. God was denied or at least left out of the picture in constructing a history of the earth."

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... th-geology

Or this one...

"Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306—373) and Basil of Caesarea (329—379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330—397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old. "

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

Neither of those say that ALL the CFs held to YEC. Ham said YEC was the dominant, not only, view, and that most, not all, held to it.

Also... What exactly do we mean when we say the ECF's? The ECF's of European dissent or Hebrew dissent...??

Why are we leaving out the Hebrew culture from this view? Don't you think they understand their language better than the Europeans? Of course the Europeans are going to interject their views into Hebrew understandings... As evidenced...

"Young Earth creationists have claimed that this view has its earliest roots in Judaism, citing, for example, the commentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089—1164).[4] However, Shai Cherry of Vanderbilt University notes that Jewish theologians have generally rejected such literal interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who oppose some aspects of Darwinian thought generally accept scientific evidence that the Earth is much older.[13] Similar claims are made of Christian commentators, but a number of prominent early Christian Church Fathers including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine, did not believe the Genesis myth depicted ordinary solar days and read creation history as an allegory as well as being theologically true (however, all of these men believed in a young earth[14]). The Protestant reformation hermeneutic inclined some of the Reformers and later Protestants toward a literal reading of the Bible as translated, believing in an ordinary day, and maintaining this younger-Earth view."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth_creationism

First, the issue is with precedence in church history, not Jewish history.
Second, look at the words I bolded in your quote. Let that be true. The DA view, as I proved with two separate quotes from Rich, claims its view to be a LITERAL interpretation of the text. As such, it doesn't do you any good to sight anyone--Jewish or Gentile--who takes the text non-literally.
Third, your basic premise is wrong. By the first century, most of the Jews had forgotten Hebrew and spoke Aramaic. In fact, there is good evidence from the LXX, translated between 200 years before and fifty years after Christ, that they didn't have as good of a grasp on Hebrew as scholars to today. Do keep in mind that Hebrew was no more their native tongue than it is ours, and especially by the middle ages, Hebrew was basically a dead language.
Fourth, the fact that many CFs adopted an allegorical hermeneutic only proves my point, which one of you are addressing. You continually bring up problems that have no impact on my basic assertion, which I'll repeat yet again and the end of this rather long post for convenience.

Jac, you're not applying the same standard to your claim of "YEC" church fathers that you are to those who did not evidence belief in 24 hour days.

You're asserting that the day age position was not present in ECFs. Frankly, you don't know how these ECFs arrived at their position. Further, you don't know how the other ECFs arrived at the 24 hour day. You're assuming they simply are taking the words at literal value. However there is nothing that I'm aware of in terms of evidenc of and ECF exegeting the word yom in Hebrew to arrive at either position.

Even if I don't know how the CFs reached their views (which I dispute), that doesn't change the fact that they day-age view is not in the CFs. Can you show me a single quote from the CFs that takes the yomim to literally refer to long ages? By your own admission, you cannot.

Second, note the underlined part. You have repeated this assertion no less than three times, and all three times I have refuted it. You are just ignoring me. Why, honestly, should I take your arguments seriously if you aren't going to take mine seriously? As I've responded to this repeatedly, I'll not do so again. If you want to continue the conversation, feel free to address my argument. If not, I'm quite content to let the reader decide for himself why you choose to continue to ignore it.

So on the one hand, you have those who accepted a literal 24 hour day or presented it in their writings, but don't give their underlying exegesis or progression to that position, but you're claiming that this is evidence of a similar position to today's YEC.

On the other hand, you have those who accept the days as non-solar and you claim they are using a metaphorical approach and therefore non-literal and therefore not rightly claimed as progenitors for OEC. It looks to me too that you take the non-literal day as evidence in and of themselves they are not using a literal hermeneutic. Unless you have other evidence you wish to posit, that's evidence to me of a double standard.

Again, Bart, I've already dealt with this. You can assert this until Jesus comes back. It won't make it true. I have answered this in very precise terms, referring very explicitly to how language works, referents, the definition of methods, etc. You can continue to ignore it if you like. If you have nothing further to add to the conversation, there are several others who seem to be willing to take it up, and if not, then I'm content to let this stand where it is.

1. There are Church Father's who accept a literal 24 hour day in Genesis.
2. A literal 24 hour day interpretation is evidence of a literal hermeneutic.
3. Therefore those Church father's used a literal hermeneutic to arrive at their position.

Is this your attempt to construct my argument? First of all, it's invalid as stated. The conclusion doesn't even follow from the two premises. The conclusion that would actually be reached is, "Therefore, there is evidence of a literal hermeneutic in [some] Church Fathers."

That's not nearly as strong a statement as your (3), and neither that nor the corrected statement I've given to you is my argument. In fact, I already gave my argument FOR you. I'll repeat it here:

• 1. The day-age view takes the yomim of Gen 1 to literally refer to ages;
  2. None of the CFs took the yomim to literally refer to ages
  3. Therefore, none of the CFs held to the day-age view.
  
  Against this, YECs can say:
  
  1. The solar-day view takes the yomim of Gen 1 to literally refer to solar days;
  2. Several CFs took the yomim of Gen 1 to literally refer to solar days;
  3. Therefore, several of the CFs held the solar-day view.

Where in either of my two arguments have I talked about a particular hermeneutical method, Bart? The first argument is my primary one in this thread and doesn't even mention YEC. The second argument just gives the counter-point to avoid making a tu quoque fallacy.

Now, AGAIN, if you want to handle my arguments as I present them, rather than one of your own making, then feel free.

You assume this without the hermeneutic itself having been displayed in terms of how that conclusion was reached.

As opposed to what you do for the ECFs whose position you wish to discount.

1. There are Church Father's who accept a non-literal 24 hour day in Genesis.
2. A non-solar day interpretation is evidence of a metaphoric or allegorical hermeneutic.
3. Therefore those Church Father's used a metaphic or allegorical hermeneutic to arrive at their position.

Neither position displays the underlying means of arriving at the position. Yet you accept the one by inference and reject the other claiming, as has been pointed out by means of an argument from silence, that a particular understanding could not be behind the espoused position.

No, I don't accept your conclusion here for the same reason I rejected the conclusion in your first attempt to reconstruct my argument. If you think that is what I am actually arguing, I can see why you are having such difficulty with my words. Now, usually, I would concede that I must be being unclear, but since I have put my argument in a very simple syllogism, and since rather than deal with that you supplied your own, I'll simply have to leave you to decide whether or not you want to deal with MY argument, not your representation of it.

In any case, it is evident from your words here that you have fallen into your own circular reasoning. Pray tell, Bart, how are we to discover what kind of hermeneutic a person is using if we aren't allowed to look at their interpretations? It seems that you are saying that we cannot conclude that any given CF was using a literal or allegorical hermeneutic because we first must assume a hermeneutic to make said statement . . . that begs the question, though.

Finally, your accusation that I am making an argument from silence is rather incredible, being as I have already responded to that charge directly. To that, I have already replied:

• The issue, AGAIN, Danny, is of precedence. You can't base precedence on what someone MIGHT have believed. Precedence requires what was actually said or done. There is no precedence in the CFs for taking the days of Gen 1 to literally refer to ages. Likewise, there is no precedence in the CFs for taking the days of Gen 1 to refer to ages at all..

I am going to continue to ask you to respond to my arguments, Bart. If you refuse to do so, then why don't you step back and let others discuss this who will do so?

When challenged on this you state my claim is "absurd" but do not offer any direct evidence of a literal hermeneutic.

On the contrary, I said explicitly:

• I'm sorry, but the underlined part is just absurd. When the CFs were using literal solar days as a basis for their eschatology, and then you say they didn't take the text literally, I don't know what there is left to say. How you can possibly suggest that in taking the text literally they weren't taking the text literally boggles my mind.

The underlined parts offer two distinct lines of evidence of "a literal hermeneutic." Did you simply stop reading after the word "absurd"? The claim that I offered no evidence is simply false. You may not be persuaded by it; you may find it weak, but to say that I offered no evidence, which is to imply that I'm only dismissing your argument rather than interacting with it, is dishonest at best.

Now, in all our conversations, I reply to all of your words thoroughly and within the broader scope of your own argument. I am AGAIN asking you to do the same. If you are unwilling to do so, then may I suggest that we leave it off here?

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to accept the possibility or the probability of a literal hermeneutic in one instance without it being stated clearly on the basis of inference, but then turn around and deny the possibility of a literal hermeneutic in the other instance by disallowing the inference, then you're not being consistent. The fact remains that there are ECFs holding to both positions, neither of which provide, nor could be expected to provide a historical-grammatical literal hermeneutic in the form that either YEC or OEC is expressed today.

And if you were to actually respond to my argument, you'd see that I'm doing nothing even close to what you have suggested. I have been perfectly consistent, so much so that I have put my argument in parallels so you can see the consistency. Yet, it seems I am detecting a trend, in which you ignore the argument and then restate your case over and over and over again . . .

No doubt I'm being absurd again from your point of view.

Is that sarcasm I detect? It is difficult to tell on a message board.

That's how I see it. Be consistent of the standards for both. Don't apply different standards to the basis of inference in each situation.

You apply a loose standard to the YEC claim and a tight standard to the OEC claim.

I have been. I'm just waiting on you to consider the arguments I've made rather than those of your own invention.

This sums it up very nicely.

Jac, as I stated a few pages back (or was it in a different thread?), we do not have to show that the ECFs believed in OEC per se, no more than we would have to show they believed in some other idea yet to be discovered. All we have to show is that some ECFs did not hold to a literal 24 hr days to make our point.

Wrong. The claim of the day-age view, as articulated on this site, is NOT that the CFs just rejected the day-age view, but rather than the day-age view is a literal interpretation of the text of Gen 1. The day-age view does NOT claim it is an allegorical interpretation. It claims it is a literal interpretation. Since it claims it is a literal interpretation, it is up to you to demonstrate others who employed a literal interpretation and came to your conclusion. Not only can you not do this, but you cannot even offer a single CF who followed ANY method to get to your conclusion, for no CF held to the day-age view. The fact that DA proponents want to cite people like Origen and Augustine to support their position is ridiculous, since both of these men explicitly rejected the day-age view, with Origen claiming the universe is much younger than ten thousand years old and Augustine stating in no uncertain terms that the world was not created slowly over long periods of time.

To show precedent, John, you have to give me a lot more than just a non-solar-day interpretation. Since the claim of the DA view is that it is the literal interpretation of the account, if you want precedent, you need to show me someone who came to the DA view and who took the word yom literally, rather than allegorically.

I've said multiple times that all you have to do is produce ONE such quote and you will be vindicated and I will be proven wrong. As of yet, not one has been presented, and Bart has confessed that none exists.

But this is the point I'm making: there is NO clear precedent for the 24-hour yom. Many CFs DID hold to a 24-hour yom; many DID NOT hold to a 24-hour yom. This FACT alone should end all this talk of a "clear precedent". It's a bogus point, Jac. I'm even willing to concede that, of the CFs who expressed a view on creation, those that held to a 24-hour yom might JUST have been in the majority; but this doesn't equate to a clear precedent in terms of it meaning something overwhelmingly for the argument for the 24-hour yom. It's just a moot point.

Precedent: any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations.

Danny, by definition, if a single person takes a particular view, that sets precedent for it. We have in the CFs people who took the yomim to refer to six solar days. That is precedent by definition. If you want to claim historical precedence for the day-age view, you need only show a single CF who took the yomim to refer to six ages.

I'm hearing you brother. What the YEC is doing is taking an argument from silence, along with the fact that a handful of CFs held to the 24-hour yom, and taking it as some sort of precedcent; while completely ignoring the fact that MANY CFs held to what we might term a non-24-hour yom. The argument from silence, i.e. no noticable CFs holding to long ages of time for the creation yom, tied in with a handful of CFs holding to the 24-hour yom, is merely an ineffectual argument for the position of YEC. Now I understand this is not exactly what you are arguing, Jac, but the implication that this somehow strengthens the YEC position is there nonetheless.

You are still misunderstanding me, Danny. Look at the underline words in your statement. I am not making an argument FOR YEC. I am disputing an argument FOR OEC. The argument FOR OEC is that there is precedent for OEC in the CFs. That is factually wrong. If you want to make it into an argument for YEC, you have a totally different issue. It could be stated thus:

1. Any position that has historical precedent is more likely to be accurate than a view without historical precedent;
2. YEC, unlike OEC, can claim historical precedence;
3. Therefore, YEC is more likely to be accurate than OEC.

Now, that would be a logically valid argument. I don't buy it, however, because I don't buy (1). I think (1) is false. There have been plenty of unprecedented views that turned out to be correct (i.e., Luther's doctrine of faith alone--sorry John!). Besides, (1) is actually a subtle genetic fallacy.

Since, then, you recognize that I am not arguing for this, can we drop this line of thought? I have now publicly repudiated the implication you are trying to draw from my actual argument. The implication that I AM trying to draw out is that the day-age view is based on a scientifically, rather than textually, driven hermeneutic, and is therefore more likely to be in error. That's a far cry from an argument from silence, my friend.

Again, all we can do is speculate. How do we know what Origen, Martyr, Augustine etc would have thought given the scientific and geological data we have today? We clearly see that they already disregarded the 24-hour yom; how far would they have gone today? This is why I say such reasoning is futile and we must deal with what we have concerning to CFs reading of scripture AT THAT TIME. And AT THAT TIME there was NO overwhelming lean towards the 24-hour yom.

I think they probably WOULD have held to something like OEC today. Why? Because they all demonstrated that they had a non-textually-driven hermeneutic. In their case, philosophy drove their interpretation. If you want to claim precedence in these men, all you can claim is that you have precedence in taking the Bible non-literally, as these men did. I've already made that point repeatedly.

Of course I am; and what of it Jac? Are you questioning Origen's theology derived from his spirituality? This is from his Contra Celsus, book 6 chapter 60:

"... We answered to the best of our ability this objection to God's commanding this first, second, and third thing to be created, when we quoted the words, He said, and it was done; He commanded, and all things stood fast; remarking that the immediate Creator, and, as it were, very Maker of the world was the Word, the Son of God; while the Father of the Word, by commanding His own Son— the Word— to create the world, is primarily Creator. And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone ), and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."

That's my point, Danny. These men--especially Origen--employed an allegorical hermeneutic. Since the day-age view is predicated on a literal hermeneutic, you can find no precedence in Origen, or any other allegorizer for that matter.

"For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject."

St. Justin Martyr. Here he is talking about the word day in Genesis meaning a period of a thousand years. He's not alone in considering this...

"And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin."

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5:23.

Many CFs were clearly open to the yom meaning a period of time. Why no evidence of day-age (as we would call it now)? I don't know. But like I said, with the prevailing model of the earth back then being Ptolemy's, then who knows even if the CFs were open to an old earth? Like I say, we can only speculate.

Yes, and in both of those cases, they took the yom there allegorically. For them, a "day" is a symbol--explained later in the Bible as being a thousand years. Since it is a symbol for something else--namely, a thousand years--it is NOT being taken literally, anymore than the phrase "cats and dogs" in the sentence, "it's raining cats and dogs" is literal.

Second, it is worth nothing that in both of those cases, the "day" being referred to is the day in which Adam died, not any of the six days of creation.

Absolutely. Here's just one video of a long debate in which Mr. Ham REPEATEDLY claims scholars and CFs held to six-day 24-hour creationism, even citing Irenaeus, which I find quite amusing. Start from 2:50 and then watch Mr. Ham as he arrogantly claims, first that scholarship, then history is on the side of the six-day 24-hour creationism; then watch him backtrack as Newton is quoted by Ross, so he forgets the earlier scholarship he quoted and sticks with the CFs... This man just epitomises sheer arrogance. I'm glad he's on your side, Jac and not mine. I'd hate to have to defend this guy's conduct, I really would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz1pC4Iu ... re=related

There are many parts to this debate with Mr. Ham repeating more of the same.

He says specifically "a majority of scholars," not "all the CFs." No one argues--not even Ham--that EVERYONE held to a 24 hour day view, Danny. I'll leave off the comments on him being arrogant. We have exhausted that one already. Suffice it to say, I don't see any arrogance, and I don't think it is right to judge a man. As far as Newton goes, it is too bad Ham got cut off, because he was in the process of responding to Ross and didn't get to finish.

For all:

The argument I am making is very simple:

1. No CF took the word yom to literally refer to a long period of time
2. If no one espoused your view, then it is unprecedented
3. Therefore, the view that the word yom literally refers to a long period of time is an unprecedented view.

The fact that the DA view is unprecedented does NOT make it wrong. It just makes it unprecedented. My concern is relates to the hermeneutical implications. Since the view is unprecedented, to what to we attribute its sudden appearance on the scene, especially given that it appeared on the scene immediately after geologists started arguing for an old earth?

[Canuckster1127]

Even if I don't know how the CFs reached their views (which I dispute), that doesn't change the fact that they day-age view is not in the CFs. Can you show me a single quote from the CFs that takes the yomim to literally refer to long ages? By your own admission, you cannot.

Can you show me a single quote from the CF's that indicates that they are specifically drawing their understanding of a 24 hour day on the basis of exegesis with reference to the word "yomin"?

That would make the standard of evidence you're applying to both positions as equal. Otherwise, I believe we've exhausted the possibilities of this conversation and most of the material that you follow with comes into question as the premises you're resting them remain undemonstrated.

[DannyM]

Danny, by definition, if a single person takes a particular view, that sets precedent for it. We have in the CFs people who took the yomim to refer to six solar days. That is precedent by definition. If you want to claim historical precedence for the day-age view, you need only show a single CF who took the yomim to refer to six ages.

Jac, I'm having a nightmare; I should just stay in bed. I'm sorry I'm not making sense. I KNOW that there is plenty of precedent for the CFs taking day to mean a solar-day. I'm saying there is no YEC precedent here. There is no precedent for yom--24-hour day--YEC. In other words you cannot call these men Young Earth Creationists, because they would wonder what the hell you are talking about. How on earth do we know HOW they arrived at solar-days? Then throw in the non-24-hour yom mob and the precedent doesn't look so important.

You are still misunderstanding me, Danny. Look at the underline words in your statement. I am not making an argument FOR YEC. I am disputing an argument FOR OEC. The argument FOR OEC is that there is precedent for OEC in the CFs. That is factually wrong. If you want to make it into an argument for YEC, you have a totally different issue. It could be stated thus:

1. Any position that has historical precedent is more likely to be accurate than a view without historical precedent;
2. YEC, unlike OEC, can claim historical precedence;
3. Therefore, YEC is more likely to be accurate than OEC.

No. The argument coming from OEC is that there is PLENTY of evidence for the non-24-hour yom; it isn't as cut and dried as the likes of Mr. Ham would have us believe. That link, Jac: the man is utterly dismissive of OEC on the basis of a false argument. By calling him arrogant I am not judging him in an impious manner. I actually find him uptight, defensive, rude, and I think he should lighten up and stop thinking he is speaking for God.

Since, then, you recognize that I am not arguing for this, can we drop this line of thought? I have now publicly repudiated the implication you are trying to draw from my actual argument. The implication that I AM trying to draw out is that the day-age view is based on a scientifically, rather than textually, driven hermeneutic, and is therefore more likely to be in error. That's a far cry from an argument from silence, my friend.

Okay. I apologise if you think I am misrepresenting you. Let me tell you that, when I read the bible as a young man, I never took the days as six literal solar-days. I did not need science to tell me that to read the six days as 24-hour days was ludicrous. Of course, modern science has enhanced the day-age position to such an intellectually fulfilling extent that it would be a shame to devalue the tool of science by ignoring its impact upon millions and millions of Christians, in many cases saving them from becoming atheists. God works in mysterious ways

I think they probably WOULD have held to something like OEC today. Why? Because they all demonstrated that they had a non-textually-driven hermeneutic. In their case, philosophy drove their interpretation. If you want to claim precedence in these men, all you can claim is that you have precedence in taking the Bible non-literally, as these men did. I've already made that point repeatedly.

But this is my beef, Jac: these CFs were not driven by a "non-textual hermeneutic"; they merely read the text differently to you. How can you say, with your hand on your heart, that these men were "driven" by something "sinister" when compared to your "fresh, virgin like" adherence to the text? In other words, YOUR reading of the text is the most natural, authentic reading; is this how you feel, Jac?

That's my point, Danny. These men--especially Origen--employed an allegorical hermeneutic. Since the day-age view is predicated on a literal hermeneutic, you can find no precedence in Origen, or any other allegorizer for that matter.

I know that the long yom is a literal reading; I'm not looking for anything mirroring this view. I'm just pointing out that there was no overwhelming concensus for the solar-days. None at all. I think that, in the context of the debate, that is all we need to know. And I strongly object to those (not you Jac) who peddle this false argument. The truth needs to win through at all times.

Yes, and in both of those cases, they took the yom there allegorically. For them, a "day" is a symbol--explained later in the Bible as being a thousand years. Since it is a symbol for something else--namely, a thousand years--it is NOT being taken literally, anymore than the phrase "cats and dogs" in the sentence, "it's raining cats and dogs" is literal.

Yes, but they read the text and approached the scripture in an honest hermeneutic; I have no reason to believe otherwise. Yet you are blowing these CFs off because you see their hermeneutic as figurative and thus not worthy? Hey, that's your call. My argument stands that we have many CFs who DID NOT take the 24-hour yom. So there is no reason for us to look back, dewy-eyed and romantic when this view was far from being the overwhelming consensus.

Second, it is worth nothing that in both of those cases, the "day" being referred to is the day in which Adam died, not any of the six days of creation.

1. No CF took the word yom to literally refer to a long period of time
2. If no one espoused your view, then it is unprecedented
3. Therefore, the view that the word yom literally refers to a long period of time is an unprecedented view.

The fact that the DA view is unprecedented does NOT make it wrong. It just makes it unprecedented. My concern is relates to the hermeneutical implications. Since the view is unprecedented, to what to we attribute its sudden appearance on the scene, especially given that it appeared on the scene immediately after geologists started arguing for an old earth?

If it's as cut and dried as you are making out, Jac, then I guess science made the early scripture intellectually fulfilling for many Christians. You certainly have a point, but when you see how weak the argument for 24-hour solar-day concensus back in the day really is, precedents do not really matter.

Hey Jac, I've read over this post twice before submitting; I hope I've stayed on track this time

[Kurieuo]

Since, then, you recognize that I am not arguing for this, can we drop this line of thought? I have now publicly repudiated the implication you are trying to draw from my actual argument. The implication that I AM trying to draw out is that the day-age view is based on a scientifically, rather than textually, driven hermeneutic, and is therefore more likely to be in error. That's a far cry from an argument from silence, my friend.

Okay. I apologise if you think I am misrepresenting you. Let me tell you that, when I read the bible as a young man, I never took the days as six literal solar-days. I did not need science to tell me that to read the six days as 24-hour days was ludicrous. Of course, modern science has enhanced the day-age position to such an intellectually fulfilling extent that it would be a shame to devalue the tool of science by ignoring its impact upon millions and millions of Christians, in many cases saving them from becoming atheists. God works in mysterious ways

I can vouch for taking the days to mean extended periods of time aslo... sure it wasn't a full-blown Day-Age view as this site advocates, however it was Day-Age by definition nonetheless.

Second, look at the words I bolded in your quote. Let that be true. The DA view, as I proved with two separate quotes from Rich, claims its view to be a LITERAL interpretation of the text. As such, it doesn't do you any good to sight anyone--Jewish or Gentile--who takes the text non-literally.

This is just one of many statements I picked out, but I want to target this "literalness" you believe no ECF believed to be the case.

"Literal" seems to be getting tossed around and used so easily, however discussion of "literalism" is not really black and white. In fact, I believe it is quite complicated to define. I have had heated discussion myself on what is literal, and I am sure it is something theologians would diverge on. I believe the Day-Age view is a literal understanding of Genesis 1 as most would understand literal. Most Christians would understand "literal" in relation to a word in Scripture as a possible meaning of the word itself. If Rich used this sense, then he is fully right to statement the Day-Age interpretation is a literal understanding of the Genesis creation account.

The first thing I think someone needs to do before declaring where an interpretation is a literal one, or was not understood as such by ECFs, is to first define what they mean by literal. If you disagree with Rich from the get go that the Day-Age is a literal interpretation of Gen 1, then it is best to first gain an understanding of what Rich means by "literal" in "literal interpretation". Secondly, if you disagree with that his use of "literal", then you need to argue as much that Rich's understanding of what counts as "literal" in "literal interpretation" is wrong. Then once that argument is won, you can declare the Day-Age interpretation is not literal and/or no early church father believed in a literal understanding.

I think they probably WOULD have held to something like OEC today. Why? Because they all demonstrated that they had a non-textually-driven hermeneutic. In their case, philosophy drove their interpretation. If you want to claim precedence in these men, all you can claim is that you have precedence in taking the Bible non-literally, as these men did. I've already made that point repeatedly.

But this is my beef, Jac: these CFs were not driven by a "non-textual hermeneutic"; they merely read the text differently to you. How can you say, with your hand on your heart, that these men were "driven" by something "sinister" when compared to your "fresh, virgin like" adherence to the text? In other words, YOUR reading of the text is the most natural, authentic reading; is this how you feel, Jac?

That's my point, Danny. These men--especially Origen--employed an allegorical hermeneutic. Since the day-age view is predicated on a literal hermeneutic, you can find no precedence in Origen, or any other allegorizer for that matter.

I know that the long yom is a literal reading; I'm not looking for anything mirroring this view. I'm just pointing out that there was no overwhelming concensus for the solar-days. None at all. I think that, in the context of the debate, that is all we need to know. And I strongly object to those (not you Jac) who peddle this false argument. The truth needs to win through at all times.

Yes, and in both of those cases, they took the yom there allegorically. For them, a "day" is a symbol--explained later in the Bible as being a thousand years. Since it is a symbol for something else--namely, a thousand years--it is NOT being taken literally, anymore than the phrase "cats and dogs" in the sentence, "it's raining cats and dogs" is literal.

Yes, but they read the text and approached the scripture in an honest hermeneutic; I have no reason to believe otherwise. Yet you are blowing these CFs off because you see their hermeneutic as figurative and thus not worthy? Hey, that's your call. My argument stands that we have many CFs who DID NOT take the 24-hour yom. So there is no reason for us to look back, dewy-eyed and romantic when this view was far from being the overwhelming consensus.

Second, it is worth nothing that in both of those cases, the "day" being referred to is the day in which Adam died, not any of the six days of creation.

1. No CF took the word yom to literally refer to a long period of time
2. If no one espoused your view, then it is unprecedented
3. Therefore, the view that the word yom literally refers to a long period of time is an unprecedented view.

The fact that the DA view is unprecedented does NOT make it wrong. It just makes it unprecedented. My concern is relates to the hermeneutical implications. Since the view is unprecedented, to what to we attribute its sudden appearance on the scene, especially given that it appeared on the scene immediately after geologists started arguing for an old earth?

If it's as cut and dried as you are making out, Jac, then I guess science made the early scripture intellectually fulfilling for many Christians. You certainly have a point, but when you see how weak the argument for 24-hour solar-day concensus back in the day really is, precedents do not really matter.

Hey Jac, I've read over this post twice before submitting; I hope I've stayed on track this time [/quote]

[Kurieuo]

Since, then, you recognize that I am not arguing for this, can we drop this line of thought? I have now publicly repudiated the implication you are trying to draw from my actual argument. The implication that I AM trying to draw out is that the day-age view is based on a scientifically, rather than textually, driven hermeneutic, and is therefore more likely to be in error. That's a far cry from an argument from silence, my friend.

Okay. I apologise if you think I am misrepresenting you. Let me tell you that, when I read the bible as a young man, I never took the days as six literal solar-days. I did not need science to tell me that to read the six days as 24-hour days was ludicrous. Of course, modern science has enhanced the day-age position to such an intellectually fulfilling extent that it would be a shame to devalue the tool of science by ignoring its impact upon millions and millions of Christians, in many cases saving them from becoming atheists. God works in mysterious ways

I can vouch for taking the days to mean extended periods of time aslo... sure it wasn't a full-blown Day-Age view as this site advocates, however it was Day-Age by definition nonetheless.

Second, look at the words I bolded in your quote. Let that be true. The DA view, as I proved with two separate quotes from Rich, claims its view to be a LITERAL interpretation of the text. As such, it doesn't do you any good to sight anyone--Jewish or Gentile--who takes the text non-literally.

This is just one of many statements I picked out, but I want to target this "literalness" you believe no ECF believed to be the case.

"Literal" seems to be getting tossed around and used so easily, however discussion of "literalism" is not really black and white. In fact, I believe it is quite complicated to define. I have had heated discussions myself on what counts as "literal", and I am sure this is an issue other theologians would diverge on. I believe the Day-Age view is a literal understanding of Genesis 1 as most Evangelical Christians would understand literal. Such would generally understand "literal interpretation" of a word in Scripture to be a possible meaning of the word itself. If Rich intended this sense, then he is fully right to state the Day-Age interpretation as a literal understanding of the Genesis creation account.

If someone disagrees, the first thing I think such a person needs to do is find out what Rich meant by "literal" in "literal interpretation". Secondly, if you disagree with his use of "literal", then you need to argue as much that Rich's understanding of what counts as "literal" is wrong. Then once that argument is won, you can declare the Day-Age interpretation is not literal and/or no early church father believed in a literal understanding.

[Byblos]

Jac, as I stated a few pages back (or was it in a different thread?), we do not have to show that the ECFs believed in OEC per se, no more than we would have to show they believed in some other idea yet to be discovered. All we have to show is that some ECFs did not hold to a literal 24 hr days to make our point.

Wrong. The claim of the day-age view, as articulated on this site, is NOT that the CFs just rejected the day-age view, but rather than the day-age view is a literal interpretation of the text of Gen 1. The day-age view does NOT claim it is an allegorical interpretation. It claims it is a literal interpretation. Since it claims it is a literal interpretation, it is up to you to demonstrate others who employed a literal interpretation and came to your conclusion. Not only can you not do this, but you cannot even offer a single CF who followed ANY method to get to your conclusion, for no CF held to the day-age view. The fact that DA proponents want to cite people like Origen and Augustine to support their position is ridiculous, since both of these men explicitly rejected the day-age view, with Origen claiming the universe is much younger than ten thousand years old and Augustine stating in no uncertain terms that the world was not created slowly over long periods of time.

To show precedent, John, you have to give me a lot more than just a non-solar-day interpretation. Since the claim of the DA view is that it is the literal interpretation of the account, if you want precedent, you need to show me someone who came to the DA view and who took the word yom literally, rather than allegorically.

The problem here Jac is that you keep insisting that the only literal read on yom is the one that translates to a 24-hr day. So you've stacked the deck in your favor from the get-go. What we're saying is that first, a literal read does NOT PRECLUDE other than a 24-hr day and, more importantly, MUST NOT NECESSARILY INCLUDE a DA view to prove our point. All we have to show is that at least ONE CF who held to a non-24 hr day to make your case fall apart. And that has been amply demonstrated. Again, you will need to disconnect the notion that the only literal read is a 24-hr day to begin to see it.

I've said multiple times that all you have to do is produce ONE such quote and you will be vindicated and I will be proven wrong. As of yet, not one has been presented, and Bart has confessed that none exists.

And again, that's because the argument was stacked in your favor with the notion that the only literal read is a 24-hr yom. Anything else must be allegorical. That's your premise and it is false, Jac. You can't justify it.

...

For all:

The argument I am making is very simple:

1. No CF took the word yom to literally refer to a long period of time
2. If no one espoused your view, then it is unprecedented
3. Therefore, the view that the word yom literally refers to a long period of time is an unprecedented view.

The fact that the DA view is unprecedented does NOT make it wrong. It just makes it unprecedented. My concern is relates to the hermeneutical implications. Since the view is unprecedented, to what to we attribute its sudden appearance on the scene, especially given that it appeared on the scene immediately after geologists started arguing for an old earth?

Let me present you with another equally as valid argument:

1. A literal read of yom includes a non-24hr interpretation
2. Some CFs held to a non-24-hr interpretation
3. Therefore, the view that the word yom literally refers to a long period of time is possible.

There have been plenty of unprecedented views that turned out to be correct (i.e., Luther's doctrine of faith alone--sorry John!).

Ah, I prefer to stick with the biblical Grace alone doctrine but that's a matter for a different thread.

[DannyM]

And again, that's because the argument was stacked in your favor with the notion that the only literal read is a 24-hr yom. Anything else must be allegorical. That's your premise and it is false, Jac. You can't justify it.

Byblos, if I'm reading Jac right he's saying that, while the day-age interpretation of yom IS a literal interpretation, this has no precedent in the CFs. He's calling anything other than a 24-hour reading and a day-age reading "allegorical" and "figurative," thus saying we have no precedent in the CFs.

[RickD]

And again, that's because the argument was stacked in your favor with the notion that the only literal read is a 24-hr yom. Anything else must be allegorical. That's your premise and it is false, Jac. You can't justify it.

Byblos, if I'm reading Jac right he's saying that, while the day-age interpretation of yom IS a literal interpretation, this has no precedent in the CFs. He's calling anything other than a 24-hour reading and a day-age reading "allegorical" and "figurative," thus saying we have no precedent in the CFs.

Has anyone made the point that CF's held to an interpretation that was BOTH day-age, and literal?

[DannyM]

And again, that's because the argument was stacked in your favor with the notion that the only literal read is a 24-hr yom. Anything else must be allegorical. That's your premise and it is false, Jac. You can't justify it.

Byblos, if I'm reading Jac right he's saying that, while the day-age interpretation of yom IS a literal interpretation, this has no precedent in the CFs. He's calling anything other than a 24-hour reading and a day-age reading "allegorical" and "figurative," thus saying we have no precedent in the CFs.

Has anyone made the point that CF's held to an interpretation that was BOTH day-age, and literal?

No I don't think so Rick. I personally see no evidence where we can say a CF held to a literal "day-age" interpretation.