Evidence for God from Science

In Biblical Case for an Old Earth, the author doesn't really start from scratch and do an exegesis of the text (I loaned this book to somebody and have been scratching my head since I recommended it trying to remember it's premise), rather it states that your understanding of the text may be colored contingent upon what you believe to be the reason that God created humankind. And while it is certainly not a unique premise, that we bring our preconceived notions to the table, he approaches it from an angle that I had not really given any consideration before.

Byblos,

Your point is one I didn't really want to bring up only in that it's an old argument that, I think, only stirs up more stink than discussion. I mean the fact that the Day-Age view was largely unknown before the 18th century. Prior to that, the few non-literalists there were, contra Ross, instant-creationists, now OECs. Now, the fact that no one seems to have thought to interpret the days as ages until now doesn't mitigate against it being true. It should, however, prompt us to reconsider our hermeneutic. Why is it that we, and pretty much no one else, have come up with this view? I'm sure you can appreciate, even if you don't agree, those of us who are suspicious that it came up precisely because we were trying to accommodate geology and Darwinism.

In any case, even outside of all that, none of this still gets at the underlying point I'm trying to make. I'm fine accepting, for the sake of argument, a Day-Age view of Genesis 1. What I want to know is what kind of exegesis that leads to. I'm sure you agree that Moses didn't write for the purpose of proving the Day-Age view. What, then, were his purposes, and how does that play out in each line of the text?

My major problem with the view, exegetically speaking, is that it doesn't seem to make a point. There's no consistent argument to it. Sure, it lines up with modern science well. No problems (I want to bother discussing anyway) with that. But that wasn't Moses' point.

Let me put it one last way before I leave off of this subject: it seems to me that the Day-Age view presents a scientifically accurate picture of Gen 1-2 at the price of having it string together a lot of non-related sentences. I'm sure you agree that Gen 1 (and 2) are part of divine revelation, and as such, are designed to reveal. Nothing in there is there to satisfy idle curiosity. It's all designed to drive home a point, and each statement in the account must, in some way, help drive home that point. The YEC position does that very well, but perhaps that's only because we've had 4000 years to refine it. But, I will tell you that as an exegete, that makes YEC very appealing to me. I don't see that in OEC. All I can see, and I've honestly tried hard and looked to find otherwise, is an interpretation designed to fit with modern science.

If you don't believe me, reread Rich's literal interpretation of Gen 1, especially comments about the water cycle and the revealing of the sun from the second atmosphere and all that. Come on . . . do you really think that Moses had any concept of the water cycle, heliocentrism, or other such things? If Moses' statements line up with those modern scientific ideas, great! Wonderful! But with that laid aside, what did Moses have in mind if NOT those things? On the OEC view, I don't really see anything . . .

Of course MOses didn't know about the water cycle,anymore than he knew about bacteria or photosynthesis.

I amtrying to find an article I read that might be more in line with the discussion. I just don't see how the *ignorance* of much of the science can be used to negate the reading of Genesis. It wasn't meant to be taken as a science record. The fact that Moses and the people of the time would not have understood the cycles simply means that they woiuld have been left out of the telling. In Rich's article and articles much like it, we are simply trying to understand how things mesh together.

It seems that the crux of the issue goes back to

1) Yom
2) the importance of the numbers in relation to Yom (this seems to be one of the major issues whenever someone points out the 24 hour days)

Would this be a fair assessment?

Zoe, I don't disagree with you at all. The very fact that the Creation Account "wasn't meant to be taken as a science record" proves my point. That is, while I have NO PROBLEM--indeed, I think it is a good thing--to mesh science with Gen 1-2, we should in no way make that secondary concern to be Moses' primary area of interest. What, then, was Moses' primary area of interest? Answer: He was revealing something specific about the the nature of God and creation to further (or better, to establish) the rest of his argument that was to come first in Genesis and second in the rest of the Pentateuch.

Regarding your two issues, they aren't an issue at all to me. I couldn't care less what yom means or how numbers relate to them. I have said repeatedly that I am perfectly fine adopting a Day-Age interpretation on its face--no need for a defense of it--to see what its exegesis yields. THAT is what I have absolutely never seen, and I've asked more than just you guys. Day-Agers are very good it showing that their position lines up with science and that it is a plausible reading of the text. Fine. Accepted. Then get on with the real work of biblical exegesis.

My problem with the view--over and against the classical view, anyway--is that there, in fact, seems to be no point to the text beyond harmonization with modern science. As such, it has a tendancy to be purely reactionary, which points to bad hermeneutics. YEC obviously doesn't have that problem. Many YECers, wrongly, I believe, consider it a virtue that they believe what they do in the face of scientific evidence. But as a result, they have spent a lot of time developing the exegetical theology of Gen 1-2. I want to see that done from an OEC perspective. As of now, I've not.

Jac3510 wrote:My problem with the view--over and against the classical view, anyway--is that there, in fact, seems to be no point to the text beyond harmonization with modern science. As such, it has a tendancy to be purely reactionary, which points to bad hermeneutics. YEC obviously doesn't have that problem. Many YECers, wrongly, I believe, consider it a virtue that they believe what they do in the face of scientific evidence. But as a result, they have spent a lot of time developing the exegetical theology of Gen 1-2. I want to see that done from an OEC perspective. As of now, I've not.

Classical view from whose perspective? I think both camps (OEC & YEC) tend to be purely reactionary because they both look at the creation account from today's perspective, today's science, knowledge. If we were to truly look at the creation account without any of these prejudices (to the extent possible), we will see exactly what the text is revealing, a literal creation account told in poetic form (prophetic poetry I believe it's called). This form is rather obvious in the original Hebrew (I'm told) with the use of rhyme and such. It tends to disappear in translation, which I think is a contributing factor to missing the original point of the text. What is not obvious in the text (nor was it ever meant to be obvious as it was utterly irrelevant to the point being driven across) is the how and how long. OEC and YEC have been trying to define those parameters, neglecting their irrelevance to the original message in the process.

So to answer your original question, both camps attempt to make an extra-biblical point of the text which doesn't exist when the account is viewed devoid of contemporary prejudices.

Jac3510 wrote:Zoe, I don't disagree with you at all. The very fact that the Creation Account "wasn't meant to be taken as a science record" proves my point. That is, while I have NO PROBLEM--indeed, I think it is a good thing--to mesh science with Gen 1-2, we should in no way make that secondary concern to be Moses' primary area of interest. What, then, was Moses' primary area of interest? Answer: He was revealing something specific about the the nature of God and creation to further (or better, to establish) the rest of his argument that was to come first in Genesis and second in the rest of the Pentateuch.

Regarding your two issues, they aren't an issue at all to me. I couldn't care less what yom means or how numbers relate to them. I have said repeatedly that I am perfectly fine adopting a Day-Age interpretation on its face--no need for a defense of it--to see what its exegesis yields. THAT is what I have absolutely never seen, and I've asked more than just you guys. Day-Agers are very good it showing that their position lines up with science and that it is a plausible reading of the text. Fine. Accepted. Then get on with the real work of biblical exegesis.

Can you tell me why you think,then, that it *hasn't* been worked out well? From all that I haev read, the definition of Yom and the numbers associated with Yom have been the *foundation* of YEC exegesis. Shoot, I just had somebody place in my mailbox at school a lovely little pamphlet from Pensecola Christian COllege (a college, after investagation, that receives very little of my respect, but that's another story) about young age of the earth and that was THEIR SOLE arguemnt from scripture!! The trot out the yom and the nominal day argument just like avery other arguemnt that has been presented. (and of course go on to present the "science" that supports it)

What other exegesis do they bring to the table other than this?!?!

jac wrote: My problem with the view--over and against the classical view, anyway--is that there, in fact, seems to be no point to the text beyond harmonization with modern science. As such, it has a tendancy to be purely reactionary, which points to bad hermeneutics.

Well, I think you and I will probably disagree here fundamentally. i DON' necessarily disagree with the idea that we can shed some light on how to think about a scripture using observational methods

Let me give you an example. We use good old observational science everyday. We, much like Moses, form models about the world and its natural laws. Moses, when in the presence of the burning bush, KNEW that this was something strange, beause he formed an idea about the natural world that didn't need God's specific revlation...God c ertainly didn't have to explain to him that the burning bush not being consumed was an unusual one.

Same thing happens to us when we READ about that passage. It's not as if we have to have this explained to us in scripture...."well, the reason that MOses was so startled, you see is that fire would normally consume this organic matter nd because it wasn't Moses knew that something was up".

What about more controversial passages? I know that we have talked about this before (at least, I think we have ) but unless Galileo went through his observations, would the verse concerning the setting of the sun EVER have been challenged? I know that this has been established as bad intepretation *now* but suppose it never was observed by Galileo or for that mtter, ANYbody. Would we still be teaching the geocentric universe? Certainly it seems that observational science helped us not only to reevaluate or change out reading.

My point is that I don't think that it is absolutely wrong to bring to the table what we observe around us when there *are* multiple definitions to the word.

jac wrote: YEC obviously doesn't have that problem. Many YECers, wrongly, I believe, consider it a virtue that they believe what they do in the face of scientific evidence. But as a result, they have spent a lot of time developing the exegetical theology of Gen 1-2. I want to see that done from an OEC perspective. As of now, I've not.

As to the reactionary argument, I would say that the kettle and the teapot are equally black. The issue that Byblos brought up *is* a valid one. YEC was really developed as a model as a reaction to the naturalistic *philosophy* that was starting with dArwin,Freud, and of course, many others. While a natural reaction, it was a reaction.

CAn you explain to me, then, what, other than their insistence on the word Yom and the numbers of the days, convinces you about the exegesis?

Classical view from whose perspective?

The perspective of history. The 24-hour-day view was, until the 18th century, the prominent view. Have their been dissenters? Of course, but it has been the view that has been most broadly held by everyone from the church fathers to rabbis to the early protestants.

I think both camps (OEC & YEC) tend to be purely reactionary because they both look at the creation account from today's perspective, today's science, knowledge.

YEC can't be reactionary to science for the simple reason that it was prominent long before modern science.

If we were to truly look at the creation account without any of these prejudices (to the extent possible), we will see exactly what the text is revealing, a literal creation account told in poetic form (prophetic poetry I believe it's called).

I know of absolutely no scholar who considers this prophetic poetry? Can you give me a reference? Gen 1 has absolutely no markers of Hebrew poetry of any kind, and even the claim that it is "exalted prose" has been disputed when a comparison is made to the rest of Genesis.

This form is rather obvious in the original Hebrew (I'm told) with the use of rhyme and such.

Hebrew poetry doesn't rhyme. Neither does the Gen. 1 account. Poetry, in Hebrew, is marked off by parallelism and meter, neither of which occur in our text.

It tends to disappear in translation, which I think is a contributing factor to missing the original point of the text.

Unfortunately, there's nothing there to disappear . ..

What is not obvious in the text (nor was it ever meant to be obvious as it was utterly irrelevant to the point being driven across) is the how and how long.

Which I have repeatedly said I am not concerned about, and I frankly am rather impressed with the fact that it seems to be the only thing OECers are concerned about. That, my friend, is my point. Why is it that, in this thread, I've repeatedly stated over and over again that I don't care about the issue of age, that I'm interested in the position of exegetical theology, and over and over again we keep coming back to THIS question of the defensibility of a long-day view?

OEC and YEC have been trying to define those parameters, neglecting their irrelevance to the original message in the process.

I'm not sure how much YEC material you've read? I can point you to dozens of commentaries and papers that spend a great deal of time focusing on the exegetical theology of Gen 1-2. It was precisely my reading of all those (and teaching through Gen four times, which required me, each time, to deal with the theology, not the scientific issues, of Gen 1-2) that prompted this thread.

So to answer your original question, both camps attempt to make an extra-biblical point of the text which doesn't exist when the account is viewed devoid of contemporary prejudices.

1. Even if I conceded your argument that YEC makes the same mistake that OEC seems to be making, it doesn't help anyone's case. It's nothing more than a fallacy called tu quoque. Just because someone else has the same problem you do doesn't make your problem go away.

2. Am I actually to take this as you saying that OEC really hasn't done the work of exegetical theology? Are you sitting here and admitting to me that OECers have failed in this regard? If not, I fail to see how "both camps" could be making a mistake if you are going to turn around and say that your camp actually, as it turns out, hasn't been making that mistake in the first place!

3. I'm not even sure how this answers my original question. I asked for an exegetical discussion on the passage. Answering, "Well, nobody has done that!" is not only patently false but also a non-answer. Even if YECers had not done this, citing their non-answer doesn't mean that my question is no longer valid.

So . . . I'm going to take it from this extended discussion that, apparently, OEC has, to date, no exegetical theology that has been drawn from it. OEC has been, apparently, completely and totally interested in studying the secondary aspect of age for its importance in apologetics. Then my question must be, "IS there a theology that is taught?" After all, just because one hasn't been expounded doesn't mean it isn't there to be discovered. But if it turns out that there is not one to be expounded at all, then I'll have to return to my original point in my original post -- I'm finding YEC attractive precisely because it DOES do this. That is, it texts the text seriously from the perspective of historical/theological intent. If OEC means the text has no intent outside of 21st century arguments, I'm sure you'll understand if I'm less impressed with it than I was before.

Now . . . I'm sure that SOMEWHERE out there, somebody has done what I'm asking for. If anybody in the future ever comes across it, please feel free to post a link. I'll be teaching through Genesis again starting in a few months, and I would like to be able to present both sides.

Perhaps, Jac, a more fundamental question should be asked. (by the way, I had posted a essage while you esponded to Byblos, dont' know if it slipped by)

I have been searching through www.asa3.org using exegesis in the seach. There are a plethora of articles I can show you. There are plenty of articles I can find that work through the text. But before I waste my time in posting these. I guess the issue becomes one of disagreeing with the method? Are you saying that there method of exegesis is one that you inherently disgree with?

I know you are very strict with regards to how the scripture should be interpreted. I am wondering if this is more the issue rahter than "it hasn't been done". It seems to ave certainly been done. YOu say that there are plenty of YEC that has been done. Wht are your qualifications for it being done properly and what sources are you willing to accept as legitimate?

zoe,

Thanks for letting me know about your previous post. I had missed it. Let me respond to both:

Can you tell me why you think,then, that it *hasn't* been worked out well? From all that I haev read, the definition of Yom and the numbers associated with Yom have been the *foundation* of YEC exegesis. Shoot, I just had somebody place in my mailbox at school a lovely little pamphlet from Pensecola Christian COllege (a college, after investagation, that receives very little of my respect, but that's another story) about young age of the earth and that was THEIR SOLE arguemnt from scripture!! The trot out the yom and the nominal day argument just like avery other arguemnt that has been presented. (and of course go on to present the "science" that supports it)

What other exegesis do they bring to the table other than this?!?!

I don't really know how to make my request any clearer. All of the DA exegesis that I have seen has been with reference to proving that yom CAN be interpreted as "age" (no disagreement), that this interpretation best lines up with modern science (no disagreement), and that the inter-relationship of the verses weigh in favor of that translation (which I'm willing to accept). The problem that I'm seeing, which is why I started the thread, is that, though the definition of yom has been thoroughly argued, there has been little, if any, further emphasis on the point of Genesis 1. Clearly, Moses did not write with the intent to define yom. That is incidental to the text.

I have precisely the same problem with YECers who make this their main issue. I agree it is an important issue. It is one we should discuss. It affects the theology of the text. Fine. I agree with all that. But it is not the main point of the text. As someone who teaches through Genesis regularly, my interest is in teaching what the author intended the readers to see. That means emphasizing what the author emphasized and mentioning, in passing, what the author mentioned in passing.

I'm sure that somebody, somewhere, has done an exegesis like I'm talking about from a DA perspective. I haven't seen it, which is why I am asking you who support the position to point me to some you have undoubtedly read.

Well, I think you and I will probably disagree here fundamentally. i DON' necessarily disagree with the idea that we can shed some light on how to think about a scripture using observational methods

Let me give you an example. We use good old observational science everyday. We, much like Moses, form models about the world and its natural laws. Moses, when in the presence of the burning bush, KNEW that this was something strange, beause he formed an idea about the natural world that didn't need God's specific revlation...God c ertainly didn't have to explain to him that the burning bush not being consumed was an unusual one.

Same thing happens to us when we READ about that passage. It's not as if we have to have this explained to us in scripture...."well, the reason that MOses was so startled, you see is that fire would normally consume this organic matter nd because it wasn't Moses knew that something was up".

What about more controversial passages? I know that we have talked about this before (at least, I think we have ) but unless Galileo went through his observations, would the verse concerning the setting of the sun EVER have been challenged? I know that this has been established as bad intepretation *now* but suppose it never was observed by Galileo or for that mtter, ANYbody. Would we still be teaching the geocentric universe? Certainly it seems that observational science helped us not only to reevaluate or change out reading.

My point is that I don't think that it is absolutely wrong to bring to the table what we observe around us when there *are* multiple definitions to the word.

I don't disagree with a word of this, zoe. I think I wasn't very clear in my point to which you were responding. I stated that "there . . . seems to be no point to the text beyond harmonization with modern science." I mean that I can't find any commentary on Gen 1-2 beyond that which attempts to harmonize it with science or show why YEC is wrong. There is NOTHING WRONG with that kind of commentary. It has its place and I endorse it. What is wrong is if that is all you do, and that is all I have seen.

As to the reactionary argument, I would say that the kettle and the teapot are equally black. The issue that Byblos brought up *is* a valid one. YEC was really developed as a model as a reaction to the naturalistic *philosophy* that was starting with dArwin,Freud, and of course, many others. While a natural reaction, it was a reaction.

YEC as a system may be a reaction to modernism, but there can be no doubt that the 24-hour-day view was the predominant view of history. That's why I specifically said "classical view". The classical view obviously holds more in common with the modern system called YEC than it does with OEC, but that doesn't make OEC wrong. What it does mean is that the classical view is not reactionary, whereas OEC is open to that charge.

Again, that doesn't make it wrong. What it does mean is that I want to see from it the same thing YEC and the classical view have already given me, which means I'm not asking any more of one view than I am the other. I'm trying to be fair to both. I'm sure you can appreciate that level of intellectual honesty.

CAn you explain to me, then, what, other than their insistence on the word Yom and the numbers of the days, convinces you about the exegesis?

The fact that it has one? The fact that the text has a point that is being driven home, that is being progressively built, that each word, clause, phrase, verse, and paragraph are explaining? That this point is fundamental to the rest of Mose' argument?

In short, the YEC exegesis I've read attempts to take seriously the exegetical theology of Gen 1-2. I'd like to see the OEC exegesis do the same. If there ever was a litmus test for a correct reading, that would definitely be one.

Perhaps, Jac, a more fundamental question should be asked. (by the way, I had posted a essage while you esponded to Byblos, dont' know if it slipped by)

I have been searching through www.asa3.org using exegesis in the seach. There are a plethora of articles I can show you. There are plenty of articles I can find that work through the text. But before I waste my time in posting these. I guess the issue becomes one of disagreeing with the method? Are you saying that there method of exegesis is one that you inherently disgree with?

There are plenty of methods of exegesis I disagree with . . . those that allegorize the text, those that read the OT in light of the NT, those that don't take it literally, those that emphasize form over substance, postmodern/reader-oriented exegesis, etc. But that's not what I'm dealing with in this thread.

It's not a METHOD that I disagree with that I'm "arguing" against. Indeed, I've made little, if any, actual argument. I've made requests and have simply clarified my reason for making such a request, nothing more. I do NOT disagree with the method of searching the Scripture for apolgetic value or doing deep contextual studies to figure out a word's proper translation, which the OEC camp has done an excellent job of. What I am saying is that is not enough. That is not exegesis. A 400 page book examining WORD BY WORD all of Genesis 1-2 isn't what I'm looking for if they entire point is to prove that the yomim were actually ages. There is an important place for that. What I am looking for is the next step.

So you've proven OEC is the correct view. Fine. What, then, is the theology of Genesis 1-2? I want to see it developed verse-by-verse without all the needless discussion about the length of days.

I know you are very strict with regards to how the scripture should be interpreted. I am wondering if this is more the issue rahter than "it hasn't been done". It seems to ave certainly been done. YOu say that there are plenty of YEC that has been done. Wht are your qualifications for it being done properly and what sources are you willing to accept as legitimate?

It's legitimate if it follows the standard canons of exegetical theology. I want to see what the theology of Gen 1-2 is from an OEC perspective with reference to itself, Genesis, and the rest of the Pentateuch. I'm not interested in a "proper interpretation"--that is, an interpretation that can be properly harmonized with the NT (as YECers are fond of doing with the "no-death-before-the-fall" argument) or with Psalms (as OECers are fond of doing with Ps 104). Those texts didn't exist and weren't in the minds of the readers when Gen 1-2 was written.

Bottom line: I want an exegetical theology of Gen 1-2. I have not yet seen it. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying I haven't seen it. If it doesn't exist, then someone should do it. If it can't be done, then that presents a severe problem for OEC. I'm sure it can be done, I'm just saying that I have not had the pleasure of seeing it as I have with the YEC model. I am not looking to prove one right and the other wrong. I'm not interesting in comparing the two positions. I'm interested in understanding this aspect of the OEC model for its own sake. No more, and no less.

Jac3510 wrote:

Classical view from whose perspective?

The perspective of history. The 24-hour-day view was, until the 18th century, the prominent view. Have their been dissenters? Of course, but it has been the view that has been most broadly held by everyone from the church fathers to rabbis to the early protestants.

I think both camps (OEC & YEC) tend to be purely reactionary because they both look at the creation account from today's perspective, today's science, knowledge.

YEC can't be reactionary to science for the simple reason that it was prominent long before modern science.

It was reactionary to the science of the time, however primitive it was. If modern science were 'modern' then this debate would have been going on since then. So longevity doesn't lend credence to YEC, just that there were no widely held opposing ideas at the time (although there were a few).

Jac3510 wrote:

If we were to truly look at the creation account without any of these prejudices (to the extent possible), we will see exactly what the text is revealing, a literal creation account told in poetic form (prophetic poetry I believe it's called).

I know of absolutely no scholar who considers this prophetic poetry? Can you give me a reference? Gen 1 has absolutely no markers of Hebrew poetry of any kind, and even the claim that it is "exalted prose" has been disputed when a comparison is made to the rest of Genesis.

This form is rather obvious in the original Hebrew (I'm told) with the use of rhyme and such.

Hebrew poetry doesn't rhyme. Neither does the Gen. 1 account. Poetry, in Hebrew, is marked off by parallelism and meter, neither of which occur in our text.

It tends to disappear in translation, which I think is a contributing factor to missing the original point of the text.

Unfortunately, there's nothing there to disappear . ..

I will take your word for it, like I said I don't know Hebrew. But the point I was trying to make is that the intention, the message of the creation account says everything about who did the creation and nothing about how or how long it took. Those are ideas interjected into the text based on contemporary observances. Right or wrong, they are still eisogesis.

Jac3510 wrote:

What is not obvious in the text (nor was it ever meant to be obvious as it was utterly irrelevant to the point being driven across) is the how and how long.

Which I have repeatedly said I am not concerned about, and I frankly am rather impressed with the fact that it seems to be the only thing OECers are concerned about. That, my friend, is my point. Why is it that, in this thread, I've repeatedly stated over and over again that I don't care about the issue of age, that I'm interested in the position of exegetical theology, and over and over again we keep coming back to THIS question of the defensibility of a long-day view?

How can we not come back to the defensibility of a long-day view when you made it a principal tenet of your question? You're asking for a defense of the creation account from an OEC perspective and you don't expect us to address the day-age issue? In other words, you rigged the question to fail from the get-go. What I'm trying to tell you is that a defense of scripture from a day-age perspective is irrelevant and unnecessary just as a defense from a 24-day is irrelevant and unnecessary because the creation account, as viewed from an objective perspective, does not concern itself with either. Here's a question for you, if our planet earth's rotation around its own axis took 48 hours instead of 24, would it have taken God twice as long to create the universe? That's how silly this whole thing is.

Jac3510 wrote:

OEC and YEC have been trying to define those parameters, neglecting their irrelevance to the original message in the process.

I'm not sure how much YEC material you've read? I can point you to dozens of commentaries and papers that spend a great deal of time focusing on the exegetical theology of Gen 1-2. It was precisely my reading of all those (and teaching through Gen four times, which required me, each time, to deal with the theology, not the scientific issues, of Gen 1-2) that prompted this thread.

And none of them assume 'yom' to be 24-hour days, right? Show me one that doesn't make such an assumption (or come to that conclusion) and I will concede your point.

Jac3510 wrote:

So to answer your original question, both camps attempt to make an extra-biblical point of the text which doesn't exist when the account is viewed devoid of contemporary prejudices.

1. Even if I conceded your argument that YEC makes the same mistake that OEC seems to be making, it doesn't help anyone's case. It's nothing more than a fallacy called tu quoque. Just because someone else has the same problem you do doesn't make your problem go away.

I did not appeal to the YEC mistake as an excuse for OEC. I am merely saying, exegetically speaking, they are both irrelevant.

Jac3510 wrote:2. Am I actually to take this as you saying that OEC really hasn't done the work of exegetical theology? Are you sitting here and admitting to me that OECers have failed in this regard? If not, I fail to see how "both camps" could be making a mistake if you are going to turn around and say that your camp actually, as it turns out, hasn't been making that mistake in the first place!

What I am saying is that the way you formed the question it is impossible to answer. You cannot ask for an exegesis from an OEC perspective then discount them when they are presented to you (such as Rich's articles).

Jac3510 wrote:3. I'm not even sure how this answers my original question. I asked for an exegetical discussion on the passage. Answering, "Well, nobody has done that!" is not only patently false but also a non-answer. Even if YECers had not done this, citing their non-answer doesn't mean that my question is no longer valid.

No, you asked for an exegetical discussion from an OEC perspective. Apologies if I misunderstood.

It was reactionary to the science of the time, however primitive it was. If modern science were 'modern' then this debate would have been going on since then. So longevity doesn't lend credence to YEC, just that there were no widely held opposing ideas at the time (although there were a few).

What? What "science" were the westminster divines or the church fathers reacting against when they took "day" to mean "a normal day"?

I will take your word for it, like I said I don't know Hebrew. But the point I was trying to make is that the intention, the message of the creation account says everything about who did the creation and nothing about how or how long it took. Those are ideas interjected into the text based on contemporary observances. Right or wrong, they are still eisogesis.

No, it's not. The length of the days--be they 24 hours or ages--is NOT a matter of eisogesis. It is a matter of exegesis just like anything else in the text. The fact that it is an incidental detail doesn't take away from that fact. I would never charge the DA view with eisogesis (as you seem to here?!?). I'm saying that I'm willing to accept the DA view so that we can move on to the next question, which is that of exegetical theology.

How can we not come back to the defensibility of a long-day view when you made it a principal tenet of your question? You're asking for a defense of the creation account from an OEC perspective and you don't expect us to address the day-age issue? In other words, you rigged the question to fail from the get-go. What I'm trying to tell you is that a defense of scripture from a day-age perspective is irrelevant and unnecessary just as a defense from a 24-day is irrelevant and unnecessary because the creation account, as viewed from an objective perspective, does not concern itself with either. Here's a question for you, if our planet earth's rotation around its own axis took 48 hours instead of 24, would it have taken God twice as long to create the universe? That's how silly this whole thing is.

How have I rigged it from the get-go when I said I want an exegesis from the perspective of DA?!? The reason I don't want a defense of the view is because I'M ALREADY ASSUMING IT.

Let me give you an example. I'm sure you agree that the resurrection narratives in the Gospel have great apologetic value. We can use them to prove a lot about our faith to us and others. But the apologetic value isn't the main reason they are written. If the ONLY thing people ever did was talk about that, then they would be missing the MAIN POINT, which is that Jesus has conquered death and can now give everlasting life to whomever He wishes! Now, I'm sure you agree that I can give an exegesis of the resurrection narratives that spends all of its time proving its historical reliability. That's wonderful! There is a place for that! I encourage it! I practice it! But at the same time, there is another place for putting those questions aside and looking at the main questions of the text.

Would I, then, be "rigging" the discussion from the get-go if I asked a preacher to preach an Easter sermon that focused on what Christ's resurrection means rather than proving that it is a historical fact? Of course not. I'd be asking him to do precisely what he does EVERY Sunday. Great, so I'm saying this: rather than try to convince people OEC is right, let's assume it is right, and go ahead and take the text in that light and start doing an exegesis. THAT is what I've not seen. If you assume it, then you don't have to use the text to prove it.

And none of them assume 'yom' to be 24-hour days, right? Show me one that doesn't make such an assumption (or come to that conclusion) and I will concede your point.

They ALL assume yom to be 24 hour days. They don't bother arguing it. They start with that assumption and build their theology from there. THAT is what I am looking for. But all I have EVER seen is a defense of the long-day view. Now, just like you can find YEC commentaries that defend the 24-hour-day view, you can find OEC commentaries that defend the long-day view. Nothing wrong with that. But just like I can find YEC commentaries that are focused on exegetical theology and ASSUME their position for the sake of looking at what Moses INTENDED his audience focus on, I want to find OEC commentary to the same.

I did not appeal to the YEC mistake as an excuse for OEC. I am merely saying, exegetically speaking, they are both irrelevant.

"Both camps" appeals to YEC. You then charge that these camps, which include YEC, "attempt to make an extra-biblical point of the text which doesn't exist." This was in response to my saying: "My problem with the view--over and against the classical view, anyway--is that there, in fact, seems to be no point to the text beyond harmonization with modern science. "

So, perhaps the flow of the discussion was lost, but I stated I had a problem, which you sought to neutralize by saying that both camps do the same thing, to which I replied that a YEC mistake doesn't excuse an OEC mistake, to which you replied that you didn't appeal to a YEC mistake. I just don't understand how you can say you didn't appeal to a YEC mistake when you say that "both camps" make the very mistake I was complaining about.

What I am saying is that the way you formed the question it is impossible to answer. You cannot ask for an exegesis from an OEC perspective then discount them when they are presented to you (such as Rich's articles).

Then you've not understood what I'm asking for. I'm asking for an explanation of the theology of Gen 1-2, NOT A DEFENSE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE DAY-AGE INTERPRETATION.

I'm saying that if we assume the intrepretation's validity, it doesn't need to be defended. Therefore, we don't need articles and commentary that defend its validity. So, then let's move on. Validity assumed, let's see an exegetical theology of the account.

No, you asked for an exegetical discussion from an OEC perspective. Apologies if I misunderstood.

I asked for an OEC perspective on the theology of Gen 1-2, not a defense of the OEC position.

Jac3510 wrote:zoe,

Thanks for letting me know about your previous post. I had missed it. Let me respond to both:

Can you tell me why you think,then, that it *hasn't* been worked out well? From all that I haev read, the definition of Yom and the numbers associated with Yom have been the *foundation* of YEC exegesis. Shoot, I just had somebody place in my mailbox at school a lovely little pamphlet from Pensecola Christian COllege (a college, after investagation, that receives very little of my respect, but that's another story) about young age of the earth and that was THEIR SOLE arguemnt from scripture!! The trot out the yom and the nominal day argument just like avery other arguemnt that has been presented. (and of course go on to present the "science" that supports it)

What other exegesis do they bring to the table other than this?!?!

I don't really know how to make my request any clearer. All of the DA exegesis that I have seen has been with reference to proving that yom CAN be interpreted as "age" (no disagreement), that this interpretation best lines up with modern science (no disagreement), and that the inter-relationship of the verses weigh in favor of that translation (which I'm willing to accept). The problem that I'm seeing, which is why I started the thread, is that, though the definition of yom has been thoroughly argued, there has been little, if any, further emphasis on the point of Genesis 1. Clearly, Moses did not write with the intent to define yom. That is incidental to the textI have precisely the same problem with YECers who make this their main issue. I agree it is an important issue. It is one we should discuss. It affects the theology of the text. Fine. I agree with all that. But it is not the main point of the text. As someone who teaches through Genesis regularly, my interest is in teaching what the author intended the readers to see. That means emphasizing what the author emphasized and mentioning, in passing, what the author mentioned in passing.

I have no problem with this.
I will say that I think a lot of what you are seeing from OEC was more, at first, to establish their interpretation as credible. As I have witnessed much of the changing attitudes towards OEC since the mid-80's, when I started getting interested in this, I have noticed mcuh of the early discussions *were* about the discussions of YOM, etc. The attacks that have been leveled and still leveled at them mean that it is still under discussion. That lovely little article is a case in point. Left up to me, I would really feel no need to be as paranoid as I am in teaching this subject. But I still have to fight for the liegitimacy that you are granting. That YOM is stll on the table is not our choice.

I would love to move the discussion onto this.

jac wrote: I'm sure that somebody, somewhere, has done an exegesis like I'm talking about from a DA perspective. I haven't seen it, which is why I am asking you who support the position to point me to some you have undoubtedly read.
...
The fact that it has one? The fact that the text has a point that is being driven home, that is being progressively built, that each word, clause, phrase, verse, and paragraph are explaining? That this point is fundamental to the rest of Mose' argument?

In short, the YEC exegesis I've read attempts to take seriously the exegetical theology of Gen 1-2. I'd like to see the OEC exegesis do the same. If there ever was a litmus test for a correct reading, that would definitely be one.

Perhaps, Jac, a more fundamental question should be asked. (by the way, I had posted a essage while you esponded to Byblos, dont' know if it slipped by)

I have been searching through http://www.asa3.org using exegesis in the seach. There are a plethora of articles I can show you. There are plenty of articles I can find that work through the text. But before I waste my time in posting these. I guess the issue becomes one of disagreeing with the method? Are you saying that there method of exegesis is one that you inherently disgree with?

There are plenty of methods of exegesis I disagree with . . . those that allegorize the text, those that read the OT in light of the NT, those that don't take it literally, those that emphasize form over substance, postmodern/reader-oriented exegesis, etc. But that's not what I'm dealing with in this thread.

It's not a METHOD that I disagree with that I'm "arguing" against. Indeed, I've made little, if any, actual argument. I've made requests and have simply clarified my reason for making such a request, nothing more. I do NOT disagree with the method of searching the Scripture for apolgetic value or doing deep contextual studies to figure out a word's proper translation, which the OEC camp has done an excellent job of. What I am saying is that is not enough. That is not exegesis. A 400 page book examining WORD BY WORD all of Genesis 1-2 isn't what I'm looking for if they entire point is to prove that the yomim were actually ages. There is an important place for that. What I am looking for is the next step.

So you've proven OEC is the correct view. Fine. What, then, is the theology of Genesis 1-2? I want to see it developed verse-by-verse without all the needless discussion about the length of days.


Bottom line: I want an exegetical theology of Gen 1-2. I have not yet seen it. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying I haven't seen it. If it doesn't exist, then someone should do it. If it can't be done, then that presents a severe problem for OEC. I'm sure it can be done, I'm just saying that I have not had the pleasure of seeing it as I have with the YEC model. I am not looking to prove one right and the other wrong. I'm not interesting in comparing the two positions. I'm interested in understanding this aspect of the OEC model for its own sake. No more, and no less.

I don't feel that the theology is necessarily any different, or that it has to be. Original sin doesn't have to change (unless you feel that animal death/plant death negates original sin). The nature of man doesn't have to change. The curse dosen' have to change. All of these were up for debate as to their meanings and applications before the debate between OEC and YEc came about. Will there be OEC that do chagne these? Sure. Doesn't mean they are right.

I will keep looking for the articles, I;m mad because my bookmarks on not on this coputer and the computer it is on,,,,oh, not important. FOr me, this is simply an issue of correcting bad science/observations that resulted from an erroneous fear of a philosophy.

For what it's worth: here is what I found on ww.asa3.org

http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1987/PSCF3-87Pun.html (lol,. this starts with a Calvinist frame....but that wasn't my pointin linking to it....merely one example of it )
http://www.asa3.org/evolution/noontime.html
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF6-03Newman.pdf

I'm not saying these are exactly what you are looking for. This wa simply a search with Biblical exegisis and theology in their serach engine. I am using their website because they have one of the largest sources of OEC writings. At least by looking at these you can tell me their shortcomings or helpme understand what you mean.

jac wrote:They ALL assume yom to be 24 hour days. They don't bother arguing it. They start with that assumption and build their theology from there. THAT is what I am looking for. But all I have EVER seen is a defense of the long-day view. Now, just like you can find YEC commentaries that defend the 24-hour-day view, you can find OEC commentaries that defend the long-day view. Nothing wrong with that. But just like I can find YEC commentaries that are focused on exegetical theology and ASSUME their position for the sake of looking at what Moses INTENDED his audience focus on, I want to find OEC commentary to the same.

I will go back to a point I made above. For mny of us, OEC was never about messing with theology. In fact, I would say that much of the contention about theology and OEC was brought about by YEC attacking us. Again, much of OEC was simply to show that interpretation of the creation and interpretaion of scripture will be in harmony. Historically, YEC leveled attacks at OEC because they thought we were all about destroying the view of the innerrancy of Genesis, so the theology of original sin, the fall, has been brought into the fray. I don't know why my theology has to be any different than someone who holds YEC?!?!?

God as Maker of heaven and earth? Yep
God established mankind in His image? Yep
Mankind was without sin befor the fall? Yep
Mankind fell? Yep
Satan was at workat the fall? Yep
We were cursed? Yep (now, I may debate what that means with regard to animalk death...I read a commentary all about weeds and how they wee a result of the curse....really?)
We need a redeemer? Yep
The redeemer was established even in Genesis? Yep...

What else is on thetable?
How is my theology any different?

zoegirl wrote: God as Maker of heaven and earth? Yep
God established mankind in His image? Yep
Mankind was without sin befor the fall? Yep
Mankind fell? Yep
Satan was at workat the fall? Yep
We were cursed? Yep (now, I may debate what that means with regard to animalk death...I read a commentary all about weeds and how they wee a result of the curse....really?)
We need a redeemer? Yep
The redeemer was established even in Genesis? Yep...

What else is on thetable?
How is my theology any different?

You would have to discuss "very good" and what that means to OEC, because that has a huge impact on the issue of animal death before the fall which is a major rift between the 2 camps.

warhoop wrote:You would have to discuss "very good" and what that means to OEC, because that has a huge impact on the issue of animal death before the fall which is a major rift between the 2 camps.

A lot of that is addressed here.. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/paradise.html

Perhaps a better question would be would God create a world where there was death and dying before man's sin entered the world? I think that is where most of the rift lies.. Perhaps that is where Christ's physical and spiritual death sanctifies us through our physical and spiritual death. That is how many YEC'ers explain it..

But then again, if there was no death before Adam then how would God deal with overpopulation and hunger? There is only a certain limit to how much this earth can hold, if we are talking about billions and billions of people, incests, animals and what not. Then, practically, God could have created man to sin to compensate for this factor. He would have foreknown man's sin from the get go...

But what if God created the world as a temporary holding spot where death may have been instructed from the very beginning? Are we to look at God as being evil for this? I would hope not.. That would be a very unwise in my opinion. Calling God evil, for something that I cannot fully comprehend.

Be careful...

And if you think the pre Fall creation was "very good," surely nothing after the Fall could be "very, very good." Oh wait, Numbers 14:7. How does that work out?