Evidence for God from Science

ICBI on Hermeneutics (cont.)

Extrabiblical Sources of Truth

I had a discussion in another thread where I compared interpreting Scripture within Biblical scholarship to that of understanding the natural world via science – just like scientists, when we hit a problem in Scripture we don't walk away and throw up our hands (more so in Evangelical circles). If we take Scripture seriously and as a source of truth then we try to resolve issues.

These issues aren't just limited to two or more passages in Scripture that appear to conflict, but could also be apparent conflicts with extra-Biblical sources of truth (e.g., science). Accordingly the ICBI defined the following statement:

• CSBH Article XX: EXTRABIBLICAL SOURCES
  WE AFFIRM that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations. WE DENY that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching.

This statement endorses that truth is truth no matter where is comes from. Just because external sources of truth are brought to bear on Scripture – such does not necessitate eisegesis (reading into the text). In fact, such has value for clarifying what Scripture itself teaches, and "prompting correction of faulty interpretations."

Unlike science where hypothesises and theories can be tested, Scripture is somewhat more static and interpretations are limited to the text. That said, interpretations can be missed especially if clouded by previous thinking or tradition. Even missed for hundreds of years or a couple of millennia. Until, extra-biblical sources of truth shed new light.

Keep in mind that Christ is the way, the TRUTH and the life. So should we so raise one source of truth at the expense of another? No. Truth is truth no matter what the source. Scripture has no higher authority than other sources of truth, that is, unless we are to take a view that truth is subjective and merely matter of taste (or source). And TRUTH ought to lead one to Christ. This is I think Christianity's greatest strength — it's built upon truth.

Therefore when we run into Scriptural "issues" with extra-biblical knowledge about our universe, if we value Scripture as a source a special revelatory truth then it would pay us well to closely re-investigate old interpretations and that extra-biblical "knowledge". I'm not saying we should try to force meaning, but to re-look at the fuller scope of all possible meanings. To not do so I believe throws Scripture into disrepute as well as Christ who valued Scripture and IS THE TRUTH whom we represent.

Norman Geisler comments on this article in his Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics saying:

• This article declares that a proper hermeneutics avoids contradictions, since God never affirms as true two propositions, one of which is logically the opposite of the other.

So it seems to me that when one adopts the Historical-Grammatical method, and ends up with real contradictions with external sources of truth, the one should ought to re-examine just how they're interpreting the text and their methods used. (and as earlier mentioned, the Historical-Grammatical method does have issues in that interpreters often read their systematic theology into the text — as Waltke comments on).

For example, let's say that you know something in nature contradicts what you see as a literal interpretation of Scripture. You're near certain that your understanding of the natural world can't be wrong. AND, you can see possible alternative interpretations in Scripture that may not be your first preference BUT do not contradict what to know via science. Which do you go with?

@Jac, you have problems resolving an understanding of the natural world with your interpretation of Scripture. You've admitted as much that you have no real scientific answers elsewhere. That such is a weakness on your view. I doubt you're very comfortable with that, but you seem fine with holding the two in tension.

Isn't this to a degree not loving God with your mind? I'm sure if it were Scriptural clashes of truth rather than natural ones, that you would leave no stone unturned to get at the correct interpretation. This shows to me a bias against other sources of truth — unnecessarily so.

Being content with what you believe is the correct and only interpretation of Scripture, in the face of hard to refute understandings of the natural world, is to me not only undignifying to Scripture but also to Christ who is Truth AND a cause of frustration to a knowledge of God for many who consider such Christian readings of Scripture as plainly "nuts". You can't just leave the natural truths unattended. As a Christian and theologian who loves God, You should treat them with the same seriousness that you do Scripture.

While the ICBI affirm the Historical-Grammatical method, the foundational goal of this is really to avoid liberal theology making a mish-mash of Scripture. Proper hermeneutics should allow us to get at the meaning of Scripture, and if Scripture is true and our interpretation is correct then contradictions will be avoided.

Let's say, as appears to be the case, that you are absolutely convinced that the Historical-Grammatical method necessitates your interpretation of the Genesis Creation as YEC. Yet, you are aware of an interpretation that fits external sources much better AND which many others who respect and even endorse the Historical-Grammatical believe is viable.

Doesn't this make you question that possibly you are wrongly using the hermeneutic, that you are possibly guilty of injecting a system of theology and Christian beliefs that you were taught that is leading you to error and facilitating an incorrect interpretation?

I'll here end with Geisler, an important member on the ICBI, who further comments:

• Further, this Affirmation recognizes that not all truth is in the Bible (though all that is affirmed in the Bible is true). God has revealed Himself in nature and history as well as in Scripture. How-ever, since God is the ultimate Author of all truth, there can be no contradiction between truths of Scripture and the true teachings of science and history.
  
  Although only the Bible is the nonnative and infallible rule for doctrine and practice, nevertheless what one learns from sources out-side Scripture can occasion a reexamination and reinterpretation of Scripture. For example, some have taught the world to be square because the Bible refers to "the four comers of the earth" (Isa. 11: 12). But scientific knowledge of the spherical nature of the globe leads to a correction of this faulty interpretation. Other clarifications of our understanding of the biblical text are possible through the study of the social sciences.

ICBI on Hermeneutics (cont.)

Nature and Scripture

If anyone has any reluctance about embracing a compatibilist view (aka "concordism") where both Scripture and the natural revelation (or “science”) when properly interpreted are in harmony — the Chicago Statement of Biblical Hermeneutics deals with this in Article XXI:

• CSBH Article XXI: HARMONY OF GENERAL AND SPECIAL REVELATIONS
  WE AFFIRM the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of biblical teaching with the facts of nature. WE DENY that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.

I want to stress here that Radmacher and many other Evangelical Christians signed off on this.

Here we have encapsulated all I have been saying previously regarding a "Compatibilist" approach to Scripture and Science supported by many bright Evanglical Christians.

@Jac, to see this as anything other than eisegesis (reading science into the text) is therefore grossly unreal and not fruitful to intellectual discussions regarding VALID interpretations of Scripture.

Ultimately any declarations of "science being read into the text" are irrelevant to what is supported via acceptable hermeneutical methods, and therefore ALL such declarations and arguments are fallacious.

Norman Geisler, a leading figure on the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy, writes in his commentary on the Chicago Statement of Biblical Hermeneutics:

• It is acknowledged by all that certain interpretations of Scripture and some opinions of scientists will contradict each other. However, it is insisted here that the truth of Scripture and the facts of science never contradict each other.
  
  “Genuine” science will always be in accord with Scripture. Science, however, based on naturalistic presuppositions will inevitably come in conflict with the supernatural truths of Scripture. Far from denying a healthy interchange between scientific theory and biblical interpretation, the framers of this statement welcome such.

So then, it is highly valid to bring scientific understanding to bear on Scripture.

Where it seems obvious that our understanding of the world contradicts Scripture, one needs to harmonise the two.
It will not do to remain obstinate and ignore nature to say "my interpretation is a more correct interpretation" or "eisegesis, eisegesis, eisegesis".

It is just unacceptable to ignore science where apparent conflicts exist in our interpretations, neglecting to to resolve with a correct understanding of Scripture (or vice-versa).
Such ignores our mandate as Christians to tear down any stronghold that frustrates someone coming to a knowledge of God.
(and based upon my experience, this issue does stop many people even looking deeper into Christianity or accepting anything else a Christian says)

Now I see that my own interpretation of Scripture and Science can be harmonised.
The YEC interpretation, as you (Jac) have freely admitted elsewhere on the board, has difficulties explaining the science of the matter.
Again, I suggest that a wrong use of the Historical-Grammatical method has lead you to a wrong interpretation.

Bump - how goes this thread, K?

Ahh, yeah. I took a break and didn't get back to it.

I"ll look into wrapping it up over the next week, but feel free to respond as you desire.

Authoritative Support for an Old Earth

The purpose of this next section isn't to necessarily highlight rational or logical arguments.

Rather I want to provide authoritative support for belief in an old earth being compatible with Historical-Grammatical method OVER AND AGAINST a claimed YEC exclusivity to this method.

The sheer weight of authorities I will present are not persons who you would call Christians conforming to modern science.
There are also ideas floating around and being promoted that any belief other than a young Earth compromises Scripture.
These are really ad hominems that distract from the main issue which is what Scripture itself says.
Where ever people say such things they should therefore be ignored.

NONETHELESS, to picture a world without these Christian authorities that I will present --
many of these same "Bible believing" churches promoting YECism would have perhaps fallen to liberal theologies.

It goes without saying that the Christian authorities that I will present are not YECs, but believe the Earth and universe to be old.
These Christians believe in a "literal" or "plain" reading of Scripture -- indeed even set modern standards of Biblical Inerrancy.
They believe Scripture to be the inspired and inerrant Word of God, and even helped define for Evangelical churches today what such means.
These Christians understand fully the Historical-Grammatical method and are even signatories to it as a main method of interpretation.

In other words, these authorities are Christians who helped set in place standards for conservative Biblical scholarship.
They drew a line in the sand against liberal theologies that would compromise Scripture.
Many are often even quoted as authorities by YECs as we shall soon see.
And yet, they see no issue with Scripture and belief in an older earth.

Let me put it this way.
I consider myself as being quite firmly planted within Evangelical "Bible-believing" foundations.
These are my own personal beliefs that I've come to hold. I cannot prove the Bible is true, but neither do I demand others take it all as truth.
That is, I don't expect to convince others that Scripture is true. My hope is that they just come to a knowledge of God through Christ.
Obviously Scripture is to some degree important in having a correct understanding of Christ and what He means to us.
BUT anyhow, if many of these authorities I will mention believed YEC was the only acceptable interpretation, then I'd question my own interpretation.
The fact they do not reveals to me that I am quite rationally justified in my old Earth interpretation of Scripture taken alone.

So to those who might be feeling disheartened by other Christians saying that you are compromising God's Word... do not listen to them.
Don't listen to those who accuse you of having no faith in Christ because you reject their YEC interpretation, who say you can't have faith because you accept death existed pre-fall — accusations of this nature belong to one who rebelled long ago. (Rev 12:10; Rom 8:33-34)
First and foremost, don't be ashamed to love God with ALL your mind (Matt 22:37; Luke 10:27; Mark 12:30) nor afraid of where such takes you. (Rom 8:38-39)
Even specifically, don't be ashamed to believe Scripture when it says the heavens pour forth words and knowledge that we all can understand. (Psalm 19:1-4)

Use of Rachmacher Undermines Claim that OEC Isn't Warranted by the Text

I start with a quote taken from Jac in another thread.

Jac3510 wrote:Re eisogesis: I don't think that OEC advocates have shown that their interpretation is warranted by the text. I think the only way they are able to establish warrant is by appealing to modern science. Take that out, and they can't show that yom refers naturally or literally to an age. And therefore, it is eisogetical. And that, by the way, is also the reason (I believe) that NO ONE IN HISTORY suggested an OEC interpretation of Genesis 1 prior to modern science's findings. Sure, there were plenty of non-literal interpretations suggested. But the claim that the seven yomim literally refer to ages? No, that's entirely absent, as far as I can tell.

In my last thread I stated the refrain of "OEC interpretations" being due to "modern science" is an ad hominem.
For, even if modern science sheds some light, such has no bearing on the legitimacy of an interpretation.
Therefore, it is irrelevant to mention "modern science" at all unless one is trying to "poison the well" of an interpretation prior to examining its legitimacy.

BUT, I'm not here setting out to provide logical or rational justification.
All I wish to highlight here is that Jac does not believe an OEC interpretation is warranted by the text.
But, what does a warranted interpretation look like?

As Jac reasons in a later post, a legitimate interpretation is one that is arrived at via the Historical-Grammatical method.

Jac3510 wrote:As I read you, you argue that because Scripture is divinely inspired, we are therefore free to find in the words of Scripture fulfillments that the human author would have been totally unaware of. As such, it would appear to me that we are forced to distinguish between the human intent and the divine intent. For 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 to intentions. Which is inspired? If the divine intention is correct, can the human intention be incorrect?

Note: Jac is here advancing support for the Historical-Grammatical method.

As mentioned in my opening post, this method seeks "to discover the meaning of the passage as the original author would have intended and what the original hearers would have understood."

Jac was pointing out that my apparent disregard for the human author's understanding of the Divine author was misplaced.
In so doing he quotes Earl Radmacher who defends the Historical-Grammatical approach:

Jac wrote: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.” He goes on to ask

• Is it not possible that the 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.

(See Radmacher’s Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, pp.433, 36). Now, I think Radmacher is making an important point. 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.”

While I disagree with the details of Jac's justifications, he is nonetheless on very solid authoritative grounds here in supporting the Historical-Grammatical approach.
Such that I lay down my arms and accept it.

I have mentioned some weaknesses earlier to the Historical-Grammatical approach, which in fact formed a part of the ICBI discussions.
But, I'm not confident to call into question this approach, but rather will say anyone using it needs to do so "eyes wide open".
For a weakness to it can be found in the practitioner's subjectivity and indeed even their accepted systematic theology.

If you have skipped everything above this sentence,
then all I wish for you to understand to this point is:

• 1) Jac believes an OEC interpretation is not possible via a Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic -- it is simply not warranted by the text.

and then in support of this the Historical-Grammatical approach:

• 2) Jac references Earl Radmacher as an authority on the matter.

Although Jac believes an OEC interpretation isn't a justifiable "literal" interpretation by Historical-Grammatical standards, Radmacher who is a lot more experienced and qualified is supportive of an old Earth interpretation (sorry Jac, but Radmacher who you even quote as an authority is).

To those who don't see it, let me try and clarify what I am here saying --
Jac undermines his own words that an old Earth interpretation not being warranted by the text.
This is through his appeal to an authority on the Historical-Grammatical method (a hermeneutic Jac sees provides warranted interpretations).
The authority Jac appeals to (Rachmacher) does believe an old Earth interpretation is warranted by the text.
Therefore, Jac's claim that an old Earth interpretation is not warranted becomes undermined.


Radmacher Supports Old Earth Interpretation

You might be wondering who in the world Radmacher is?

Radmacher played an instrumental role on the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI).
He put together all the responses submitted to the council during their discussions.

Radmacher in fact affirms that an old Earth is compatible with an inerrant reading of Scripture.
If true, any use of Rachmacher to ultimately try and prove OECs don't have a valid Historical-Grammatical interpretation falls on its face.
This actually undermines Jac’s reliance upon Radmacher as an authority, who Jac is using to ultimately support YEC as a warranted interpretation over and against OEC (which Jac believes is unwarranted).

What support do I have for Radmacher supporting an old Earth?

Well, Radmacher actually endorses Hugh Ross’ books, and as such an Day-Age interpretation which is OEC.
Ken Ham himself identifies this fact writing:

• Endorsements of Ross's teachings and/or his publications have been given by many including: James Dobson, Focus on the Family; Bill Hybels, Willow Creek Community Church; Dr. Ralph Winter, U.S. Center for World Mission; R.C. Sproul, Ligonier Ministries; Norman L. Geisler, Southern Evangelical Seminary; Bill Bright and other leaders from Campus Crusade for Christ; Earl D. Radmacher, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary.
  

Clearly, Radmacher affirms a Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation.
Jac himself quoted him as an authority to defend such. Radmacher is clearly an authority on this method!

Therefore, according to Radmacher the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic is compatible with an old Earth interpretation.
More specifically, it is compatible with a Day-Age reading as Hugh Ross espouses which even goes a step further.
Such an interpretation would therefore be warranted by the text.

@ Jac, I would think this ought to make you pause and consider whether you have too hastily ruled out warranted interpretations for an older Earth.
This does not mean that you think old Earth interpretations are correct. Like I do not believe interpretations that lead to YEC are correct.
At the end of the day we can only believe in one interpretation after all.

BUT, we can let up on each other with accusations of "non-literalness" or "unwarranted interpretations".
This really ultimately boils down to a personal bias in favour of our own interpretation. Wouldn't you agree?

Clearly someone as authoritative as Radmacher on the Historical-Grammatical method ought to be respected in matters of what is/is not compatible with the Historical-Grammatical method. In quoting Radmacher as an authority to support this method, you indirectly concede him as a valid authority here.

I don't really have much else to say, other than I'd implore you (Jac) to reconsider interpretations other than ones supporting a young Earth. If you don't or can't see it, then couldn't it be that the system of theology that you have taken to has clouded your interpretations? When many other respectable authorities like Radmacher believe them to be acceptable, perhaps it can't all be attributed to "modern science" after all? It's just a thought.

Gleason Archer Supports Old Earth Interpretation

Gleason Archer, who passed away in 2004, was a highly respected authority in Hebrew.

In the YEC-OEC debate, he is known for challenging the YEC position and closely aligning himself with the Day-Age position.

This is what John Ankerberg had to say about Archer when he hosted a debate between Hugh Ross and Kent Hovind way back in 2000:

• For folks who don't know Gleason Archer, Gleason Archer has taught most of your Hebrew scholars, he graduated from Harvard with his Ph.D. I think he knows like 22 different languages, he used to take notes in Hittite when he was in class. I used to quote from the lexicon and he said that's wrong, he would correct the lexicon. I never knew anybody that corrected the dictionary, he'd write a letter and they would correct it. He got my attention, and so if he's open to the idea [Day-Age], I'm open to the idea.

Such a glowing endorsement which sounds as though Archer is second to none when it comes to the Hebrew text. If we lay person like me or perhaps you the reader, can't trust a brilliant scholar like Archer, then that reason has to be good. For what reason? Ad hominems -- your "conforming to modern science" type fallacies -- are what I mainly see from YEC quarters. Rather than really dealing with the substance of Archer's reasoning.

In fact, Archer delivered a paper to the ICBI on the issue of Scripture and natural science.
In his paper Archer writes that the 24-hour theory actually undermines the inerrancy of Scripture:

• The more serious difficulty with the twenty-four hour theory is that it gives rise to an insoluble contradiction with Genesis 2. Since this contradiction is easy to prove, it results in a fatal undermining of the inerrancy of Scripture to which all consistent evangelicals are committed. The surrender of inerrancy is too high a price to pay for the preservation of the twenty-four hour day theory, and therefore it should be very firmly insisted that Genesis 1 be construed in a sense compatible with the data of Genesis 2.

To read what Gleason Archer said in full, you can read his paper here: A Response to The Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science
– I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THE READ! (if that link is broken, PM me)

Archer also touches upon the issue of yom (day) being attached to a number, something many YECs like to point out in Genesis 1. This is often see as a problem for those who believe yom doesn't have to represent a 24-hour day. For example, as Jac wrote elsewhere on this board:

• Re literalism: I'm going to just say what I've said before plainly -- I deny that yom can literally refer to an age. I fully admit that if it could, then OEC could be a literal interpretation, and I affirm that OEC is attempting to be literal (again, to its credit) in its claim that yom can literally refer to an age. But having done an exhaustive study of the word in the Pentateuch, I say that the basic claim is wrong. Yom does not, cannot, and never does refer to an age.

The common refrain from YEC quarters is that: “Yom [when attached to an ordinal] does not, cannot, and never does refer to an age.” Maybe I'm wrong and Jac did mean what he originally said that yom itself does not ever refer to an age.

But then, an exhaustive study should turn up yom in Genesis 2:4 which appears to cover all of creation. Not to mention Genesis 2:16-17, Genesis 5:5, Daniel 8:26 and God's resting on the seventh day in Genesis 2:2 in the context of Hebrews 4:4-11. So I actually think Jac meant to say "yom attached to an ordinal" which is a stronger argument (please correct me if I'm wrong Jac).

So getting back to Archer's response on this… to quote from an article by John Greene on the GodandScience.org website:

• Some claim yôm attached to a number (i.e., ordinal, “first, second, third,” etc.) requires a 24-hour-day interpretation. However, Bible scholars dispute that. For example, noted Hebrew scholar Gleason L. Archer states the ordinal simply defines a symbolic unit of time and “serves as no real evidence for a literal 24 hour day concept on the part of the Biblical author.” Archer also points out that the days of creation do not bear a definite article in Hebrew (i.e., “the first day,” “the second day,” etc.). He states, “In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite... Thus they [the days of creation] are well adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.”

Then we have Hosea 6:2 and Zechariah 14:7 where an ordinal with a day doesn't represent a 24 hour period of time. I highly recommend reading the fuller article, but my use of it here in reference to Archer is done.

Now clearly, anyone can see Gleason Archer highly respected Scripture. He considered it not only divinely inspired but also inerrant. And just as clearly, Archer was respected by a great many conservative Evangelicals to the point his paper was compiled by ICBI. Archer, was like a supreme court judge in Hebrew and by all accounts appears to have had an awesome ability when it came to understanding languages including Hebrew. Certainly, my own looking up the lexicon on the Blue Letter Bible or similar, would pale in comparison to Archer's knowledge — especially if he could correct the lexicon!

I've studied Hebrew a little, but don't really consider myself much good. I didn't study it for very long, forget much of it now. I'm a novice of novices if you will. So if Jac has studied it more recently, spent more than 6 months studying, then I'll submit that he'd like understand the Hebrew texts better than I do (not that I couldn't look up the lexicon online, etc of course).

That said, Jac would have to pale by comparison to Gleason Archer. Not just Jac, but also many prominent YEC authorities who so adamantly claim what yom can and cannot represent. So if I were a betting man, I'd here put my money on Gleason Archer with an old Earth interpretation. Hopefully I get to collect some good winnings in heaven when we find out (err, if gambling is allowed).

K,

Great article by Gleason Archer.

All that Adam did before Eve was created, was one of the things that helped me see that at least the sixth day had to be longer than 24 hours.

One mistake in the article I need to point out.

Archer says that no where in scripture does it say that light existed without the sun. Archer said something like there's no reference to light anywhere in scripture that's not connected to stars, etc.

What about revelation 22:5:
And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.

RickD wrote:K,

Great article by Gleason Archer.

All that Adam did before Eve was created, was one of the things that helped me see that at least the sixth day had to be longer than 24 hours.

One mistake in the article I need to point out.

Archer says that no where in scripture does it say that light existed without the sun. Archer said something like there's no reference to light anywhere in scripture that's not connected to stars, etc.

What about revelation 22:5:
And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.

Yes, it's a great read and I like that it goes back to the 80s. Especially since a lot of people today associate Day-Age ideas with others more popular today.

I'm not sure I can necessarily defend Archer.
Perhaps he wrote too hastily. It would require knowing what he actually intended.
Maybe he's elaborated in some other writing elsewhere. But, since you're asking me, I'll give him benefit of doubt and try to analyse.

To be clear on what Archer wrote, let me quote it here:

• The suggestion advanced by some writers that there was some kind of cosmic light which was created on Day One in response to God's command, "Let there be light:" has little to commend it, and that for two reasons: (a) there is no reference to ("light") anywhere else in Scripture that is not connected with the sun or stars, or with moons or planets which reflect sunlight, or to fire resulting from combustion; (b) there is no scientific evidence whatever for photosynthesis resulting from cosmic light alone.

The claim by YECs is generally that the light created on Day 1 was cosmic but non-solar (i.e., in space somewhere but not from a star like our Sun which YECs believe got created on Day 4).

Your issue is where Archer says: 'there is no reference to ("light") anywhere else in Scripture that is not connected with':

• 1. the sun or stars,
  2. moons or planets which reflect sunlight, or
  3. to fire resulting from combustion;

Your passage in Rev 22:5 appears to reveal Archer is mistaken.
But, there are I suppose several outs.

First, does Archer just have in mind Hebrew Scripture or also NT Greek Scripture?
If the former then can "light" be found in the Old Testament that is not connected to the above?
What reason might Archer be wanting to linguistically rule out in the Hebrew "light sources" mentioned as only being 1, 2 or 3 above?
To postulate, maybe his argument is if light can't be found as referring to anything but 1, 2 or 3 above -- then it can't be some strange cosmic light on a linguistic level.

Personally, I think Archer may have had in mind is fuller Scripture -- both OT and NT.
He is looking for a reason in Scripture itself to justify interpreting the "light" in Genesis 1:3 as something other than the Sun.
For example, Day-Age supporters who look to the Creation Psalm (Psalm 104) and bring it to bear on Genesis 1 and even the flood account.
Or, perhaps Psalm 95:11 and Hebrews 4 being brought to bear on God's seventh day of rest in Gen 2:3 which is claimed to be still open.

I think Archer is attempting to highlight that some sort of eisegesis with YECs is going on here with the "light" created on Day One.
That is, YECs are reading a "light source" into the text that seems to be clearly not intended.

Indeed, Archer just prior to his quote above thinks it safe to say that YECs holding to a 24-hour day are "heliocentric in their concept of the solar system, i.e., they understand that earth and the other planets revolve around the sun."
They are therefore contradictory when the Sun isn't created until after Day 3.
Thus, they introduce some cosmic light source for first three days.

This has "little to commend it" because there is no reason given elsewhere in Scripture to believe a different light source was intended for the first few days.
That is what I think Archer is actually saying. The scope is looking for evidence elsewhere in Scripture that provides justification to YECs interpreting the light source as something other than the Sun. If there isn't, then they have no justification for doing so.

This is kind of a tit-for-tat response to YECs throwing at OECs reading modern science into the text.
Only Archer sees the text can be more obviously harmonised without this kind of reading into the text if we pay attention to the text:

• The harmonization of the creation of light on the first day and the role of the sun and the other heavenly bodies on the fourth day is quite obvious, in view of the specified purpose which God articulated in Gen. 1:14-15: that the heavenly bodies might serve as clear illuminators of the earth's surface and might indicate time-divisions with ascertainable accuracy: "Let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years." It is fair to deduce from the innovative element in this 14th verse that previously the light from the sun had been filtered through a cloud cover thin enough to permit proper plant growth but too thick to afford accuracy in calculating the exact time of sunrise, the vernal or autumnal equinox, or the true length of the solar year itself. At last the cloud cover was parted and clear blue sky became visible to observers on earth.

One last insight re: your passage in Rev 22:5 which reads:

• And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.

The "light" here is still used in the confines of Archer's 1, 2 or 3 above.
"Illumine" is a different word to light.

Take a look over Lexicon:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... nc_1189005

phōs ("light") appears to represent a source -- star, lamp, fire.
phōtizō ("illumine) appears to actually mean "give light", "light up", "enlighten"

God isn't here being referred to here as a "light".
Only that God enlightens and gives light -- "illumines"

I don't know if that makes much difference.
Archer is also just claiming a "connection" to one of his three definitions, and there is definitely a connection in Rev 22:5 to Sun and lamp.

There is also: "Your word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" (Psalm 119:105)
But then, I suppose there is still a connection to one of Archer's three definitions (i.e., lamp).

Maybe the key words in what Archer writes is "that is not connected with".

I'm kind of leaning towards Archer intends to limit the scope to Genesis 1:3 -- this at least is more within the immediate context of what Archer is dealing with.
That is, Archer could just be simply saying: "Nowhere in Scripture does it let us know that something other than the Sun is intended for "light" in Gen 1:3."

BUT, I don't really know because I'm not Gleason Archer. Thoughts?

I think you're probably correct as to why Archer wrote that. And I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill, because I don't think his mistake takes away from his message. I just needed to point out what to me was a glaring, albeit probably not an important error.

I just know I've read that some YECs believe that the earth/universe was created a certain way, and sin changed it. They argue that in the new heavens and new earth, things will return to their "perfect" state that they were in before. So, maybe they'd argue that if in the new heavens, we won't need any starlight, why would we need starlight before the sun was created.

RickD wrote:I think you're probably correct as to why Archer wrote that. And I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill, because I don't think his mistake takes away from his message. I just needed to point out what to me was a glaring, albeit probably not an important error.

I just know I've read that some YECs believe that the earth/universe was created a certain way, and sin changed it. They argue that in the new heavens and new earth, things will return to their "perfect" state that they were in before. So, maybe they'd argue that if in the new heavens, we won't need any starlight, why would we need starlight before the sun was created.

You remind me that some believe God to be the light.
But, then... what is being created on Day 1 exactly? Does God needs to say, "let there be light" for His light to shine?
Why is there darkness if God is lighting up the world. Is God a set source light in the cosmos such that Earth's rotations means there's darkness on the non-God side?
Does this mean God will be a light in the heavens in the new heaven and earth?

You know, it's causing me a headache to just think about all these complications.
I'm just wanting to look for something simpler and thankfully I do have it.
Hopefully I'm not being unfair here.

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:I think you're probably correct as to why Archer wrote that. And I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill, because I don't think his mistake takes away from his message. I just needed to point out what to me was a glaring, albeit probably not an important error.

I just know I've read that some YECs believe that the earth/universe was created a certain way, and sin changed it. They argue that in the new heavens and new earth, things will return to their "perfect" state that they were in before. So, maybe they'd argue that if in the new heavens, we won't need any starlight, why would we need starlight before the sun was created.

You remind me that some believe God to be the light.
But, then... what is being created on Day 1 exactly? Does God needs to say, "let there be light" for His light to shine?
Why is there darkness if God is lighting up the world. Is God a set source light in the cosmos such that Earth's rotations means there's darkness on the non-God side?
Does this mean God will be a light in the heavens in the new heaven and earth?

You know, it's causing me a headache to just think about all these complications.
I'm just wanting to look for something simpler and thankfully I do have it.
Hopefully I'm not being unfair here.

Hopefully you weren't thinking I was agreeing with the argument I was discussing.

I think the light in the cosmos is starlight. As far as the new heavens, I believe there will be different laws of physics there. So, I don't think light there will be the same as it is now. FWIW.

RickD wrote:Hopefully you weren't thinking I was agreeing with the argument I was discussing.

I think the light in the cosmos is starlight. As far as the new heavens, I believe there will be different laws of physics there. So, I don't think light there will be the same as it is now. FWIW.

Yes, I thought you were going all YEC on me RickD.

I pretty much know what you believe, I was just highlighting some further complications. By "unfair" I meant unfairly treating YEC thinking.
My brain hurts right now. I'm going to sleep.

Isn't it like 4:26 am your time? Are you some kind of vampire?

Authoritative Support for an Old Earth (cont.)

Norman Geisler Believes Age of Earth Is Not a Matter of Scriptural Orthodoxy

Anyone following was probably expecting me to mention this name. Most are aware that Geisler, "the main geezer" if you will on the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy, supports the progressive creation interpretation which is compatible with a belief in an old Earth and universe.

This is nothing to be sneezed at, because Geisler would be one of the last people to willingly compromise Scripture. In fact, the whole purpose of defining the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy and the hermeneutical statement that came a few years after was to draw a line in the sand against liberal theologies.

Geisler has authored/co-authored over 80 books and hundreds of articles, many of which defend Christian beliefs and Biblical inerrancy. He is the most evangelical of evangelicals when it comes to Scripture. Seriously, anyone who was at some time into Christian apologetics and reading books in the last 40 years or so ought to have read something of Geisler’s. His apologetics are broad, but a main area he seems to focus upon is defending the Scripture as God’s word and its reliability.

Titles such as From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible, Defending Inerrancy, When Skeptics Ask, When Critics Ask and no doubt on the shelf of many evangelical apologists, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.

Norman Geisler’s website carries the Scripture/slogan, “I am put here for the defense of the gospel.” (Phil 1:16) Clearly, Geisler sees one of his main purposes in life to defend Scripture and the gospel. He would be the last to compromise.

If anyone can be trusted to hold the line on Scripture in the face of those who would twist and distort it to conform to “modern science”, then Geisler’s your man. And if you are looking for someone with great experience in hermeneutics and understanding how the historical-grammatical method works, Geisler again is hard to beat. If anyone ought to be respected and trusted to be sincere and honest and to passionately defend Scripture and know what is/isn't an acceptable interpretation, then you will be hard pressed to find a higher authority than Geisler.

Philip recently pointed out an interesting article Geisler wrote in response to AIG: A Response to Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis on Does Inerrancy Require Belief in a Young Earth (highly recommend reading). In it Geisler actually shows a fondness of the Young Earth view writing:

• I personally respect the Young Earth view and once held it myself. Indeed, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday I still lean toward it. I even fought for their right to teach the Young Earth view and creation along side of evolution in the public schools as an expert witness at the “Scopes Two” trial in Arkansas (1981). Further, I hope and pray that the Young Earth view is true (because it would be a good argument against evolution). Unfortunately, however, I believe the weight of biblical and scientific evidence does not favor it.

Sadly, this article was written in response to AIG who attacked another article he wrote in February 2014 called: Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism? (please, stop now and take a read of this article – I highly recommend reading to anyone who believes that Scripture demands a YEC-only interpretation)

Ken Ham of AIG wrote his own article responding to Geisler’s alleging an “ultimate motivation” for holding to an Old Earth position as being the desire to accommodate the evolutionary view of long time periods. It is hard to miss the large, capitalized green font in AIG's article: “HE HAS BEEN INFLUENCED BY AN AUTHORITY OUTSIDE THE BIBLE: THE MAJORITY VIEW AMONG SCIENTISTS.”

I previously mentioned that when such accusations are made, they are ad hominems because they attempt to discredit the person rather than deal with any actual argument or content. In any case, Ken Ham writes:

• I strongly and respectfully suggest that Dr. Geisler and many other Christian scholars have one hermeneutical principle for Genesis chapters 1–11 (eisigesis) and a different one for the rest of Scripture (exegesis). [emphasis mine]

Eisigesis? Reading into the text? That sounds like a familiar song. But, it fails to dialogue with the substance of what other expert Biblical scholars say. Furthermore, both sides bring in their own influences and no one is truly neutral -- Gleason Archer explains this bias well:

• t should be observed that all investigations of a scholarly nature involve scholars who have already been attracted to one side or the other of the matter under discussion and that observation certainly pertains to the proponents of Young Earth geology. They, too, operate upon the basis of an underlying presupposition which has a strongly determinative effect upon their handling of the evidence.

Geisler himself felt Ken missed the point of his own article -- instead focusing upon whether the earth is young or old and trying to discredit his hermeneutics. So Geisler goes on to fully re-affirm the inerrancy and hermeneutical statements that he himself helped to frame for everyone else including organisations like AIG:

• [D]espite their kind words and good intention, their response missed the main point of my article. It was, as the title affirms, aimed at answering the question of whether belief in inerrancy demands a Young earth View. My point was not to determine whether the earth is young or old. Nor was the point to deny a connection between belief in the historical grammatical method of interpretation and the doctrine of inerrancy. I believe there is, and as a framer of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (1978), I strongly affirmed that there is (in Article XVIII), declaring: “We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis….” Later, in the ICBI Hermeneutics statement on inerrancy, we added: “We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense…” (Article XV). So, the point in my article was simply to determine whether or not believing in inerrancy and the historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible “requires” a belief in a Young Earth. And AIG avoided answering the central point of my article.

And so we come back to whether the grammatical-historical method requires an interpretation that demands a belief in a young Earth. The resounding answer by a highly credible and valid authority who has defended Scripture and Christian orthodoxy all his life is “negative… the age of the earth is not a test of orthodoxy.”

Geisler does point out, as Jac has attempted to claim of those who believe in an old Earth:

• [O]ne could always claim that Old Earthers are inconsistent with their historical-grammatical hermeneutic

However, he continues:

• but this is an assertion without demonstration. Further, this would mean that the leaders and defenders of inerrancy for last the hundred plus years from Warfield and Hodge to Francis Schaeffer and J. I. Packer were all inconsistent with their own principles, and only Young Earthers are consistent with their principles. Besides being unlikely, such a claim lacks both humility and verifiability.

I’d like to end this post with a doubled-up quote I couldn't say better taken from a book that Geisler co-authored with Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations (pp.174-175):

• When it comes to deciding between the young earth view and the progressive view, we recognize that some people believe that the only correct way to interpret Genesis 1 is to understand it as referring to literal twenty-four-hour days. If this is true, then we are obliged to accept the belief that all of creation, including the space-time universe itself, occurred within a 144-hour time span (six solar days). … Accordingly, if you hold to the belief that Genesis 1 can only be referring to six literal twenty-hour days of creation—the young earth view—we are not attempting to convince you otherwise. After all, the Creator could have created the universe in six hours, six minutes, or six seconds, and the young earth view is certainly a viable view of origins. We are merely offering an alternative view that is also viable and does not violate any principles of interpretation—it is kept within the proper context of Genesis 1. As stated by one recognized expert of the Hebrew language,
  
  • A true and proper belief of the inerrancy of Scripture involves neither a literal nor figurative rule of interpretation. What it does require is a belief in whatever the biblical author (human and divine) actually meant by the words he used. ... The message and purpose of Genesis 1 is the revelation of the one true God who created all things out of nothing and ... brought forth His creation in an orderly and systematic manner. There were six major stages in this work of formation, and these stages are represented by days of the week. [Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1982), 58, 60.]