Evidence for God from Science

You're attempting to correlate solar days with a "literal" interpretation on a one to one basis. That goes contrary to what I believe you've stated before that it is possible to arrive at a non-solar day interpretation employing a literal hermeneutic as well.

Bart, are you even reading me? How could you think this is what I am saying. Look at my own words in this very thread:

I wrote:Modern theologians use literal interpretation on Gen 1 -> Non-Solar days.

The day-age view attempts to take the Bible literally and come to a non-solar day view, which is fine, but if you are to be intellectually honest you must admit that no one before you has ever come to a day-age view while taking the Bible literally.

Concerning the first, we must all agree that the day-age view does attempt to take the text literally insofar as it is looking at one of the many perfectly normal referents for the word yom: namely, an age or era. As such, the day-age view, as classically stated and defended on this site, holds to a literal hermeneutic and rejects an allegorical approach to Gen 1.

If you want to have a conversation about this, I expect you to give me the same respect I give you and take my words at full value. I've said three times in this very thread that you can take yom to refer literally to an age. How you can think that I'm saying that a literal reading of yom must mean solar-day is absolutely beyond me. That's more of the same . . . attributing an idiotic position to someone that they don't hold, and, in fact, that they have expressly and overtly rejected. It is, at the very least, a straw man. I've said nothing contrary to the idea that the yomim of Gen 1 could be taken literally as eras or ages. What I HAVE said is that the CFs who employed a literal hermeneutic DID NOT come to that conclusion; not that they COULD NOT. I said that the CFs who DID NOT come to a solar view used an allegorical hermeneutic, not a literal one, which claim to use. If, then, you are using a literal hermeneutic to come to a day-age view, WHICH IS ALLOWABLE IN MY VIEW, you cannot claim the CFs as precedence, because they did not come to that conclusion using that method.

If I understand you correctly, you're now changing that up or modifying it by asserting that you will not find an ECF employing the terms and support for such a position in the same manner that it is now employed. By inference you are then claiming that today's YEC position finds more support among ECFs because those ECFs who presume literal days were present then, and further those ECFs (a majority by many counts, but at least certainly significant and including some key ones) who did not hold to literal days then did not emply a literal hermeneutic.

You are not understanding me correctly. I'm saying the same thing I have always said. You will find three things in the CFs as it relates to hermeneutics and the interpretation of the yomim:

1. Some used a literal hermeneutic and always came to a solar day view;
2. Most used an allegorical hermeneutic and came to a non-solar day view;
3. None, using any hermeneutic, came to a day-age view.

All of this is absolutely at odds with what day-age advocates claim when they say that their position has precedent in the CFs. Where you do have precedent is that:

1. Some CFs employed a literal hermeneutic, just as you do;
2. Some CFs came to a non-solar-day view, just as you do.

You cannot, though, say that some CFs employed a literal hermeneutic and came to a non-solar day view, as I can and do. You further cannot say that any of the CFs proposed the yomim to be ages. Your position is completely unprecedented before the 17th century. That doesn't make it wrong. It does mean you have no historical support. I have never said anything any different from that. That is the position I have always maintained.

What I believe you're missing is again something we've discussed in the past, and that is that a literal hermeneutic or historical-grammatical approach if that term is more accurate in your mind, doesn't preclude a symbolic or a metaphoric application if that was the original intent of the passage and it is tied into the understanding that the original audience would have read the passage in question. This can certainly apply to broad types or forms of biblical passages but in the end this must be determined by the immediate context and elements of the passage in question, not just an arbitrary formulaic hermeneutic applied from the outside.

You taking those ECFs who line up with your position and accepting by inference that they musts base that position on the same methods you employ to reach it, while then asking for explicit evidence of those ECFs who don't or writing them off as employing a non-literal hermeneutic. Instead of simply allowing them to speak for themselves and accepting that they could see it one way or the other without necessarily framing their approach to the question using different means than you assume, you set it up as an either-or proposition with different standards of proof applied to each position to arrive at the conclusion you've adopted in the first place.

That seems circlular to me.

You have to put that in a syllogism to show me the circularity, because I see none. Can you show me a CF who used a literal hermeneutic and held the day-age view of Gen 1? For that matter, can you show me ANY CF who held to the day-age view of Gen 1? Can you show me ANY CF who held to a non-solar day who also employed a literal hermeneutic?

I realize that the majority of the CFs held to an allegorical hermeneutic. That's why I disagree with a large portion of their theology.

So, again, if you are going to charge me with circular reasoning, demonstrate it rather than merely assert it. If I am being circular, it should be very easy. Put my argument in a syllogism that begs the question. As it stands now, my argument, in syllogism, is as follows:

1. The day-age view takes the yomim of Gen 1 to literally refer to ages;
2. None of the CFs took the yomim to literally refer to ages
3. Therefore, none of the CFs held to the day-age view.

Against this, YECs can say:

1. The solar-day view takes the yomim of Gen 1 to literally refer to solar days;
2. Several CFs took the yomim of Gen 1 to literally refer to solar days;
3. Therefore, several of the CFs held the solar-day view.

Thus, YECs can claim precedence from the CFs for their views. Day-age advocates cannot.

I would place the same challenge to you that I believe you have to OECs. Can you provide passages from the ECFs that demonstrate the thought process and heremeneutic that you are claiming was prevelant by the same progression of evidence and thought you used above or are you simply taking evidence where an ECF appears to accept a solar day as proof that they arrived at that conclusion using the same approach that you've used?

Are you suggesting that the CFs who expressly stated that they believed they days of Gen 1 to be solar days were NOT using a literal hermeneutic? May I ask what kind of hermeneutic Irenaeus was employing when he said this?

• For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works."(6) This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years;(7) and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.

I certainly don't agree with his theology, but it is evident that he is taking the word "day" to refer to a solar day. He certainly couldn't have long ages in mind, as the earth would have been very well older than the 6000 years he thought would contain its entire history.

Now, I've provided many quotes from CFs explaining their belief in solar-days. So you tell me, if they were not employing a literal hermeneutic, what were they employing? If "solar day" isn't a literal interpretation of "yom," what is?

You don't see an inconsistency in that claim or a double standard set-up by your projecting the very structure of your hermeneutic back upon them and then claiming it draws it out?

Bart . . . when someone uses a word according to its normal usage, that is called taking a literal hermeneutic. You don't have to project that on anything. If you actually think that they took the word yom to refer to a solar day, but that somehow they were not taking the Bible literally, then the burden of proof is on you to show how that could possibly be.

No, to my knowledge there is not an ECF who employs the same progression of to arrive at a non-solar day. To my knowledge there is not an ECF who does the same to reach the conclusion of a solar day. It simply makes sense to me that if the original words and context of the passage could be taken to mean either that there people of any era or christian community (or Jewish for that matter) who took it either way and in the ECF cases I don't see the length of the day garnering any great attention in any of the writings than it being an assumption which they don't see the need to discuss at great length and which they then went on to incorporate usually in some other context anyway.

Attempting to then go back to this situation and ruling out the significance of the position you're inclined to reject as somehow not valid or present because your demand of a clear laying ot of the underlying reasoning is not met, while then turning around and pointing to those ECFs who espouse your view as having been met by inference is applying a double standard and inconsistent.

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

I'm making a VERY simple claim, Bart:

Those CFs who took yom to have a normal referent ALWAYS took a solar day view/
Those CFs who took yom to have an abnormal referent usually came to an instantaneous creation view, and never a day-age view.

Both of those statements are testable. You show me one CF who took yom to have a normal referent and concluded with a non-solar day view, then my argument is refuted. You shoe me one CF who took yom to have an abnormal referent and concluded with a day-age view, then my argument is refuted. Until then, the day-age view has NO precedence in the CFs.

Does that make it wrong? Of course not. It just makes it unprecedented, and it means you should stop appealing to people like Augustine in support of your view when he expressly repudiated it:

• Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at the plodding place at which they now pass" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1; John Hammond taylor, trans. Newman Press, 1962), 141; 4:33).

You cannot, though, say that some CFs employed a literal hermeneutic and came to a non-solar day view, as I can and do. You further cannot say that any of the CFs proposed the yomim to be ages. Your position is completely unprecedented before the 17th century. That doesn't make it wrong. It does mean you have no historical support. I have never said anything any different from that.

I disagree and I don't know how to explain it any more clearly Chris. It appears to me to be playing with definitions to come about to your prescribed outcome. You know whether an ECF saw the days as solar or non-solar. You don't necessarily know how they arrived at that position other than by putting different standards to each instance and attempting to draw continuity to your favored position while assuming that those with a non-solar day view would not hold similar views given the information we have today. Neither employed what we would call a historical-grammatical literal position that employs the methods commonly appealed to by either a modern YEC or an OEC. I believe it is as valid to see the OEC position reflected in the ECFs as the YEC position. You don't want to concede that. I accept that is your position and that from your perspective it is internally valid. Internal validity is one component of objective truth but only to the extent that the premises it rests upon are true and I don't believe you're being completely objective in your claims in that regard.

The fault is likely in my inability to express and expand things out in the manner you wish. That's a limitation on my part that I freely admit. I'm just not seeing what you're saying as as cut and dried as you apparently think it is and for what it is worth, others have come to similar conclusions as I have with regard to the ECFs working from the same information and possibly more than you and I possess.

Regardless, I've about exhausted the possibilities on my end for this conversation so I'll leave it to rest or for others to pick up.

Sorry again for my inability to measure up to your needs or expectations on this.

bart

Question: What has geology got to do with a CF's interpretation of scripture? All I care about with regards the CFs is what they said about biblical interpretation. I mean, lest we forget, geocentricity was the accepted theory back then, right? So let's not get blinded by false arguments used to support our positions.

Origen
St. Justin Martyr
St. Cyprian of Carthage
Clement of Alexandria
St. Augustine

This is just an off-the-top-of-my-head list of ECF's who did not hold to 24 hour days. This should be enough to dispel the false notion that six 24-hour day creationism held some kind of monopoly on Christian thought for 1800 years. (There were some 24 hour day proponents among the ECFs as well.) So, leaving the straw man of geology to one side, let's just focus on how scripture was read. I think we'll be more fruitful this way.

DannyM wrote:Question: What has geology got to do with a CF's interpretation of scripture? All I care about with regards the CFs is what they said about biblical interpretation. I mean, lest we forget, geocentricity was the accepted theory back then, right? So let's not get blinded by false arguments used to support our positions.

Origen
St. Justin Martyr
St. Cyprian of Carthage
Clement of Alexandria
St. Augustine

This is just an off-the-top-of-my-head list of ECF's who did not hold to 24 hour days. This should be enough to dispel the false notion that six 24-hour day creationism held some kind of monopoly on Christian thought for 1800 years. (There were some 24 hour day proponents among the ECF's as well.) So, leaving the straw man of geology to one side, let's just focus on how scripture was read. I think we'll be more fruitful this way.

Danny, what is a "straw man". I've heard Kent Hovind use the term a lot, and was curious why people say it.

RickD wrote:Danny, what is a "straw man". I've heard Kent Hovind use the term a lot, and was curious why people say it.

Rick, a straw man is putting your own terms into an argument in order to then knock your opponent's argument down purely on these bogus terms.

This is not an official definition, I'm sure; just my own words.

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:Danny, what is a "straw man". I've heard Kent Hovind use the term a lot, and was curious why people say it.

Rick, a straw man is putting your own terms into an argument in order to then knock your opponent's argument down purely on these bogus terms.

This is not an official definition, I'm sure; just my own words.

O.K. Danny, thanks

Danny has it. A strawman is where you prop up your own argument against what you're supporting and then proceed to knock it down. The picture is of a swordsman or a jouster setting up a scarecrow that can't fight back and just knocking it down and boasting about your prowess in battle. It's a fallacy when you attribute a position to someone else that they haven't put forward. At best you've misunderstood them. At worst, you're putting words in their mouth. It's an easy thing to do. It requires effort to slow down and read something so you actually hear what is being said instead of jumping to the con

In terms of the science element, it's not completely true that geocentrism was universal before Galileo. Solar centrism was proposed by some early greeks. Further, evolution in terms of periods of time were proposed well before Lamarkian geologic time progressions and Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. Evolution as a general proposed means can trace back to at least Democritus (going on memory on that so please feel free to correct me if you have time to look it up.) The level of detail was obviously not as great as recently in modern science, but the concept was there. What Darwin proposed that was new was not evolutionary progression which was already around and well established as a possibility. The missing piece was the selection methodology as a natural means of selection.

Canuckster1127 wrote: In terms of the science element, it's not completely true that geocentrism was universal before Galileo. Solar centrism was proposed by some early greeks. Further, evolution in terms of periods of time were proposed well before Lamarkian geologic time progressions and Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. Evolution as a general proposed means can trace back to at least Democritus (going on memory on that so please feel free to correct me if you have time to look it up.) The level of detail was obviously not as great as recently in modern science, but the concept was there. What Darwin proposed that was new was not evolutionary progression which was already around and well established as a possibility. The missing piece was the selection methodology as a natural means of selection.

Bart, I was generalising, if you like, to make the point. I know that even Ptolemy himself considered alternative models, including the Pythagorean view that the earth rotates. But, as you know, Ptolemy's earth-centred model was the "generally accepted" model up until and even beyond Copernicus. I think my wider point is that, if we were to take every ECF, and place them in our position today, then we'd have a very different geological outlook from the ECFs. Hence we are better off in focusing on their biblical interpretation of yom and leaving the extra-biblical stuff out of it.

I hope I have explained myself adequately here; still terribly under the weather...

No Problem, Danny. I get your point. I see no evidence in the ECFs that it was a point of contention anywhere near the degree we experience it at times here. That's probably something to dwell on as well.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I see no evidence in the ECFs that it was a point of contention anywhere near the degree we experience it at times here. That's probably something to dwell on as well.

I think this is very true.

Bart, please bear with me on this question I'd like to ask. Genesis 1:30 States God gave every green plant for food to all the beasts of the earth, and all the birds of the air, and all the creatures that move on the ground. Are these the same beasts that God created in Genesis 1:24-25? Do these beasts include carnivorous dinosaurs? If not, where in the text were carnivorous dinosaurs created? Thanks

Canuckster1127 wrote:

You cannot, though, say that some CFs employed a literal hermeneutic and came to a non-solar day view, as I can and do. You further cannot say that any of the CFs proposed the yomim to be ages. Your position is completely unprecedented before the 17th century. That doesn't make it wrong. It does mean you have no historical support. I have never said anything any different from that.

I disagree and I don't know how to explain it any more clearly Chris. It appears to me to be playing with definitions to come about to your prescribed outcome. You know whether an ECF saw the days as solar or non-solar. You don't necessarily know how they arrived at that position other than by putting different standards to each instance and attempting to draw continuity to your favored position while assuming that those with a non-solar day view would not hold similar views given the information we have today. Neither employed what we would call a historical-grammatical literal position that employs the methods commonly appealed to by either a modern YEC or an OEC. I believe it is as valid to see the OEC position reflected in the ECFs as the YEC position. You don't want to concede that. I accept that is your position and that from your perspective it is internally valid. Internal validity is one component of objective truth but only to the extent that the premises it rests upon are true and I don't believe you're being completely objective in your claims in that regard.

The fault is likely in my inability to express and expand things out in the manner you wish. That's a limitation on my part that I freely admit. I'm just not seeing what you're saying as as cut and dried as you apparently think it is and for what it is worth, others have come to similar conclusions as I have with regard to the ECFs working from the same information and possibly more than you and I possess.

Regardless, I've about exhausted the possibilities on my end for this conversation so I'll leave it to rest or for others to pick up.

Sorry again for my inability to measure up to your needs or expectations on this.

bart

Again, the underlined part is just absurd. I don't even know what you could be meaning here. It's definitional, Bart. If a person takes a word--any word--as referring to its normal referent, then they are taking the word literally (or whatever word you want to use). If they take a word--any word--as referring to an abnormal referent, then they are takoing the word allegorically (or whatever word you want to use). You seem to think that people are actually consistent with their method of interpretation or, for that matter, that people are even conscious of their method. That's a mistake. A person can interpret literally in one place and allegorically in another, even if they publically espouse one system of interpretation over another. Still many more have never even heard the word "hermeneutic" and have never given the first thought to a literal vs. figurative interpretation, and yet they interpret some passages literally and some figuratively all the time.

So, when we see CFs taking the word yom to refer to a solar-day, we know that they are taking the word literally. If we see them taking the word to refer to something that is not within its semantic range, we know that they are taking it figuratively.

It's purely definitional. The point I made stands.

No CF who took the word literally ever came to a non-solar-day view; no CF who took the word as a non-solar-day ever came to a day-age view.

That's the bottom line. You have no CF who took the word yom to refer to an age. Lot's of them denied that it was a solar day. None of them that denied it was a solar day took the word as referring to any of its normal referents. They all took the word and account metaphorically and symbolically.

Does that make the day-age view wrong? No. It just makes it unprecedented. It means you have no historical support, contrary to the continued claims of day-age advocates otherwise, before the seventeenth century.

DannyM wrote:Question: What has geology got to do with a CF's interpretation of scripture? All I care about with regards the CFs is what they said about biblical interpretation. I mean, lest we forget, geocentricity was the accepted theory back then, right? So let's not get blinded by false arguments used to support our positions.

Origen
St. Justin Martyr
St. Cyprian of Carthage
Clement of Alexandria
St. Augustine

This is just an off-the-top-of-my-head list of ECF's who did not hold to 24 hour days. This should be enough to dispel the false notion that six 24-hour day creationism held some kind of monopoly on Christian thought for 1800 years. (There were some 24 hour day proponents among the ECFs as well.) So, leaving the straw man of geology to one side, let's just focus on how scripture was read. I think we'll be more fruitful this way.

Danny,

Geology has nothing to do with the CFs interpretation of the text. That's the point I am trying to make. Geology had nothing to do with anyone's interpretation of the text until the seventeenth century. Conveniently, it was only at that time that people started taking the days of Gen 1 to refer to long ages.

You are correct that many CFs did not take the days as solar days. That is because their philosophy did not allow them to. Oddly enough, just as geology has impacted the way we view the text, so their philosophy impacted the way they viewed it. Their response, however, was a bit different than day-age advocate's, though. Whereas day-age proponents argue that the word yom can literally refer to an age (which it can, in some contexts), those CFs who rejected the solar-day view simply argued--as some OECs do today, but certainly not all--that the entire account should be taken as an allegory, as representative of philosophical truth. In other words, every CF who denied the solar-day view read the text allegorically, which is in direct contrast to the way in which day-age advocates have responded.

Anyway, no one argues that the solar-day view had a monopoly on Christian thought. NO ONE argues that, at least, that I am aware of. What we do argue is that the solar-day view had a monopoly among the CFs who took the words of Genesis literally--as day-age advocates claim we must do.

In light of that, the question we ask is one of motivation: why did no one ever thought to take Gen 1 as literally referring to ages prior to the advent of modern geology, and yet after its advent, suddenly that view becomes popular and widespread? By what means do you account for that, Danny?

Jac3510 wrote: Geology has nothing to do with the CFs interpretation of the text. That's the point I am trying to make. Geology had nothing to do with anyone's interpretation of the text until the seventeenth century. Conveniently, it was only at that time that people started taking the days of Gen 1 to refer to long ages.

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

Jac3510 wrote:You are correct that many CFs did not take the days as solar days. That is because their philosophy did not allow them to. Oddly enough, just as geology has impacted the way we view the text, so their philosophy impacted the way they viewed it. Their response, however, was a bit different than day-age advocate's, though. Whereas day-age proponents argue that the word yom can literally refer to an age (which it can, in some contexts), those CFs who rejected the solar-day view simply argued--as some OECs do today, but certainly not all--that the entire account should be taken as an allegory, as representative of philosophical truth. In other words, every CF who denied the solar-day view read the text allegorically, which is in direct contrast to the way in which day-age advocates have responded.

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

Jac3510 wrote:Anyway, no one argues that the solar-day view had a monopoly on Christian thought. NO ONE argues that, at least, that I am aware of. What we do argue is that the solar-day view had a monopoly among the CFs who took the words of Genesis literally--as day-age advocates claim we must do[/b

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

1. 24-hour days
2. Other

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

Jac3510 wrote:In light of that, the question we ask is one of motivation: why did no one ever thought to take Gen 1 as literally referring to ages prior to the advent of modern geology, and yet after its advent, suddenly that view becomes popular and widespread? By what means do you account for that, Danny?

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

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

Sorry for any bad grammar.