Evidence for God from Science

Ah! Yes, when you said you would stop for now, I thought you meant your initial post. And of course I wouldn't try to respond to everything! I'm enjoying reading your take on this as I agree with you 100% that the biggest deal here is hermeneutics. In that case, I'll reserve any comments until you have fully stated your case. That will also give me more than enough time to review Waltke's work. The only exception, of course, as per your comments just above, will be to clarify something that I've said to help make sure you are actually addressing my own ideas. I expect you'll do the same for me.

As for my paper being much diminished by my insistence that I don't see a dual fulfillment, then I say so much the better. That gets to good hermeneutics then. But, again, I'll say more about that later on. Looking forward to continuing reading your work. Carry on!

Philip wrote:

Starhunter wrote;The prophets were not in some trance or daze when they wrote, writing things which they did not understand.
They were clear on the intention and meaning otherwise they would not have written it.

Nonsense! If this were true, there would not have been such poor understandings concerning the coming, prophesied Messiah. There would be far fewer debates concerning the meanings of various prophecies. And in many instances, if they DID have a comprehensive understanding, one must wonder why they didn't clearly and much better explain some things that have caused reasonable theologians to have long debated them.

Inspiration begins with God and depends on God.
A poor understanding is not the fault of the scriptures or of their human elements in writing, but a result of being inspired by egocentricity to receive and understand the scriptures. Only the "poor in spirit" are blessed.
The reason the Jewish leadership missed the Messiah, is because of their pride and confidence in their own system of theology/eschatology/and other mental gymnastics, caused them to look for a Messiah that was like themselves. It was not going to happen, as the Christmas story happily tells.
They were not connected with the Holy "Spirit of prophecy" and so their predictions and interpretations were misapplied.

Jesus was taught by the Spirit of God, He had far more clarity and knowledge of the scriptures than all the Sanhedrin put together.
Hebrews 8:11 says that when people are taught by the Spirit through personal experience, they will not have a need for the instruction of other men to know God.

In the same way that science has claimed that the only knowledge we may accept is that of peer reviewed articles and such, so the religious leaders are pulling the wool over people's eyes by "theologians talk," which is essentially humanism, the presumption that an academic edge is an authority on inspiration.
People are conned into trusting leadership in regards to science and religion, but "God is no respecter of person," and "gives liberally to all that ask."
A baffling grip of the Greek, Hebrew and Latin languages, without the Holy Spirit, is a potential decoy to the truth.
This does not mean that Theology and languages are useless, but rather more advantageous to the one who receives the Bible as a believing child.

But Hebrews 8:11 assures us that the least person, will be taught of God if they want to be.

Problems Understanding the Human Author's Intended Meaning (cont.)

Age of Earth. Is There An Objective Interpretation?

Getting back on track, in my previous post on "Prejudicial Influences on Author's Knowledge" I basically concluded:

• It seems like everyone at some point like to takes some liberty to project what we feel is the case about what the author knew or didn't know.
  
  This enables those who think they're objectively practicing the Historical-Critical methods to inject thoughts into "the human author [which they] would have been totally unaware of." When this is done, then the human author's intention is lost.

Then I quoted Waltke for support on this, particularly concerning those who place on a pedestal as Scripture itself the Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation:

• Traditionally the historico-grammatical method has focused its attention on the context of the biblical writers in order to control their meaning and neglected the context of the interpreter… But modern hermeneutics has turned attention from the text to the interpreter and underscored that it is impossible for him to be neutral or presuppositionless; rather his prejudgment (Vorurteile) decisively influences his understanding of the text before him.

In this vein, considering it is unavoidable, I'd like to reflect upon the age of the Earth debate in relation to Scripture and the nature of some recent exchanges we had elsewhere on this board.

Let me begin by saying that it seems to me that if we truly self-examine ourselves – the beliefs we hold, systems of theology we are drawn to, thinkers that we look up to and appreciate, the beliefs of family and friends whom we respect and look up to, our education and what we are taught, our experiences in life and the fuller picture of all our influences – that when we come to Scripture we will inevitably carry in prejudgments and or prejudices.

It was clear to me by your response in another thread here recently, that you were puzzled by some statements I made to this effect towards YEC. I wrote:

• You say any OEC interpretation may be coloured by a modern scientific understanding, but equally any interpretation of old [YEC] may have been coloured by a non-modern scientific understanding. Where does that leave us?

Your response to this, and some other statements I made about traditional beliefs being read into the Genesis creation, was very pointed and is one I would expect of someone neglecting "the context of the interpreter [i.e., their self]". You responded:

• Again, you are proving my point. Luther realized that tradition was being read INTO Scripture, just like OEC reads science INTO Scripture. So what ought we do? What Luther did . . . let the Bible speak to itself. And when you do that, there is absolutely no way we can hold to OEC. It is not in the Bible. It's in modern science and read INTO the Bible, implying that the Bible cannot be understood on its own terms.

I've explained my story on several occasions elsewhere, I arrived at a non-ordinary day understanding of Genesis 1 prior to any personal scientific understanding. I believe I was letting the Bible speak for itself. Perhaps on some subconscious or subliminal level I understood that modern science strongly supported an older Earth, but I was consciously oblivious.

What you still appear to be missing however, is that we are all guilty of eisegesis to some degree. That is, via our passional self carrying beliefs and experiences into the text that we read. As Waltke noted, "we never neutral when we come to the text." This will inevitable shape our understanding of a text and points where our subjectivity can creep in, whether using the Historical-Grammatical method and assuming what the author does or doesn't know or something other.

By your declaration that we should "let the Bible speak to itself" you really mean "speak to Young Earth Creationism" (given that you say unequivocally that "there is absolutely no way we can hold to OEC. It is not in the Bible." and also say "the distinction between OEC and YEC is simply this: YECs believe in letting the text speak for itself."). This reveals to me that you associate your interpretation as being Scripture itself.

This becomes further highlighted in your post further down where you declare: "YEC is an exegetical position. OEC is a eisogetical position… Frankly, I wish OECs would just admit that their position is eisogetical and move on to defend a mythical interpretation of the text."

Ironically, you then redeclare the case for YEC based upon Tradition:

• A literal interpretation of the text leads to YEC. There's no way around that. So what they [OECs] ought to do is just abandon the claim that they can literally interpret the text. And that's why the CFs are so important. With only one exception I know of (in the 18th century), NO ONE prior to the twentieth century thought the yomim of Genesis 1 referred to anything other than ordinary days.

I say "ironically" because it would never be the case that YECs are reading into the text what they see as being the traditional and correct understanding. Right? This is just as much eisegesis as reading science into the text.

Furthermore, it could be the case that YEC has become so entrenched in various church denominations today, that now when people even turn to the church fathers, they are blinded to certain concessions made in their "literal" exegesis and just continually beat the drum that they never believed in an old Earth.

I'll end this part of my response with a quote I came across by a Scottish judge, Francis Jeffrey, which I feel is very appropriate here:

• "There is nothing respecting which a man may be so long unconscious as of the extent and strength of his prejudices … Nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least known."

And elsewhere he writes:

• "Beware prejudices. They are like rats, and men's minds are like traps; prejudices get in easily, but it is doubtful if they ever get out."

I'm aware this isn't a one-way streak. It is as true for me, as it is true for you.

We all have our prior beliefs and experiences that prejudice us. And as I've reasoned, they can get in the way when interpreting or trying to understand what the original human author may have understood and intended. Including using the Historical-Grammatical method which allows for some "subjective creep" as previously described, and which Waltke warns of, to colour the interpreter's interpretation.

Time Out: Side Note on the Creation Debate
Before continuing with more posts, I just want to take some time out to discuss an issue of divisiveness that this discussion can cause.

I had written much of the following in my last post, but decided to leave it out to avoid distraction.
Then it was brought to my attention that I made some jabs in my last post so I feel it is now relevant to add.
My last post may have turned up the heat a little, but there is more that will be coming. It's inevitable.

Let me say now that if you are invested in this discussion, then it requires thick skin. Steel plated armour at times even.
To attack each others' positions and sometimes even each other and then yet still remain united in Christ thereafter.

Schism between people on opposite sides of the Genesis debate is inevitably unavoidable.
I purposefully call it a schism rather than debate because it does divide us whether we like that or not—truth claims are that way.

So I’ll no doubt say things that will offend YECs, even make them feel personally attacked or as though I'm “poisoning the well”.
The fact of the matter is that I'm just calling things as I see them.

Meanwhile others like Jac, when he has his say, I'm sure will respond with some statements that seem to me brutish and awfully unfair.
As an example, some statements previously made which I’m sure he 100% believes:

• “At the end of the day, the distinction between OEC and YEC is simply this: YECs believe in letting the text speak for itself”
• “YEC is an exegetical position. OEC is a eisogetical position.”
• “I wish OECs would just admit that their position is eisogetical and move on to defend a mythical interpretation of the text.”
• “OEC IS a compromise position. It IS a refusal to take the Word of God seriously. It IS the submission of divine revelation to human wisdom.”
• “[OEC] DOES undermine the gospel…”
• “OEC reads science into Scripture.”
• “OEC ought to abandon the claim that they can literally interpret the text.”

I would love to say these statements are unfair and that it is merely an attempt to steamroll using very bold statements with great rhetorical effect.
Likewise some might cry foul of those who say YEC turns God into a liar and many other statements.

BUT, it is not "foul" or "unfair" if it is something truly believed. After all what does truth have to do with fairness? Truth is not fair.
If what I call “white” is actually “black” to someone else, then no amount of my saying it’s unfair to call it “black” is going to change that position until they too see that it is “white”.

So I just want to ensure there is mutual understanding here, because I don't want to necessarily use soft padded gloves when I see a duck, to try and make it all fluffy looking before presenting.
Likewise, I expect the same treatment when receiving a response. BUT, hopefully we still listen to some main points and retain a level of respect for each other in the end.

While I don’t always like it, I can appreciate Jac's forthrightness.
It should just be assumed YEC/OEC causes both sides to get heated because a) it deals with truth and b) our beliefs regarding God run deep and c) we're passional beings and not just rational.

We may not initially know why we'd get bothered, but when we start digging into the details some things really irritate us about the other’s position.
BUT, then when we change topics to something else we are more agreeable on, well we’re brothers again and everything is good.
So if I offend, then I hope I offend better than I'll be offended. All in Christ, for truth and to God’s glory of course, however than pans out.

Problems Understanding the Human Author's Intended Meaning (cont.)

Problems with Divine Dictation to Human Authors
Many Evangelicals seem repulsed by Divine Dictation. As RC Sproul notes in his commentary on the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy:

• "Evangelical Christians have wanted to avoid the notion that biblical writers were passive instruments like pens in the hands of God, yet at the same time they affirm that the net result of the process of inspiration would be the same. Calvin, for example, says that we should treat the Bible as if we have heard God audibly speaking its message."

To be honest, before I thought upon it during my posts here, my natural reason was to dismiss divine dictation. Why? I'm not sure. I recall it being mentioned in my theology degree and the lecturer scoffing at it. It just wreaked too much of the supernatural.

But, then let's think about this. If we believe that Scripture is the inspired and inerrant Word of God, and we believe that God spoke to Moses through a burning bush, and we believe that God made an a$$ speak to Balaam (that's a donkey people!)—then well it seems strange to start hesitating over God explaining issues and even dictating some words to authors.

@Jac, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you too dislike Divine Dictation. You appear to carry much negativity towards it, for example, in your paper on the Psalm prophecies you write:

• "… inspiration to little more than divine dictation that the author himself could not understand, and in that case, the entire enterprise of divine revelation is undermined!"

Further, in your "Book 1" quoted at the start of this thread you write:

• The Bible is certainly a divine book, but the moment we separate the intentions, we have ceased to allow it to be a human book. For now the only role the authors have is that they are providing the material cause; that is, they are the ones who write the words on the page. But their intentions behind those words prove to be secondary at best. The real cause is only divine. And that, I think, is a rather dangerous thing to do, because now we may as well ignore authorial intent all the way around. If the human author's intention doesn't have to be followed, then the text may as well mean whatever we want it to mean. All we have to say is, "It doesn't matter what Moses meant. What matters is what God meant, and God meant so and so, even if that's not what Moses own words actually mean."

The part in bold reveals that you obviously don't like the authors being used as "pens". It is probably safe to assume, given your statement in your paper, that much of your argument in this paragraph can be applied to divine dictation. Right?

As for your argument, I really don't see that it follows. That is, it isn't entirely sound—your premises don't necessarily lead to the next and through to your conclusion. I just don't understand how just because the human author submits to God's own intentions, that the human author has no intention of his own. As far as I see, God's intervening with the human author just leads to a joint understanding and intention.

I also don't see that the human author's meaning is lost. Why can't it be enhanced?
The most you have under divine dictation (or God influencing Moses' words) is that the meaning of the words becomes the same for both the human and divine authors.
"Single meaning" is something the Historical-Grammatical method seeks to uncover. It's just that, instead of finding "single meaning" in the human author's knowledge and intention, "single meaning" is found in the divine author's knowledge and intention.

There appears to be a strong bias here which is only allowing single meaning to be had one way—dumbing down God's intentions and meaning to the human author's level rather than uplifting the human author's intentions and meaning to God's. I find this very suspect.

I do understand why some avid Historical-Grammaticians like yourself would dislike a communication method like divine dictation, or even direct communication from God to the human author. As covered in my previous post, "What the Author Isn't Allowed to Know," your words in the quote above is a perfect illustration of the bias that exists by some Historical-Grammaticians against the human author possessing divine knowledge.

As previously reasoned, if the human author has divine knowledge then what becomes of trying to understanding the actual text as the author would understand? The author's own intentions cannot be separated from God's. Really this just means that the Historical-Grammatical method perhaps has its limits. If God does communicate to the human author, then an intended joint message risks being sacrificed on the altar of the Historical-Grammatical method.

Divine Dictation = "Doesn't Matter What Moses Means"
I want to now focus in on your statement that if the author is just writing words on a page, "It doesn't matter what Moses meant. What matters is what God meant, and God meant so and so, even if that's not what Moses own words actually mean."

Now your intended meaning here is in relation to Moses understanding that the yamim (days) in Genesis 1 could actually be understood in a Day-Age sense. I'd actually like to apply your reasoning here to other instances of God's communication with Moses found in Scripture.

In Scripture we read that Moses had direct contact with God, indeed even saw God and came away with a radiant glow requiring him to wearing a veil. So how can we be sure that God also didn't have direct and personal communication with Moses about other matters?

AND, if God indeed had "discussions" with Moses, then God could certainly ensure that Moses shared in the same divine knowledge and insight. His own intentions and meaning become aligned to God's—rather than being nullified and as such meaningless.

To reflect again upon the issue of Divine Dictation, I'd like to introduce the affirmation in Article VI: Verbal Plenary Inspiration in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI):

• We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

RC Sproul in Explaining Inerrancy: Commentary on the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy comments on dictation in relation to Article VI:

• The issue of dictation has raised problems in church history. In the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century the Roman Catholic Church did use the word dictante, meaning "dictating," with respect to the Spirit's work in the giving of the ancient texts. In the Protestant camp, John Calvin spoke of the biblical writers as being amanuenses or secretaries. Added to this is the complex fact that there are portions of Scripture which seem to be given by some form of dictation, such as the Ten Commandments given by God to Moses.

Given the Ten Commandments appear to have been given by a form of dictation... to paraphrase your argument, does this mean that can we take the 10 Commandments to mean "whatever we want [them] to mean"? Either something is wrong with your reasoning or we can take the 10 Commandments to mean whatever we want. That's an odd conclusion. Further, I'm sure the commandments still count as revelation—divine revelation isn't undermined.

It just doesn't follow that because there is strong divine intention and causation via the writer, that there would be no human understanding or intention. I think it would do us all good who believe in Divine inspiration to remind ourselves of the fact that God is ultimately doing the revealing in "special revelation".

This doesn't have to be at the author's expense even if dictated. For example, I'm sure Moses understood the 10 Commandments and intended what he wrote while "penning" it into the Pentateuch.

There are many methods revealed in Scripture that God uses to communicate to various people. Visions (Revelation), dreams (Joseph), prophets, angels aka "God's messengers", burning bushes and even donkeys. God could dictate what to write after a rather long and enlightening chit-chat. God might impart a vision or dream. God might have even shown off more absurd tricks like speaking through a "burning" bush or a donkey.

We just do not know the means that God chose to communicate to human authors, including Moses. The ICBI also left this question open, as we find in the CSBI Article VII. Commenting on the statements, RC Sproul writes:

• The mode of inspiration is left as a mystery by these articles (cf Article VII). Inspiration, as used here, involves a divine superintendence which preserved the writers in their word choices from using words that would falsify or distort the message of Scripture. Thus, on the one hand, the Statement affirms that God's superintendence and inspiration of the Bible applied down to the very words and, on the other hand, denies that he canceled out the exercise of the writers' personalities in the choices of words used to express the truth revealed.

Far from being a robot, I think an author having close communication with God would actually have become alive and free. Far from removing the author's meaning, we find our true meaning and fulfilment in God. It stands to reason that an author who is in direct contact with God would gain an enriched intention and meaning rather than having it nullified.

Our true self and purpose reach their pinnacle in Christ. It is in Christ our creator that we attain true freedom. Why can't we then apply this theological principle to an author who is in God's immediate presence? That is, the author's true self is actually accentuated.

Furthermore, I'd argue that closer communication methods of Divine inspiration provides the most complete Christological picture of Scripture (if that is what one desires). God personally communicating with Moses allows God to accurately convey what he means, and Moses in awe and wanting to serve God now wishes to convey God's words or insights to the world accurately. The divine and human message in one unified front. A true hypostatic union of God's Word, both fully divine and fully human in one. Quite Christologically beautiful. Don't you think?

As for what I believe, I'm open to all ideas including God talking through an a$$. Got to love the humour in that! God's a funny man, err… that is, God. Unless your Jesus and then… oh, you know what I mean!

Very interesting and deep thread...

It is common knowledge not to give to much heed to the symbolism attached to biblical numbers due to the abuses of folks making up their own formulas, however, there is some truth in the symbols of numbers within the bible that are worth a better looksee... Some things are way too obvious to overlook in order to justify discarding this avenue so quickly regarding the divinely inspired authorship of the bible: Biblical symbols of numbers do add up... pointing to Jesus Christ in many ways. The age of the earth is not part of the equation of these symbols, however, Jesus is. Interesting in noting how things add up nevertheless.

See the attachment for a glimpse into what I mean but also do you own investigation with your own grain of salt.
-
-
-

Problems Understanding Human Author's Intended Meaning (cont.)

What the Divine Author Saw that the Human Author Didn't

Jac, in your "Book 1" response to me you write:

• If God intended a meaning that the human author did not, then clearly the human and divine intentions are necessarily distinct. But that raises serious questions about the relationship between those two intentions. Which is inspired? If the divine intention is correct, can the human intention be incorrect? Or worse, it seems like such a view results in what Earl Radmacher calls "hermeneutical nihilism" for it "separate the words of the text from the author resulting in multiple meanings."

You then quote Radmacher:

• [T]he claim of authorial ignorance [and, thus, divided intentions] makes the Bible something less than a truly human document. Just as we do not want to describe the person of Christ as less than truly human, so we do not want to describe the Scriptures as less than truly human.

Now I accept on account if ICBI's authority that "single meaning" is important to preserve. In other words, God did not intend a meaning that the human author did not. This is no doubt what Radmacher has in mind in that God or the human author can't intend one thing while the other is oblivious.

And yet, it is not entirely that simple either as we both know.

There are some allowances if you will that the ICBI, including Radmacher, would make.

• CSBH Article XVIII: MEANING MAY TRANSCEND HUMAN UNDERSTANDING
  WE AFFIRM that the Bible's own interpretation of itself is always correct, never deviating from, but rather elucidating, the single meaning of the inspired text. The single meaning of a prophet's words includes, but is not restricted to, the understanding of those words by the prophet and necessarily involves the intention of God evidenced in the fulfillment of those words. WE DENY that the writers of Scripture always understood the full implications of their own words.

This article supports tends to support your words in its affirmation, but the denial which says the human authors didn't always understand the full implications of their words is a concession of sorts. It doesn't mean we can just destroy the single meaning, nor does it mean we have unrestricted leeway to say whatever we want the text to mean regardless of what the human author was aware to.

To quote Norman Geisler at length in his commentary on the hermeneutical statements:

• Some believe that this single meaning may be fuller than the purview of the human author, since God had far more in view than did the prophet when he wrote it. The wording here is an attempt to include reference to the fulfillment of a prophecy (of which God was obviously aware when He inspired it) as part of the single meaning which God and the prophet shared. However, the prophet may not have been conscious of the full implications of this meaning when he wrote it.
  
  The way around the difficulty was to note that there is only one meaning to a passage which both God and the prophet affirmed, but that this meaning may not always be fully "evidenced" until the prophecy is fulfilled. Furthermore, God, and not necessarily the prophets, was fully aware of the fuller implications that would be manifested in the fulfillment of this single meaning.
  
  It is important to preserve single meaning without denying that God had more in mind than the prophet did. A distinction needs to be made, then, between what God was conscious of concerning an affirmation (which, in view of His foreknowledge and omniscience, was far more) and what He and the prophet actually expressed in the passage. The Denial makes this point clear by noting that biblical authors were not always fully aware of the implications of their own affirmations.

Obviously, there is a fine lined walked here in this statement. In summary, the ICBI endorsed the human and divine authors needing to be on the same page regarding the intended meaning of a text. BUT, the fuller implications of what that text once actually realised is something only the Divine author had full understanding of.

Jac, it seems you are also aware to this in your Psalm prophecy paper. You invoke principle called "principlism" that you believe the NT authors used in order to apply an underlying principle found in the "single meaning" of the Psalm texts to Christ. For example, you write:

• [T]he general principle of Psalm 16 is that is that God will preserve His chosen vessels [single meaning]—especially the Davidic King—a truth that cannot be more greatly fulfilled that in the resurrection of Christ [principle of single meaning applied to Christ]. Likewise, Psalm 22 promises vindication to those who are mocked and suffer for their faith [single meaning]. Again, Chris[t's] resurrection fulfills this is a truth in the grandest possible sense. [principle of single meaning applied to Christ] (bold emphasis and square brackets mine)

Your main concern is that the original meaning intended by both human and divine authors ("single meaning") be respected and maintained. As you wrote in a private exchange to me which I'm sure you won't mind me sharing here to help others reading better understand:

• I don't actually object to progressive revelation as such, although I might object to some interpretations of it. What I object to is the claim that later revelation can come in and change the meaning, or for that matter, even add meaning, to an original text as it is written. As I see progressive revelation, it is the next step in a process. First I am revealed A; on the basis of A, I am later revealed B, and then C, and so on. But C never changes the meaning of B or A. Both of them continue to mean exactly what they always did.

To again refer back to your Psalm paper, I see that you really push this progressive revelation to its limits when describing what is allowable in Pslam 22 beyond your identified "single meaning". Specifically in reference to Psalm 22:16 which contains, "They pierced my hands and feet" (and also the proceeding verses that follow which appear to literally describe events surrounding Christ's crucifixion). For you write:

• [O]ne can be rightly amazed at the degree to which Psalm 22 literally describes Jesus' suffering, there is no necessary contradiction between denying that the psalm is essentially predictive and still affirming the NT authors' right to claim literal fulfillment in the details of the accounts… while a literal fulfillment of the psalm's details are not necessary, they certainly confirm His identity [Christ as the Messiah]. David's word truly described Jesus' suffering.

I removed some "middle parts" from this quote, where you bend and weave to try and make it all acceptable for us to accept the "dual meaning" (if you will) in these words as truly describing Jesus's suffering. It becomes rather grey and hard to tell as to whether or not you've gone too far.

I suppose to an extremely strict "single meaning" advocate, you have gone too far. To someone more moderate, they might be a bit more relaxed and let it pass, and then someone more liberal on "single meaning" would be happy to embrace it, especially since the description in Psalm 22:16-18 does appear so literally precise of what happened to Christ.

The significant references in relation to Christ would be impossible to ignore by any reader of Psalm 22 after Christ's death and resurrection. Indeed, the prophetic meaning is so strongly evident of Christ that I see one holding to "single meaning" needs to work to accommodate their prophetic meaning in some way. Otherwise the principle itself might even be shown false.

So to conclude, clearly ICBI (and as such Radmacher) and yourself understand that God can know the greater implications of a passage than what the author may have been aware to. This is an extremely big qualification that is just not mentioned in your "Book 1" when challenging (?) my belief that God intended (I believe along with Moses mind you) for yom to just represent "some period" however long we interpret such to be.

As an addendum to my previous post, I saw something else with "the meaning" that you identify of Psalm passages in your paper.

In Genesis 1, we tend to go down right down to an examination of individual words.
Such that, you (@Jac) would apply a literal "single meaning" interpretation to individual words like yom.
Your argument would be something like that the human author would not have known the Earth was older without modern scientific knowledge, therefore what the writer and immediate hearers would have understood is that yom was an ordinary day (or even figuratively 24-hours for the first 3 days before the Sun was made on day 4 since 24 hours is the closest representation of an ordinary day).

In your Psalm paper however, you take a much more loose stance.
You are happy to identify an underlying principle as "the meaning" to the whole text which may encompass many verses, even perhaps the whole chapter.
For example, in Psalm 22 the underlying principle that you identify is: "the suffering of the 'all' the righteous for their faith."

You are therefore more content with attaching "literal" meaning at a higher level of the text in Psalm 22, than you would with Genesis 1 where meaning goes right down to the very terms themselves. The details of Psalm 22 you are much less concerned about. BUT, why not? I'm just taking a guess, but perhaps it is just more difficult to really understand what David means by his words and/or what knowledge he has of the Messiah.

For example, in relation to the question of what David would have possibly meant by "they pierced my hands and feet" you are to some extent supportive of Kaiser's interpretation that David was employing "hyperbole" in some representation of his own suffering.

Hyperbole? Since there is no immediate context that it is readily seen as what David would mean by this "pierced hands and feet", and according to your own exegetical rules we for some reason can't infer God gave David some insight into the prophecy itself, then well let us employ hyperbole. David didn't really know the full impact of his statement prophetically, so meant it "poetically" as "hyperbole" in an illustrative form of David's own suffering at the time. And then, let's also suppose his bones showing was hyperbole. And the dividing of his clothes, well let's assume that people cast lots for them too.

Do you see what is happening here?

You (but not just you) take much license with 1) assumption after assumption to make things fit in with the requirements of being able to perform the Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation while keeping the human author's own intended meaning isolated from divine insight).
This is no better than 2) simply assuming that God just raised David to His own level of insight regarding the Messiah.

I think (2) is to be commended for it stops injecting meaning after meaning that isn't in the text, being read into the text. Occam's razor if you will.
I think with (1) that interpreters are able to colour and add much more meaning to the text and manipulate it in whatever manner they see according to their taste.

BUT, for what reason is (1) preferred? Well, for the reason of wanting to be able to interpret the authors intended meaning separate from God's own insight which you argued destroys all meaning to the text.

I spoke of the strangeness of this in my earlier posts here, in particular, What The Author Isn't Allowed To Know.
Heaven forbid that God's meaning may have been imparted to the human author such that they're actually one and the same intended meaning.
After all, it's not like the human author was divinely guided at all—Scripture isn't divinely inspired such that it remains inerrant on account of God. *sarcasm*

Summary of Divine & Human Authorship

A lot of content has been provided in my previous posts.
If you just want the highlights to re-cap on the main points, then this post is for you.
The following is a summary of main points in this “chapter” (really, all that's been posted so far).

“Subjectivity Creep” in Historical-Grammatical Interpretations ^Jump to section
My first main response introduced “single meaning” and explored Jac’s paper on three messianic prophecies in Psalm using the Historical-Grammatical method.

My purpose was to illustrate that Jac included in his interpretation certain knowledge about what David (the psalmist) already knew regarding the Messiah.
This contradicts the type of messiah that the Jews expected, which was not “a dying and rising” Messiah like Christians find in Christ.

Therefore, the human author (David) and the original audience of the time to understand the true Messianic meaning in the psalms would be impossible unless God directly revealed such knowledge. Thus, an interpreter can "rig the success of their interpretation" by assuming what the original author did or did not know.

Main Point: What we allow the human author to know or not know when we come to a passage, has attached to it a degree of subjective influence from the interpreter.

Quote Highlight:

• "In theory practitioners of the historico-grammatic method of exegesis decry the rule of faith, but all too often in practice they allow their creeds to usurp the place of the author's intended meaning." (Waltke)

Post-Note:
Jac responded to clarify what he argued for in his paper and I responded. His response does to a degree squash my original claims against his paper of “begging the question.”

Nonetheless, there are still embedded assumptions Jac places on David’s knowledge which could only be divinely provided. This leads to many subjective assumptions which I describe in my last two posts here (also refer to final point below under “Nothing Wrong with God Knowing Fuller Implications of Scripture”).

While my argument would be formulated differently now under Critiquing Your Paper, my original comments still remain relevant for highlighting my main point which is that of what I call “Subjectivity Creep” in Historical-Grammatical interpretations.

___________________

Hard to Know the Human Author’s Intentions ^Jump to section
While we should be able to get at some of the human author’s intentions via their writings, this task is by no means clear. In fact, the interpreter often colours what they want the human author to intend in support of their own interpretations.

Main Point: It is quite difficult knowing the intentions of the human author. If Christians argue for their own position saying that the human author didn't intend this or that meaning, we must be suspect of such "allow[ing] their [beliefs] to usurp the place of the author's intended meaning." Especially when the text can support otherwise.

Quote Highlight

• “[The Historical-Grammatical method], as normally understood, attempts to recover the author's meaning and intention by carefully establishing the context-the meaning of his words, the grammar of his language and the historical and cultural circumstances, etc.-in which he wrote. But this is easier said then done." (Waltke)

___________________

What the Human Author Isn’t Allowed to Know ^Jump to section
In order to be usable, many believe that the Historical-Grammatical method requires certain assumptions about the human author’s knowledge. In particular, that the human author must have an intended meaning clean and unmixed from God’s—otherwise we could never get at what the human author intended (which is a main goal of the HG method).

Main Point: Why must it be the case that the author, who despite being "divinely inspired," actually had no special communication with God? While the Historical-Grammatical method often proves beneficial, we must be careful not to absolutise it in a manner that restricts getting at what is actually the case (in a similar manner we can see that Methodological Naturalism restricts certain conclusions regarding reality to exclude "miracles" and "intelligent intervention").

Quote Highlight:

• "While [interpretative paradigms like the Historical-Grammatical method] assist us in understanding certain aspects of Scripture we must be careful not to absolutize them in such a way that we rule out of our thinking data that does not fit them…
  
  … In short, the problem with paradigms is that we absolutize them. We fail to understand what they really are: human models to advance our understanding of the text." (Waltke)

___________________

Prejudicial Influences on Human Author’s Knowledge ^Jump to section
Whatever you think the author is or isn't allowed to know, or what they are able to or unable to intend in their message, it seems many who follow the Historical-Grammatical method at some time project their own beliefs onto the author.

Main Point: It seems we all at some point take some liberty to project what we feel is the case about what the human author knew or didn't know. This can be injected via direct or indirect assumptions of what we assume God specially reveals to the human author. Or in the case of what the author didn't know, restricting any divine communication to the human author where it suits our interpretation -- (e.g., God wouldn't give Moses greater insight into the language of yom or "evening and morning" phrase in Genesis 1).

Waltke notes regarding our prejudices:

• “Traditionally the historico-grammatical method has focused its attention on the context of the biblical writers in order to control their meaning and neglected the context of the interpreter…
  
  … modern hermeneutics has turned attention from the text to the interpreter and underscored that it is impossible for him to be neutral or presuppositionless; rather his prejudgment (Vorurteile) decisively influences his understanding of the text before him.”

___________________

No Objective Scriptural Interpretation on Creation ^Jump to section
Building off the last point, the idea that any creation position actually “allows Scripture to speak for itself” is a rhetorical ploy at best. The person who says that their position lets the text speak for itself, and seriously believes such, is I believe self-deceived and blinded to their biases.

If we truly self-examine ourselves – the beliefs we hold, systems of theology we are drawn to, thinkers that we look up to and appreciate, the beliefs of family and friends whom we respect and look up to, our education and what we are taught, our experiences in life and the fuller picture of all our influences – we will inevitably have prejudgments and prejudices when we interpret Scripture.

Main Point: We are all guilty of eisegesis to some degree. That is, via our “passional self” carrying beliefs and experiences into the text that we read. As Waltke noted, "we are never neutral when we come to the text." This will inevitably shape our understanding of the text.

Quote Highlights:

• "There is nothing respecting which a man may be so long unconscious as of the extent and strength of his prejudices … Nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least known."
• "Beware prejudices. They are like rats, and men's minds are like traps; prejudices get in easily, but it is doubtful if they ever get out."
  (Scottish Judge Francis Jeffrey)

___________________

No Real Problem with Divine Dictation ^Jump to section

Main Points:

• If we believe that Scripture is the inspired and inerrant Word of God, and we believe that God spoke to Moses through a burning bush, and we believe that God made an donkey speak to Balaam—then well it seems strange to start hesitating over God explaining issues and even dictating some words to authors.
• There appears to be a strong bias by some Historical-Grammaticians where “single meaning” can only be had one way—dumbing down God's intentions and meaning to the human author's level rather than uplifting the human author's to God's.
• If God communicates to the human author, then an intended joint message risks being sacrificed on the altar of the Historical-Grammatical method, that is, with interpreters who use it with prejudice against the author possessing God-given knowledge.

___________________

Moses and Divine Dictation: No Real Issue ^Jump to section

Main Points:

• Some form of divine dictation finds support in both RCC and Protestant traditions. Furthermore, “there are portions of Scripture which seem to be given by some form of dictation, such as the Ten Commandments given by God to Moses.” (RC Sproul)
• It just doesn't follow that because there is strong divine intention and causation via the writer, that there would be no human understanding or intention.
• Contra Jac’s argument in his "Book 1" response, the 10 Commandments appear given by a form of divine dictation and yet we do not take them to mean "whatever we want", nor do we think such aren't revelation.
• Far from removing the author's meaning, we find our true meaning and fulfilment in God. It stands to reason that an author who is in direct contact with God would gain an enriched intention and meaning rather than having it nullified.
• Closer communication methods in “Divine inspiration” provides the most complete Christological picture of Scripture (if that is what one desires) – the divine and human authors unified as one in meaning and intention in writing the message.

___________________

Nothing Wrong with God Knowing Fuller Implications of Scripture ^Jump to section

Main Points:

• Supported by CSBH Article XVIII: MEANING MAY TRANSCEND HUMAN UNDERSTANDING which reads, “WE DENY that the writers of Scripture always understood the full implications of their own words.”
• @Jac, you make allowance for “principlism” although it’s not clear why. Revelation is also pushed to its limits in your paper when describing what is allowable in Pslam 22 beyond your identified "single meaning". Specifically in relation to Psalm 22:16 which contains, "They pierced my hands and feet" and proceeding verses that follow which appear to literally describe events surrounding Christ's crucifixion.
• Norman Geisler comments: “There is only one meaning to a passage which both God and the prophet affirmed, but that this meaning may not always be fully "evidenced" until the prophecy is fulfilled.” [Kurieuo: Important to note here is that ICBI appear to have no prejudice against “single meaning” possessing divine insight, which means that the writer's understanding can include divine intentions and meaning of the prophecy]

Quote Highlight:

• It is important to preserve single meaning without denying that God had more in mind than the prophet did. A distinction needs to be made, then, between what God was conscious of concerning an affirmation (which, in view of His foreknowledge and omniscience, was far more) and what He and the prophet actually expressed in the passage. (Norman Geisler)

Addendum Points:

• @Jac, you attach "literal" meaning at a higher level of the text in Psalm 22, than you would with Genesis 1 where meaning goes right down to the very terms themselves.
• Much license seems to be taken with assumption after assumption to make things fit in with the requirements of being able to perform the Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation while keeping the human author's own intended meaning isolated from divine insight.
• Where reasonable (Occam's razor), better to assume that God just raised David to His own level of insight regarding the Messiah. This stops interpreters injecting meaning after meaning that isn't in the text being read into the text (i.e., unnecessary eisegesis).

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).
  
  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.
  
  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).

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.

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.

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.

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!

Copyright Notice
If anyone reading is going to publish my ideas here, then please contact me. I’ve had people steal my writings without credit, and although I was not too fussed (a little miffed), it is just proper courtesy. So, I'm attaching a copyright:

This work by Kurieuo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

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").

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.

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!).

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.

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.

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. BUT, injecting “24-hours” is still replacing the most primary meaning of yom as “day”. 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” to include the Sun.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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:

• 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.

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 and not a period of time like YECs/OECs often debate over.

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! The focus is actually Sabbatical in nature.

The immediate text before us in Genesis 1 is silent as to what is intended regarding "time". The single meaning I draw out here one of Sabbatical intent also makes sense of 'yom' being used an “ordinary day” on the first three days (unlike 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 (defined by our Sun rising and setting) under a Sabbatical understanding.

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.”

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.
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.

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.

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.

So then, Moses could have intended yom to be an ordinary day along with God for Sabbatical reasons. 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.

The language used in Genesis 1 has a flexibility, and deeper meaning to it like prophetic Scripture. 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.

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”.

Is This Interpretation Valid and Viable?

I have done my best to put forward a scenario compatible with old Earth belief. 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.

Some may still believe that this interpretation is incorrect. Indeed, we can’t know until we’re able to inquire of God. 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.

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.

K,

What are you saying is an ordinary day, the period of daylight hours?

RickD wrote:K,

What are you saying is an ordinary day, the period of daylight hours?

A day as understood in Sabbatical terms.
There are actually different takes as to whether the Sabbath day is evening to evening (1 complete day), or sunrise to evening (daylight hours).
Interesting is the "evening and morning" phrase in Genesis 1 itself which some identify as God working only during the daylight hours and then resting.
Is this then also an example of work/rest that God is illustrating for His people to follow? It seems appropriate. (I mean who actually believes God needed to rest?)
Others take the "evening and morning" reference to the end of the current day and start of the next, but still 1 complete day+night day.

This "Sabbatical interpretation" is all about 6 days work, 1 day of rest.
Except for the 6-1 pattern itself which can represent days and years, the Sabbath for Israel was about a "day" of rest.
Given the Covenant and all, it is what both Moses and Israel would have understood as important to keep, and it was important for God to reveal in His own works as a good example.

Of course there is a deeper understanding, however with yom "foreshadowing" (or in this case "preshadowing") something more.
This is exactly what we see in prophetic words. Furthermore, we receive greater insight from other books/authors in Scripture when we discover that the seventh day still remains open for us to enter. (cf. Psalm 95:11 and Hebrews 4:1-11)

With the "Sabbatical interpretation", the meaning extends from one of Sabbatical intent both human and divine authors understood, to what actually happened during Creation.
With Messianic prophecy in Psalm, the meaning extends from the immediate meaning surrounding David, to what actually happened with Christ.

If we have no hesitation accepting the latter (Messianic prophecy), then it is difficult to say why one should cry foul of the former?
It's obeyed all the same rules of the game as I see it.

Scripture often appears to have different levels of understanding.
One of a surface-level understanding in the immediate context, and then one of a deeper understanding, and then sometimes an even deeper still understanding.
Such deeper understandings are normally eluded to or eventually revealed in Scripture itself — which is something we find with the seventh day.

Ok, got it.

RickD wrote:Ok, got it.

Good.

I actually see a lot of benefits to the Sabbatical interpretation (as I'm now calling it). It is surprising how much Scripture seems to support it.
It is also interesting that what we all often call a "YEC interpretation" doesn't necessarily preclude an old Earth belief.

That is, we normally just think that if a person accepts the days in Genesis as being ordinary days that they can only be Young Earth Creationists.
BUT, the Sabbatical interpretation (as I'm now calling it) shows that there is not necessarily any conflict at all between accepting "ordinary days" and an old Earth.
Given the biggest stumbling block for YECs is with yom being interpreted as the "unspecified period of time" referent — the Sabbatical interpretation avoids this stumbling block altogether.

Nonetheless, I believe more direct interpretations such as the Day-Age are also acceptable based upon the Historical-Grammatical method.
And many Historical-Grammaticians, Evangelical scholars and relevant authorities like ICBI see nothing wrong with an old Earth interpretation.

I intend to present some very powerful authorities and reasons in my next few posts.

ICBI on Hermeneutics

Scripture Interpreting Scripture

@Jac, in our discussion I contend that it is proper for Christians who believe in Scripture as a source of truth, to use any part of it to help interpret and understand Scriptural truths elsewhere.

You on the other hand appear to think otherwise, but then contradict your rules to freely cite other texts in support of your own interpretation of no death pre-fall (e.g., Rom 5). I’m not sure what you really believe as you didn’t get to that “book” in your response to me. You'll need to clarify your own thoughts I suppose, because I'm definitely feeling like there is some "cherry picking" going on with what you accept and reject.

I contend there is really nothing wrong with your own use of Scripture to try and interpret or understand Genesis better, including bringing to bear on the issue of death pre-fall. Similarly, I see nothing wrong with myself or OECs, Day-Age or otherwise, using Scriptural truths found in other books to better understand and interpret the Genesis creation.

So here again I wish to turn to the ICBI and what they defined in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy for support.

• CSBI Article III: REVELATION
  We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends upon the responses of men for its validity.

Here all the contents of Scripture in its entirety are claimed to be Divine revelation. RC Sproul notes in his commentary on the CSBI:

• There are those who have claimed that the Bible contains here and there, in specified places, revelation from God, but that it is the task of the believer individually or the church corporately to separate the parts of Scripture which are revelatory from those which are not. This article by implication repudiates such an approach to Scripture inasmuch as the whole of Scripture, its entire contents, is to be seen as being divine revelation.

Your statements in our original discussion appear to call into question bringing the fuller canon of Scripture to bear on a particular passage. In fact, your “Book 1” seems one long response to refuting this in some sense.

I think you really need to clarify here what you believe as I’m personally confused — I really can’t see why anyone who believes Scripture is divine revelation as we do would deny such. Unless that is, you are trying make your interpretation of a particular passage (YECism) unassailable even by other Scripture.

So that I’m not misunderstanding you, I’d be interested in a response to the following question:
If you use the Historical-Grammatical method to understand a particular passage and get at the meaning of the text as the human author intended — would you reject your interpretation if it came into conflict with Scripture as a whole?

As for myself, if it looks as though some “literal” meaning of a text is being replaced by a later passage, well I’d just call into suspicious my original “literal” understanding of the text. Even if I could not see a way to plainly understand the original text in the light of later revelation, to me Scripture interpreting Scripture is more important than any other interpretative methods I might use since I see myself as more fallible.

You on the other hand, it seems to me, would reject later revelation and stick to your original understanding using the Historical-Grammatical method. At least that is what I’m hearing in your words. My question is of course a hypothetical, a “what if it happened” scenario. Scripture just doesn’t always appear nice and neat even if I believe it is so inspired as to be inerrant.

Since God is the author of it all, then truths found in later Scripture must be resolved to earlier. There cannot be contradiction. If an interpretation of a specific passage clashes with another passage, then one should suspect their interpretation is wrong.

We then here come to another relevant article by the ICBI:

• CSBI Article V: PROGRESSIVE REVELATION
  We affirm that God’s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it.

Despite your apparent protests against my use of “progressive revelation” in other threads (although noted in our private exchange it seems that you do appear to support a type of progressive revelation), the ICBI here endorse progressive revelation. RC Sproul comments:

• All that has been revealed of God in the totality of Scripture is not found, for example, in the book of Genesis. Much of the content of God’s redemptive activity in Christ is hinted at in part and given in shadowy ways in the earlier portions of the Old Testament. But throughout sacred Scripture the content of divine revelation is expanded, ultimately to the fullness reached in the New Testament. That is what is meant by progressive revelation in this context, that the revelation within Scripture unfolds in an ever-deepening and broadening way.

Obviously, if one uses “progressive revelation” to discount the meaning found in earlier passages, then there is something wrong somewhere. The true meaning, and not just meaning we interpret whether via the Historical-Grammatical method or something other, cannot be false if Scripture is without error.

And if other passages brought to bear on an earlier passage contradicts your “literal” interpretation, but you believe your interpretation of the earlier passage is correct, then you need to provide a response that harmonises all passages with your interpretation.

It won’t do to simply say to those who disagree with your interpretation something along the lines of, “no, you can’t bring those external passages to bear on Genesis.” You need to deal with these passages, regardless of whether you think your interpretation is "literal", "obvious", "plain", "what the original author understood" or what-have-you — because your interpretation may be wrong.

Which brings us to another ICBI article that I'd like to introduce:

• CSBI Article VI: VERBAL PLENARY INSPIRATION
  We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

If all parts of Scripture are given by divine inspiration, then it doesn’t make sense to isolate this book and/or chapter (i.e., Genesis 1) or this author (i.e., Moses) from the rest of Scripture.

THEREFORE, all of Scripture can be brought to bear on a particular passage. Such should guide us when trying to obtain the correct interpretation of a passage. Especially when deeper understanding is provided and similar truths are touched upon.

Those in the Day-Age/OEC camp whether Bernard Ramm who coined "Progressive Creationism", Hugh Ross, Gleason Archer, Paul Copan, Hank Hannegraff, Gregory Koukl, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, Lee Strobel, Norman Geisler or even Earl Radmacher whom you try to quote against me (and I could go on with any other respect Evangelical Christians), would be entirely right in bringing other passages found in other books or authors in Scripture to bear on the Genesis creation and flood.

• CSBI Article VII: INSPIRATION
  We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us. We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight.

On “inspiration,” RC Sproul makes an interesting note that it would perhaps be better understood “God’s expiration”:

• What the framers of the document have in view here is the primary meaning of the word theopneustos in 2 Timothy 3:16, the word translated “inspired by God.” The word theopneustos means literally “God breathed” and has primary reference to God’s breathing out his word rather than breathing in some kind of effect upon human writers. So expiration is a more accurate term than inspiration with respect to the origin of Scripture.

Regarding this article, it is interesting that while ICBI embrace “single meaning” (explained in earlier posts), they here allow divine authorship to supersede the human author in some way. Yes, human authors write with their own style and own insights, but inspiration cannot be reduced to their “human insight” like you appear to do in divorcing God’s own knowledge from the human author when trying to get at the human author's intended meaning.

In this train of thought, RC Sproul further notes of Article VII on Inspiration:

• Here the statement is making clear that by divine inspiration something transcending all human states of inspiration is in view, something in which the power and supervision of God are at work. Thus, the articles are saying that the Bible, though it is a human book insofar as it is written by human writers, has its humanity transcended by virtue of its divine origin and inspiration.

Thus, there is no reason why the human author cannot be transcended by the divine. In other words, the author’s intended meaning need not be kept clean and unmixed from God’s (as I previously wrote about under “What the Author Isn’t Allowed to Know”). This is an extremely important point.

Moving onto the next article from ICBI that really seals the deal for Scripture interpreting Scripture:

• CSBI Article XVIII: INTERPRETATION
  We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
  We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

Now I receive full backing here for Scripture interpreting Scripture. Such does not mean that “the human author becomes irrelevant” — something that you charged me with. Neither does it lead to “hermeneutical nihilism” or the problems that Radmacher identifies.

In fact, many on the council understood that when we interpret Scripture, such isn’t allowing “Scripture to speak for itself” as you try to assume is true of a YEC interpretation. Rather, it’s when Scripture interprets Scripture that the sovereignty of God reigns supreme over whatever interpretation we may hold to, no matter how “literal” and “obvious” it might seem to us.

To quote RC Sproul’s commentary of this on this article:

• The third principle in the affirmation is that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. Historically, this principle is called the “analogy of faith.” It rests on the previous affirmation that the Bible represents a unified, consistent and coherent Word from God. Any interpretation of a passage that yields a meaning in direct contradiction to another portion of Scripture is disallowed. It is when Scripture interprets Scripture that the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, the supreme interpreter of the Bible, is duly acknowledged. Arbitrarily setting one part of Scripture against another would violate this principle. Scripture is to be interpreted therefore in terms not only of its immediate context but also of the whole context of the Word of God.

@Jac, your interpretative method of isolating any understanding of Genesis 1 to the immediate text (and what you see the author intended) is just plainly a wrong thing to do. Yes, there is benefit to doing so. But, to reject out of hand the type of passages that Hugh Ross or Day-Age proponents often introduce as additional support, because to you such neglects the intended meaning of the actual author — well this is to in fact place your own interpretation above the Holy Spirit.

Why should one not look at the whole context of God’s Word? This is not neglecting the human author. If anything, it is simply trying to better understand their message which God is “exhaling” through them.

Our interpretations, even if solidly justified, may be wrong. We need to leave room for the supreme interpreter to override our own interpretations even if we don’t understand how. I love RC Sproul’s words, “It is when Scripture interprets Scripture that the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, the supreme interpreter of the Bible, is duly acknowledged.”

If you see there is a conflict between this, and the Historical-Grammatical method in understanding the human authors own intended meaning, then I’d say as a matter of first principles — Scripture interpreting Scripture usurps that of whatever we might think the author intended. NOT, the other way around as you seem to be doing.

This is also firmly supported by another article, this time in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Hermeneutics:

• Article XVII: SCRIPTURE IS SELF-INTERPRETING
  WE AFFIRM the unity, harmony, and consistency of Scripture and declare that it is its own best interpreter. WE DENY that later writers of Scripture misinterpreted earlier passages of Scripture when quoting from or referring to them.

Norman Geisler mirrors my own exact thoughts regarding this:

• Another point made here is that comparing Scripture with Scripture is an excellent help to an interpreter. For one passage sheds light on another. Hence the first commentary the interpreter should consult on a passage is what the rest of Scripture may say on that text.

Commenting further on the denial Geisler writes:

• This last part of the Denial is particularly directed to those who believe the New Testament writers misinterpret the Old Testament, or that they attribute meaning to an Old Testament text not expressed by the author of that text. While it is acknowledged that there is sometimes a wide range of application for a text, this article affirms that the interpretation of a biblical text by another biblical writer is always within the confines of the meaning of the first text.

Interesting that your paper on the Psalm attempted to prove this point.

However, perhaps unlike you (I don't know), even if we don’t see how an author could have known the divine intent (whether talking Moses or David), when Scripture bears light and deeper meaning on another passage in Scripture it seems wise to assume that the author’s own meaning and intent is nonetheless there.

Whether this makes the Historical-Grammatical method suspect, I don’t know. BUT, Scripture ought to be the supreme authority for itself and not what the author may or may not have thought alongside the original hearers (which we can more easily get wrong due to our own subjective prejudices).