Kurieuo wrote:Unlocking an Old Earth Understanding on YEC Terms
It's with great excitement that I write this post.
What I’m about to do here is provide a high-level interpretation of Genesis on the primary dividing point between YECs and Day-Age proponents —
yom translated “day”. BUT, not just that. I’m going to restrict myself to the following conditions:
- 1) Using the Historical-Grammatical method and interpretative principles as endorsed by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI).
Stop right there. God never told us to study His word the way the ICBI says to. Correctly studying scripture is to actually study SCRIPTURE, not the interpretative methods of the ICBI. In other words, what the Bible says, it means.
Kurieuo wrote:2) Accept as a given, that the intended “single meaning” of yom in Genesis 1 as an “ordinary day” — not an age, period or even 24-hours for the first three — an ordinary day which is the plainest understanding in our English translations and probably primary understanding in Hebrew.
News flash: time doesn't depend on the existence of the sun. Besides, there was light on the first day anyways.
Kurieuo wrote:3) Accept as a given, that Moses was working with his own knowledge and intentions separate from God’s. That is, there was no divine dictation, visions or dreams that would elucidate for Moses a deeper understanding of the text such that yom spans great periods of time. (although I find this limitation is not justified either by ICBI or Historical-Grammatical standards).[/list]
No, no, no, no. Moses was not just writing as a dumb caveman. He was under the inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16). God could have said anything He wanted to through Moses.
Kurieuo wrote:In other words, I’m really going to push myself to the extreme to use methods and beliefs that YECs have come to believe are beyond a doubt literally true.
I'm not sure that the YEC crowd believes point three, but that may be just me.
Kurieuo wrote:The only obvious distinction is that based on the three points above — including yom representing an ordinary day — YECs like Jac reason that Young Earth Creationism is the only acceptable interpretation. I don’t believe YEC should be called an interpretation really, as nothing in Genesis 1 can be directly interpreted as meaning a young Earth. That the Earth is young is only a secondary correlation or assumption.
You can't be serious.
Genesis 1 is clear that these are ordinary days, "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning
were the first day." (Genesis 1:5). Notice each day is DEFINED as ONE evening and ONE morning (aka, 24 hours). So the six days were six normal days. Not long eons of time. That's not my interpretation. That's what the Bible says. No interpretation needed.
Kurieuo wrote:My interpretation of the intended single meaning of the text in Genesis 1 will exclude the age of the Earth question. I simply wish to argue that an old Earth is an allowable belief based upon a YEC-like "literal" understanding of the text.
There is only one allowable belief for any verse of scripture -- the right one.
Kurieuo wrote:Who knows, perhaps I’ll be able to give new insights no one else that I’m aware to has done. Maybe I’ll reconcile the OEC/YEC divide.
Yeah, right!
Keep dreaming.
Okay, there.
Kurieuo wrote:Clarifications on Accepting Jac’s Premises
Jac’s whole argument against me in his “Book 1” is built upon a doctrine of single meaning with a twist.
That is, while Scripture is divinely inspired "special revelation", it is expressed via the human author who has his own intentions and meaning. Despite the separate authors, the human and divine authors must share in a "single meaning" to the text (doctrine of "single meaning").
Gonna have to disagree with Jac-In-A-Box there. When God inspires people to write His word, they can only do so because they have been given divine understanding from God. What they mean cannot contradict what God means, "But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." (Job 32:8).
Kurieuo wrote:The twist in Jac’s belief as I see it is that God didn’t directly communicate everything to the author, despite God having seemingly close relations to Moses. There is a repulsion I detect in Jac's beliefs towards divine dictation or similar close methods of communication.
If that's what Jac-Jac believes, then I have more of a problem with him than I thought.
Kurieuo wrote:To be clear however, I personally believe it is more reasonable to think that God communicated a fuller understanding of the creation events to Moses either directly or via visions, dreams, angels, a burning bush, donkey or the like.
(I add “bush” and “donkey” not simply for some comic relief, but to also highlight that there is really no limit to how God could have directly communicated to Moses — we ultimately have no idea!).
It's sad when the YEC crowd sometimes believes less of the scriptures than the OEC crowd.
Kurieuo wrote:Perhaps the part that will stump most readers here, is that I’ll accept that the human author intended the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1 as an ordinary day. Further to this, in keeping with “single meaning” I’ll accept that the Divine author also intended “day” in Genesis 1 as an ordinary day.
Well then you just shot yourself in the foot. If the "Divine author" (GOD) meant Genesis 1 to say that He created the world in six ordinary days, then that means God meant to tell us that He made everything in six days. And God can't lie, so that means that God created in six ordinary days. You might want to rethink this one for your argument.
Kurieuo wrote:To again be clear on what I actually believe, I personally think it is more the case that Moses would have understood the full implications of “day” in Genesis 1 as something akin to a “phases” or “periods”. Especially considering the refrain: “And there was evening and there was morning, the nth day” — which doesn’t represent a 24-hour day, but rather only the night. More can be said on this another time perhaps, I’d prefer to focus on my interpretation at hand.
The verse is more properly translated in the KJV that the evening (12 hours) and the morning (12 hours) WERE the nth day. Aka, a 24 hour day.
Kurieuo wrote:I’d like to make a passing note here. Many YECs propose seeing yom as a 24-hour period of time. The reason is that yom cannot literally be an ordinary day if Sun wasn’t created until Day 4. Thus, there was no evening (sunset) and morning (sunrise) until Day 4.
You forgot about the fact that there was light shining on earth from day 1. That light was merely replaced by the sun on day 4, "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Genesis 1:3). So, yeah, it can be a literal ordinary day with day and night before the sun.
Kurieuo wrote:BUT, injecting “24-hours” is still replacing the most primary meaning of yom as “day”.
So the primary meaning of "day" is NOT "24-hours". That's a good one.
Kurieuo wrote:If YECs want to emphasise "literalness", then replacing an "ordinary day" with "24-hours" breaks away from the literal definition in the same manner "an unspecified period of time" would. I’m here going arguably take the strongest "literal" definition possible on yom to mean an “ordinary day.”
Where's the slam your head into a brick wall emoji when you need it?
BREAKING NEWS: An ordinary day is 24 hours long. A new survey conducted by the BBD finds that when asked how long an ordinary day is, 99.5% of men, women, and children answer "24 hours". 0.4% of people (entirely composed of children) gave something slightly off like 30 hours or 5 hours. One kid said 15 minutes composed a whole day. The remaining 0.1% of survey participants did not know how long an ordinary day was. We spoke to one of these participants, whose name is Kurieuo, and listened to his reasoning on the subject.
Kurieuo wrote:This will be an interesting exercise. If successful, then any objections to non-literal, non-Historical Grammatical interpretation of the text are resolved on Jac’s (indeed YEC's) own terms and accepted premises. This will allow anyone who chooses to accept an old Earth belief to remain compatible with Genesis 1 in the strictest sense.
Okay, hit me!
Kurieuo wrote:God’s Knowledge of “Fuller Implications” is Key
In
ICBI’s CSBH Article XVIII: MEANING MAY TRANSCEND HUMAN UNDERSTANDING says in the denial: “
WE DENY that the writers of Scripture always understood the full implications of their own words.” Indeed,
we saw that even Jac allows for this in what he identifies as “Principlism” — even getting into a much greyer area of “dual revelation” when commenting on hyperbole in Psalm 22:16 where “
They pierced my hands and feet” (and the verses that follow).
I accept that premise. To clarify my position, it's not about what the original audience thought, it's about what the text says. Whatever the Bible says, we should believe it.
Kurieuo wrote:Indeed, if one accepts “dual revelation” or “progressive revelation” then they should have no issue accepting my interpretation here as a valid and viable interpretation. Whether it is the correct interpretation is something we can perhaps only know once face-to-face with God or the original author (Moses) in the hereafter.
So, let me get this straight. An interpretation can be validly wrong. Sure.
There's only one true interpretation. The one God intended and clearly designated in His word.
Kurieuo wrote:That said, it is important for many who embrace “single meaning” that the original meaning does not become changed even in later revelation. Therefore, God’s knowledge of the “full implications” can only deepen and enrich the original intended meaning — rather than changing the meaning. As such I’ll try to meet this requirement too.
I suppose.
Kurieuo wrote:Article XIII, as commented by Geisler, often has in mind prophecies in which the implications of meaning in the text become more fully realised once events unfold. Readers of the text clearly see that there were actual deeper truths in the text that no ordinary human could know whether through “types”, “hyperbole” or “principles”.
Go on.
Kurieuo wrote:Thus, prophecies serve a form of divine influence and evidence of divine authorship – at least to those who do not rule such out based upon a Naturalist (i.e., metaphysical naturalism) prejudice.
The key to unlocking, that is allowing, belief in an old Earth in my interpretation is this. In the same way that interpreters attempt to unlock dual meaning in Messianic prophecies that are literally intended of Jesus, I believe the Genesis creation also incorporates something like a prophecy which is realised after human understanding is developed.
Okay... I want to know one simple thing: how can Genesis 1 be a PROPHECY about something that happened before it was written? Isn't prophecy usually about future events.
Kurieuo wrote:There is really no different to prophecies as I'll elaborate further on.
Single Meaning: The Sabbath Day and 6-1 Pattern
The first step is to understand the “single meaning” that both human and Divine authors intended in Genesis 1. We find in the early church father Origen the following:
So you're going to get the Divine understanding on this from a man who lived thousands of years after the fact. Wouldn't it be more wise to simply go to the Bible rather than fallible men?
Kurieuo wrote:- He [Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world's creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep festival with God who have done all their works in their six days, and who, because they have omitted none of their duties will ascend to the contemplation (of Celestial things) and to the assembly of righteous and blessed beings.
Origen interestingly associates God's creation in Genesis with the Sabbath.
Here I ask, what would have Moses and hearers at the time have understood from God creating in 6 days and then resting on the seventh? By the time Moses wrote Genesis 1, the Israelites were presumably already practicing the Sabbath and following the 6-1 pattern of work and rest.
In Exodus 20:9-11 we also read:
- Six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, but he rested on the seventh day.
Who can ignore the strong parallel between the Sabbath and Genesis Creation? I’ve certainly dealt with this passage being thrown at me from YEC quarters arguing that this shows that the days in Genesis are unequivocally “ordinary days.” (if interested, you can
see an old discussion here along with my response)
We also read in Leviticus 25:
- Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When you enter the land I am going to give you, the land itself must observe a sabbath to the LORD. For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops. But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the LORD.
Clearly the pattern being followed is akin to that set in Genesis. And yet, at the time that Moses wrote Genesis it seems to me that Israel would have been fully practicing observing the Sabbath.
Here is an important point to grasp —
just because Genesis is read and written chronologically from earlier to later, doesn’t mean that Moses and the audience at the time were not fully aware to the Law and social practices like keeping the Sabbath. If we assume Moses as the author, then Genesis would have likely been written at a time when Israel were settled.
Okay, proceed.
Kurieuo wrote:Given this, Moses and the immediate audience would have clearly understood the construct and pattern of work 6 days followed by a Sabbath rest.
It was valuable for both Moses and God to use such a construct in Genesis 1 for Israel —
especially since keeping the Sabbath was the fourth commandment! Again, let's read Exodus 20:8-11:
- Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
What I am here proposing is that the single meaning that human and divine authors intended, was one of reinforcing the Sabbath day and not a period of time.
It is something God as supreme Creator set an example of in His own creation work. The Sabbath was something of extreme importance to Israel given it was in the Law of their covenant with God. And it was something everyone would have understood and been aware to!
This correlation and meaning receives strong justification in the Exodus passage of the Sabbath, in particular the Ten Commandments which draw a direct a relationship to God’s creation.
Therefore, in adhering to the principle of “single meaning”
ordinary days were intended by both the Divine and human authors that
do not find their meaning in a period of time, but rather find their meaning in the 6-1 pattern and Sabbath day of rest.
YEC and OEC interpretations, which focus upon either 24-hours or an unspecified period of time, are therefore both wrong in making time their focus!
In other words, God lied when He said He only made the earth in six days, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11). But according to you, God made the seven days first for Israel, and wherefore the LORD just "made up" the story of the seven-day creation. Yes, the six days of creation are given for an example for Israel. But an imaginary story God just made up on the fly doesn't serve too much for an example. It would make God look like a hypocrite. That's the problem I have with all liberal "Christian" in general. They think all the miracles in the Bible are lying stories just to give us an example of God's power. But if God has to lie about His power, can we really trust that He has that kind of power? The same applies with your "given for example" explanation.
Kurieuo wrote:The immediate text is silent as to what is intended. The single meaning I draw out here also makes sense of 'yom' being used an “ordinary day” on the first three days in popular YEC interpretations which have the Sun being created on day 4. No need to drop the primary referent of yom as an ordinary day.
BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: The 0.5% of people who said an ordinary day was not 24 hours have retracted their statements after accessing Google. But Kurieuo is left. Stick around to see our interview with him tonight on BBD News.
Kurieuo wrote:Unlocking an Old Earth – “Fuller Implications”
In view of Article XVIII previously mentioned under
God’s Knowledge of “Fuller Implications” (please go back and re-read that if you’ve already forgotten as it is crucial here!), and in virtue God’s omniscience (knowing everything), there are more fuller implications that the author and audience at the time may not have been aware to that God was.
To paraphrase Norman Giesler:
- God, and not necessarily [Moses], was fully aware of the fuller implications that would be manifested in the fulfillment of this single meaning.
The fuller implications being that
yom also carries a greater implication than an ordinary day. One that "foreshadows", only casts a shadow backward over, the actual creation event (when God actually created) wherein the fuller implications are realised. This is in essence a “reverse prophecy.”
Prophecies are for the future. You're making no sense.
Kurieuo wrote:Hang on. Prophecies are about a future event. Right! What I’m reasoning for here with creation is a past event. That's technically not a prophecy.
Then stop calling it one.
Kurieuo wrote:BUT, to work with a parallel some might appreciate, God’s “fore-knowledge” is just as set as his “post-knowledge” such that for God both past and future knowledge is much the same. It could be said it is all just "pure raw knowledge" to God.
Endless speculations.
Kurieuo wrote:The actual creation event is therefore just as real and certain as a yet to happen prophecy as far as God is concerned. What matters therefore is not that the fulfilment of prophecy is found in the future, but rather the actual realisation of the fulfilment regardless of whether that fulfilment happened in the past or future.
In other words, God prophesied of something in the past because He's outside of time. But if He's outside of time, then He wouldn't need to prophesy anything since it would all be there at once. But if it's all there at once for Him, then your Genesis 1 "prophecy" falls apart. BREAKING NEWS UPDATE #2: Kurieuo literally shot himself in the foot during the interview. Watch it in only 15 minutes on BBD News.
Kurieuo wrote:To state another way, it’s just our human knowledge that needs to catch up in order to realise the fuller implications that God intended in the text.
To state it another way, it's endless speculation alone that has God prophesying something in the past. Good work, detective, you just messed up time!
Kurieuo wrote:So then, Moses could have intended yom to be an ordinary day along with God for Sabbatical reasons.
Aka, God lied.
Kurieuo wrote:Does this then betray Genesis 1 if one assumes an old Earth? No, because God still intended fuller implications to be realised as soon as humanity came into a fuller understanding. It is exactly the same thing with understanding prophecies.
So, God prophesied something in the past that men in the future would figure out. Sounds like Garbage to me!
Kurieuo wrote:The language used in Genesis 1 has a flexibility, and deeper meaning to it like prophetic Scripture.
But why would God prophesy the past? You can't resort to "God's outside of time", because that would only nullify the need to prophesy in the first place.
Kurieuo wrote:Such that, while Moses may have assumed there was something more going on in the creation (given the Sun according to YECs isn’t created until day 4) — the fuller implications are not realised until later human knowledge in modern science. This therefore shows divine significance with knowledge in the same way prophesying the future does.
In other words, God lied to us and waited until faithful Christian scientists to cast off Genesis 1 for science. Gotcha.
Kurieuo wrote:As for yom itself, Moses may not have been aware to the deeper meaning beyond a Sabbatical intent. However, it seems reasonable to assume that given the pattern of the Sabbath was being overlaid on God’s creative act, that Moses may have suspected something more at play in use of “day”.
Sure, buster, sure.
Kurieuo wrote:Is This Interpretation Valid and Viable?
A better question is, "is it TRUE???"
Kurieuo wrote:I have done my best to put forward a scenario compatible with old Earth belief.
That's the wrong way to approach scripture. You don't assume an old Earth and then interpret the Bible to fit it. You interpret the Bible and then interpret the world around you to fit scripture.
Kurieuo wrote:One that fits in with Jac’s YEC beliefs as much as possible while at the same time keeping to Historical-Grammatical principles including single meaning without divine dictation.
Which to you means that God is a liar and has a really bad sense of time.
Kurieuo wrote:Some may still believe that this interpretation is incorrect. Indeed, we can’t know until we’re able to inquire of God.
Yes we can! It's so plain and easy to understand! Just read Genesis 1! Sham-WOW!
Kurieuo wrote:BUT, as far as I can see, I have been largely successful in presenting a viable interpretation that allows for old Earth belief on YEC terms — and significantly so.
Sure, you have, Kurieuo. Sure. Calm down, now, while we give you your medicine.
Kurieuo wrote:If I have succeeded with a valid interpretation that obeys all the rules, then this means we can believe the intended meaning was an ordinary day, that Moses and hearers and God found “single meaning” in the 6-1 pattern of work days and Sabbath day of rest, and then finally in virtue of God’s complete knowledge there are fuller implications that author may/may not have been aware to. These fuller implications being realised in a deeper understanding of yom once human knowledge matures to a fuller understanding of an old Earth.
To conclude, I want to stress this was just an exercise. I believe God could have, and did, communicate the full creation to Moses. Moses may have had this via dream and flow of time showing that the periods were greater than a 24-hour day, or God and Moses may have simply had several direct exchanges. Why not?
If not, these here lies another interpretation.
And that concludes the most convuluted reasoning I've seen for years. Nice job, Kurieuo, you deserve it.
